Are you offering to finance ISP's legal battles against spammers? -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu To: Ben Browning Cc: nanog@merit.edu Sent: 6/24/2004 9:16 PM Subject: Re: Attn MCI/UUNet - Massive abuse from your network On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:50:44 -0700, Ben Browning wrote:

Likewise, I imagine MCI could argue that the damage is to their core product; namely, the trust of other ISPs and their willingness to exchange traffic with MCI.

This was Earthlink's argument in the case I cited in <http://www.camblab.com/nugget/spam_03.pdf>: their connectivity was jeopardized by the spammer's activity. As far as I know they prevailed. The point is, we have not seen MCI go down valiantly on the field of battle against the spammers in court or anywhere else. I proposed a complete open-and-shut legal case to MCI, with the perp's legal service address, and Neil Patel refused to take any action. The management's intention was clear: continue to profit rather than take the perps to court. All this talk about how difficult it would be blah blah blah is just a smokescreen for inaction Jeffrey Race