The reason they are the big boys is because they don't fund such operations. They see money before what you call obligations. Right or wrong they will sell a product if they think they can make it work. Making it work is all subjective. You say it means handling abuse complaints while they say it means the client being connected and able to ping the world. ------Original Message------ From: Rich Kulawiec Sender: NANOG To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: *tap tap* is this thing on? Sent: Oct 27, 2015 06:30 On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 02:48:59PM -0600, Brielle Bruns wrote:

I get it that it is hard for large providers to be proactive about things going on due to the sheer size of their networks, but come on. That excuse only works for so long.

1. It's not hard. It's far easier for large providers than small ones, although many of them flat-out lie and claim the opposite. 2. Whatever happened to "never build what you can't control?" If you can't stop your operation from emitting abuse, you should shut it down. Immediately. That's what professionals do. 3. Large providers pretend to be "leaders", but are among the worst in terms of actually leading by example. Just try getting a response from them via postmaster@ or abuse@. Of course these large operations should individually answer *every* message to those addresses promptly, 24x7, and initiate immediate investigation/remediation on *every* complaint. That's baseline operational competence 101, and given their enormous financial and personnel resources, it would require only a tiny amount of resources. But they don't -- and everyone else pays the price for it. ---rsk Regards, Dovid