[135110] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Request Spamhaus contact
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Pitcock)
Mon Jan 17 19:08:17 2011
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:07:16 -0600
From: William Pitcock <nenolod@systeminplace.net>
To: Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTims+F_bm6YcY9-ruKAjevRKUCzoh5aWrkCS-Ywh@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hi,
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:54:37 -0500
Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net> wrote:
> William,
>
> Our company is primarily focused on the filtering of DDoS traffic. A
> significant amount of our IP space is routed elsewhere via proxy or
> GRE. If a customer pollutes, they pollute and thats their own
> business. If they abuse, we take action. If Spamhaus contacts us
> before ruining the business of others, we still take action (believe
> it or not).
>
Maybe that is the case now. It was not the case 8 years ago with IRCCo.
> We don't actively decide to host any of this content. It sprouts up
> and really is not a concern of ours until it becomes an actual
> problem. Comparing us to FOONET and especially Atrivo is ignorant and
> short sighted. Perhaps you would understand if you were targeted by
> attacks.
I used to operate DroneBL. DroneBL's DNSBL servers are basically under
permanent DDoS attack, which is why Cisco/IronPort and other providers
have to sponsor them now.
While I understand the current aspect of your operation, you must
understand that IRCCo did not make you many friends in the anti-abuse
community. Sorry, that's just how it is. We look at BL/IRCCo and it
does not make us feel warm and fuzzy.
Being proactive by say, checking out your customers before lighting
them up would go a long way toward improving the fuzziness perception in
the anti-abuse community. But you don't do that. It's clear you don't
do that.
William
