[184674] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP-Echelon Compliance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Wed Oct 14 16:51:36 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CALA5tJLhi3+DBd+ntW_PuxoUDKRHQ+cOD3w87Npn=WAZcQWwPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 16:51:34 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Kirch <trelane@trelane.net>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
pretty certain that the list ought not be pushing for bodily harm to
individuals...
it's fair to say: "trash all their mail" or "block their mailservers
at the edge"
but calling out hits .. not cool.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Andrew Kirch <trelane@trelane.net> wrote:
> Minimal? Probably 22LR. I prefer 458SOCOM though. As Bob Evans notes,
> there may be some waiting periods, serial numbers, and background checks
> involved. :)
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>
>> >> http://www.procmail.org/
>> > I wouldn't necessarily recommend that approach. There is no
>> > obligation for victims of spammers to continue providing Internet
>> > services to them, including SMTP services.
>>
>> computers are cheap. my time is finite and i value it highly. what is
>> the minimal action i can take to see that idiots do not take my time?
>>
>> randy
>>
