[22963] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Feb 4 14:31:11 1999
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 11:01:45 -0800
From: owen@DeLong.SJ.CA.US (Owen DeLong)
To: pceasy@norfolk.infi.net, nanog@merit.edu, dean@av8.com
> Thats a different claim. Spammer is authorized to send packets. You can't
> charge them with a real theft. "Theft of service" is a term used by
> anti-spammers, not a legal statement of a criminal activity. In this case,
> you don't have any bonafide abuse of your property rights. So you can't
> claim the abuse clause.
>
Spammer is _NOT_ authorized to send SPAM packets through my network. Spammer
has no way to get to my network other than through networks which have
signed an AUP/TOS which specifically precludes them from sending SPAM packets
through my network for SPAMMER. As such, spammers SPAM packets are theft
of service, and I have the property rights to block them.
Owen
