[48987] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SPEWS?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Israel)
Thu Jun 20 16:06:26 2002
From: Dave Israel <davei@algx.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:00:06 -0400
To: Chrisy Luke <chrisy@flix.net>
Cc: "Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net>, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: Re: SPEWS? (Chrisy Luke)
Reply-To: davei@algx.net
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but the fact of the matter
is, if SPEWS behavior is abusive towards a network, that network does
have a limited recourse: null-route SPEWS. Thus, the more providers
they anger, the less network they can reach. Some users may complain,
but if SPEWS is abusing your customer base, I think it's a valid
response. It's a powerful threat, and incentive for SPEWs to play
fair.
On 6/20/2002 at 20:33:43 +0100, Chrisy Luke said:
>
> Steven J. Sobol wrote (on Jun 20):
> > If the offending ISP does not respond, and you have exhausted all avenues
> > available to you to get the ISP to get its customer to stop spamming -
> > whether by TOS'ing the customer, education or whatever - then escalation
> > may work if the collateral damage caused by escalation is enough to get
> > the spammers' neighbors to complain to the ISP.
>
> Can't find the terrorists you're looking for so start killing bystanders
> until someone submits? Sounds militia to me.
>
> The service providers are not the enemies. If you treat them like enemies
> then enemies they will become.
>
> Perhaps we should move mail transfer to a peering model. You wanna send
> email to my SMTP server? Where's the peering contract? BGP-equivalent for
> SMTP anyone?
>
> -C
> (tired of getting bounces for email I never sent!)
