[49005] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SPEWS?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Regis M. Donovan)
Thu Jun 20 17:07:24 2002
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:06:49 -0400
From: "Regis M. Donovan" <regis@offhand.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0206201348040.22215-100000@sasami.anime.net>; from goemon@anime.net on Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 01:48:48PM -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 01:48:48PM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Regis M. Donovan wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 02:35:16PM -0400, Steven J. Sobol wrote:
> > > *Spamming* or launching a DoS attack in response to spam is definitely
> > > abusive.
> > and black-holing "innocent bystander" networks not a denial of service?
> Its my box, my hardware, my property. No one has an inherent right to
> force speech on an unwilling recipient.
of course. but blocking the networks involved in the spam takes care of
that. blocking these "innocent bystander" networks does nothing to solve
your spam problem and merely blocks potentially useful traffic.
black-holing networks that are not engaged in any abusive behavior in the
vain hopes of getting a response from some difficult-to-contact ISP
seems a bit excessive. particularly coming from a group that is, itself,
difficult to contact.
--regis
