[49026] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SPEWS?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven J. Sobol)
Thu Jun 20 20:48:17 2002
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 20:45:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
To: Dan Hollis <goemon@anime.net>
Cc: "Regis M. Donovan" <regis@offhand.org>, <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0206201348040.22215-100000@sasami.anime.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, 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.
Hear, hear. Dan sounds like he agrees with my assessment of property
rights taking priority over rights to expression.
Anyone using SPEWS, the MAPS RBL+, SpamCop's blacklist, or *any* arbitrary
list of abusive ISPs or ISP customers does so voluntarily, and I consider
the action to be similar to companies sharing credit information. You can
deny credit or employment, or refuse to do business with an individual or
company based on the information in a credit report. Likewise, you can
choose to communicate or not communicate with an AS or network (or server)
based on whether you think the people running the server(s) are good
net-neighbors.
--
Steve Sobol, CTO JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH 888.480.4NET
- I do my best work with one of my cockatiels sitting on each shoulder -
6/4/02:A USA TODAY poll found that 80% of Catholics advocated a zero-tolerance
stance towards abusive priests. The fact that 20% didn't, scares me...
