[66084] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Extreme spam testing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul)
Tue Dec 23 17:59:04 2003
From: "Paul" <paul@rusko.us>
To: "Andy Dills" <andy@xecu.net>, "Paul Vixie" <vixie@vix.com>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:07:34 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
andy,
From: "Andy Dills" <andy@xecu.net>
>
> On 23 Dec 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> > > You'd be hard pressed to frame what NJABL does in terms of "abuse",
> > > because of the intent, and because of the actual bit volume involved.
> >
> > intent does not, and cannot, matter. when an isp hears a complain about
> > spam, and seeks explaination from their spamming customer, an answer of
> > the form "we have only the best of intentions", then the result still
has
> > to be service disconnection.
>
> Therefore, in accordance with your logic, if I have a "spam in hand", and
> I probe your servers to determine if you're an open relay, I'm myself
> spamming, and that is network abuse, and my ISP should disconnect me.
>
> So intent doesn't matter, huh?
if i parsed paul's post correctly, that is exactly what he is saying. i
agree. his logic and the statement you consider ridiculous make perfect
sense to me.
i have *not* given anyone permission to scan my boxes by sending out mail.
trying to somehow justify around this is conjecture - a conjecture that, in
my mind, is equivalent to the argument that people have given permission to
be mailed (and spammed) by putting their address on a website.
njabl is welcome to scan me and i, in turn, am free to drop their traffic at
my edge. i do the same to a multitude of abusive sources every day.
paul
