[67666] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Anti-spam System Idea
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Timothy R. McKee)
Mon Feb 16 15:39:30 2004
From: "Timothy R. McKee" <tim@baseworx.net>
To: "'J Bacher'" <jb@jbacher.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:39:00 -0500
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040216140358.034eb3e8@mail.jbacher.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I've spent many years in the industry... It comes down to this:
a) Being proactive costs money. Whether it be in the form of additional
engineering/operations time or beefier routers doesn't matter. No
management type will *ALLOW* the technical folks to expend resources
unless there is either 1) a certifiable return on the investment or
2) a legal requirement that *ALL* service providers do the same exact
thing.
b) Action by one provider will mostly benefit other providers,
this provides negative inducement....
c) Being proactive without some form of legal/legislative backing signifies
risk to the management types... Who's going to complain, who's going to
sue, etc....
There will *never* be a concerted action by all service providers to
filter ingress/egress on abused ports unless there is a legal requirement
to do so. Think 'level playing field'...
Tim McKee
