[7154] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Suggestion for NANOG Meeting
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Howard C. Berkowitz)
Mon Jan 20 15:22:22 1997
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970120132754.3392A-100000@davids.wiznet.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:12:42 -0500
To: David Schwartz <davids@wiznet.net>
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net>
Cc: Mike Leber <mleber@he.net>, "Eric D. Madison" <madison@queber.acsi.net>,
Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>, nanog@merit.edu
At 1:28 PM -0500 1/20/97, David Schwartz wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Mike Leber wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Eric D. Madison wrote:
>> > As a carrier, I know that we should not and can not filter/censor/monitor
>> > any content on our "pipes".
>>
>> So you would ignore one of your customers SYN attacking random victims on
>> the net? Or one of your T3 customers ping bombing somebody with a T1?
>
> That's not content. The term 'content' excludes time, place, and
>manner. Blocking a SYN attack is about regulating the manner in which
>people can exchange content, not the content they exchange.
>
> DS
And I would suggest that the first level of dealing with spam is by its
traffic characteristics and administrative characteristics. In other
words, while I am incredibly annoyed as a recipient of spam, I am most
concerned by the potential of spam to produce denial of service, through
mail bombs (original or retaliatory), looping spam software, exhausting
spool space, etc. These are not content issues.
Howard
