[71876] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Attn MCI/UUNet - Massive abuse from your network
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher L. Morrow)
Thu Jun 24 17:38:14 2004
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:33:35 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
In-reply-to: <200406241816.i5OIGntR026597@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" <jrace@attglobal.net>,
Mike Lewinski <mike@rockynet.com>,
"nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
First, I'd like to see this thread end, not due to the beetings, but due
to the severity of the offtopic-ness of it :) BUT... see below.
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:22:02 +0700, "Dr. Jeffrey Race" <jrace@attglobal.net> said:
>
> > Not at all. You can terminate for actions prejudicial to the safety and security
> > of the system. Has nothing to do with anti-trust.
>
> I suspect that the spammer can find a lawyer who is willing to argue the idea
> that the "safety and security" of the AS701 backbone was not prejudiced by
> the spammer's actions, unless AS701 is able to show mtrg graphs and the
> like showing that the spammer was actually sending enough of a volume to
> swamp their core routers....
>
This is true. The 'security' or 'safety' of the backbone is not affected
by:
1) portscaning by morons for openshares
2) spam mail sending
3) spam mail recieving
(atleast not to my view, though I'm no lawyer, just a chemical engineer)
So, the issue of termination for this reason isn't really valid. Hence the
off-topic-ness of this thread.
-Chris
