[78725] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: sorbs.net
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Mar 22 11:07:55 2005
To: Wes Hardaker <wjhns61@hardakers.net>
Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com>,
"Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:27:21 PST."
<sdis3jvgyu.fsf@wes.hardakers.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:07:16 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1111507636_8136P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:27:21 PST, Wes Hardaker said:
> I wish it were always so easy. I've been talking to an administrator
> lately who's policy is that "loosing occasional email is ok if it
> means we keep out a whole bunch of spam". If they're that far over
> the fence I'd need a strong bull with a long rope to try to pull them
> back to my side. I keep trying to tell him I'm potentially losing
> business due to his position, but he's convinced spam is worse.
>
> Some people simply can't be educated.
On the other hand, which should he choose - *you* losing business due to
his position, or *HIM* losing business if he takes the other position?
If he lowers his spam filters enough to allow your *potentially* lost
business through, and he loses 10% of his customers to someplace that has
a heavier-duty spam filter policy, are you going to repay him for that
lost revenue?
--==_Exmh_1111507636_8136P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFCQEK0cC3lWbTT17ARAvAjAJ9zjA60es9veiW3ryXN7fYIg1u9tQCgtaFW
1YeN08G95UgzVre60oLky6M=
=ocN5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1111507636_8136P--
