North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Internic hosage (fwd)

  • From: Dean Anderson
  • Date: Mon Mar 23 00:03:29 1998

At 10:15 PM -0500 3/22/98, NetSurfer wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Mar 1998, Dean Anderson wrote:
>> Perhaps we need to have a way to authenticate and limit who can get phone
>> numbers and email addresses from the whois database, in order to prevent
>> the kind of harassment and abuse apparently exercised by Mr. Robb.
>If you don't send or sponsor unsolicited commercial email or websites for
>them, then what are you afraid of?  Providers who act responsibly on
>complaints of theft of electronic services (unsolicited commercial email)
>by dropping email accounts and/or websites don't appear to get "this kind
>of harassment" - It is usually reserved for those rogue ISP's who refuse
>to act upon complaints and continue to do business with spammer-thiefs.

Ah. Only girls with lowcut blouses and short skirts are raped. Since I
don't wear lowcut blouses or short skirts, I have nothing to worry about,
and shouldn't be concerned. Rape is OK, since it only happens to the sleazy
girls.  Uh Huh. When can I screw the interns?  Say, you aren't hosting any
porn or uncensored webcams are you?  Boy, I think they're sick.  Lets make
sure we disconnect the entire lot, and any ISP/NSP who refuses to cooperate
we'll just DoS them until they are pounded to dirt, like AGIS.   Hey look,
I think they are irresponsible. I'm justified in harassing them and
publishing false routes etc. Right?

I expect some kind of gaussian distribution of harassment develops where
everyone gets harassed by some lunatic, and can't do anything about it.
Eventually, somebody mails a bomb. To me? To you? To some kid in Vermont?
You're smarter than that. I think.  Besides, I react badly to coercion.  So
do most people.  Thats why we need laws.  Sensible ones at that.

Anyway, I don't think it is just spammers.  NOC's don't put terribly good
information in whois because general public lusers will call them, instead
of the help desk.   Most companies don't list off-hours numbers. etc.

>Since you claim to be a "responsible" ISP this shouldn't be a problem for
>you.  You HAVE been a responsible ISP, haven't you?  Or do you
>knowlingly sponsor websites for spammers or send out spam yourself?

Actually, unlike some who claim to be anti-spam, and then secretly host
spammers, hoping no one will find out, I don't have any spam customers.
And I don't have any customers who resell services. We aren't very big.
But neither  will I filter, if we ever have ISP customers whose customers
send spam.

>Methinks he doth protesteth too much.

I don't think I protest enough. Spam actually runs only 2% of email volume.
Now, does anyone know how much of the total traffic is SMTP?   These
alleged great pains caused by spam are, after 9 months of study and record
keeping, truly smoke.  Buy some hardware. Find some people to run it.

On the other hand, maybe I have been a bit hasty, and haven't considered
every option.  Vix, will you put porn sites into the RBL? I'll tell you
what, if you put any site I and a few others think is immoral into the RBL,
I will drop my opposition and join the ranks of the antispammers, (whom we
will also rename the moral majority, since Falwell abandoned that name)
Also, we will have to get rid of all the sex groups on usenet, by not
transmitting them on news servers, and pointing cancel bots at the groups.
I'll even take the RBL myself, and I'll try to get others to, as well.  I
will be as vocal and active in your support as I am in opposition. More so.

If the anti-spammers do this, I'm a convert.


           Plain Aviation, Inc                  [email protected]