|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Extreme spam testing
andy, From: "Andy Dills" <[email protected]> > > On 23 Dec 2003, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > > You'd be hard pressed to frame what NJABL does in terms of "abuse", > > > because of the intent, and because of the actual bit volume involved. > > > > intent does not, and cannot, matter. when an isp hears a complain about > > spam, and seeks explaination from their spamming customer, an answer of > > the form "we have only the best of intentions", then the result still has > > to be service disconnection. > > Therefore, in accordance with your logic, if I have a "spam in hand", and > I probe your servers to determine if you're an open relay, I'm myself > spamming, and that is network abuse, and my ISP should disconnect me. > > So intent doesn't matter, huh? if i parsed paul's post correctly, that is exactly what he is saying. i agree. his logic and the statement you consider ridiculous make perfect sense to me. i have *not* given anyone permission to scan my boxes by sending out mail. trying to somehow justify around this is conjecture - a conjecture that, in my mind, is equivalent to the argument that people have given permission to be mailed (and spammed) by putting their address on a website. njabl is welcome to scan me and i, in turn, am free to drop their traffic at my edge. i do the same to a multitude of abusive sources every day. paul
|