North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: [admin] Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net
On Nov 20, 2007 3:11 PM, Alex Pilosov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 [email protected] wrote: > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:21:19 PST, [email protected] said: > > > This seems a rather unwise policy on behalf of cox.net -- their > > > customers can originate scam emails, but cox.net abuse desk apparently > > > does not care to hear about it. > > > > Seems to be perfectly wise if you're a business and care more about > > making money than getting all tangled up in pesky things like morals and > > ethics. It's great when you can help the balance sheet by converting > > "ongoing support costs" and "loss of paying customers" into what > > economists call "externalities" (in other words, they make the > > decisions, but somebody else gets to actually pay for the choices made). > This is one of the threads where posting further will not be productive. > > Cox abuse has been named and shamed, and hopefully, the next post we see > to the thread will be from them. > > As a reminder, political discussions, and discussions about spam filtering > (other than operational, such as [email protected] or [email protected]) are off-topic for > nanog. Please keep it this way. Actually, filtering techniques as applies to the operational aspect of a mailer, MX to MX, are fine. -M< (BTW: Next time please run this to the MLC beforehand. Our public policy says "consensus based" and public. You forgot the consensus part.)
|