North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: [admin] Re: unwise filtering policy from

  • From: Martin Hannigan
  • Date: Tue Nov 20 15:38:24 2007
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=hKr763DtUuwEWThszUjHk64b1lIUddQqbVuwsZABz/Q=; b=TdOIe5aCaHNV5UjSWrotb+ddHPRYlmcFePOr0l2xqOcMbW0oLmFM2aRqK3dB0uUG5E3AXhgMgGDlSaqu79MxV0DXR6ACWKQKzHqkbCL9zaFSJk0wjpVf9+lr4ZSWc2uwi5nVTAkTmvIRaLDMtLOik4MpxO1c+SIX+BzlBgb/V6A=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=VoqlTIk8zNw041Hr3SdMuWNAh5yFbJL0xu9s+8QQMQU37NV/EFydBTDFEM9ILAa9rhg7MS0kn7vWKmnxZo5E+8RVSvdE09rdBC5+gI8mtZA82F9UTSqLwo5JZmVOPoSfaxQTQ/RufA9f0KCjMUXfnU/WQcEiMHoqyjWhEy3G6cY=

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 -- their
> > > customers can originate scam emails, but 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.


(BTW: Next time please run this to the MLC beforehand. Our public
policy says "consensus based" and public. You forgot the consensus