nanog mailing list archives
Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems)
From: owen () DeLong SJ CA US (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 11:01:45 -0800
Thats a different claim. Spammer is authorized to send packets. You can't charge them with a real theft. "Theft of service" is a term used by anti-spammers, not a legal statement of a criminal activity. In this case, you don't have any bonafide abuse of your property rights. So you can't claim the abuse clause.
Spammer is _NOT_ authorized to send SPAM packets through my network. Spammer has no way to get to my network other than through networks which have signed an AUP/TOS which specifically precludes them from sending SPAM packets through my network for SPAMMER. As such, spammers SPAM packets are theft of service, and I have the property rights to block them. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems), (continued)
- Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems) Dan Hollis (Feb 03)
- Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems) Dan Hollis (Feb 03)
- Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems) Dean Anderson (Feb 03)
- Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems) Dean Robb (Feb 03)
- Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems) Dean Anderson (Feb 03)
- Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems) Dean Robb (Feb 03)
- Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems) Phil Howard (Feb 03)
- RE: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems) James D. Wilson (Feb 03)
- Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems) Jim Dixon (Feb 04)
- Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems) Owen DeLong (Feb 04)
- Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems) Owen DeLong (Feb 04)