nanog mailing list archives
Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0?
From: Joe Abley <jabley () hopcount ca>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:28:33 -0400
On 11-Mar-2009, at 10:03, Jon Lewis wrote:
but what's the point in getting lawyers involved?
It might convince some pointy-haired person at covad to review the policies and procedures on the abuse desk, maybe.
Whatever access isn't supposed to be open should be filtered.
If you can demonstrate reasonable costs resulting from the behaviour of others, perhaps that's not relevant. Note that in the grand NANOG tradition I say these things without the faintest glimmer of knowledge of the law.
Joe
Current thread:
- Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Brett Charbeneau (Mar 11)
- RE: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Darden, Patrick S. (Mar 11)
- RE: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Jon Lewis (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Joe Abley (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Steven M. Bellovin (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Alec Berry (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Jeremy L. Gaddis (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Alec Berry (Mar 11)
- RE: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Jon Lewis (Mar 11)
- RE: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Darden, Patrick S. (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Brett Charbeneau (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Marcus Reid (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Joe Abley (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Brett Charbeneau (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Joe Greco (Mar 11)