nanog mailing list archives
Re: DMARC -> CERT?
From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman () meetinghouse net>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:53:15 -0400
Leo Bicknell wrote:
Ultimately the way to reduce spam is to catch spammers, prosecute them, and put them in prison. The way we keep all of those other crimes low is primarily by enforcement; making the punishment not worth the crime. With spam, the chance that a spammer will be punished is infinitesimal. There are hundreds, or thousands, or tens of thousands of spammers for every one that is put into jail.
Follow their money trails and take their bank accounts. Counterpunch with DDoS attacks. Attack them with drones.
We're investing a lot of tax dollars into offensive cybersecurity - let's give those guys some practice!
Makes sense to me!
Current thread:
- Re: DMARC -> CERT?, (continued)
- Re: DMARC -> CERT? Michael Thomas (Apr 17)
- Re: DMARC -> CERT? Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 17)
- Re: DMARC -> CERT? Michael Thomas (Apr 17)
- Re: DMARC -> CERT? Miles Fidelman (Apr 17)
- Message not available
- Re: DMARC -> CERT? Larry Sheldon (Apr 16)
- Re: DMARC -> CERT? Jim Popovitch (Apr 16)
- Re: DMARC -> CERT? Miles Fidelman (Apr 14)
- Re: DMARC -> CERT? John Levine (Apr 14)
- Re: DMARC -> CERT? Rich Kulawiec (Apr 14)
- Re: DMARC -> CERT? Leo Bicknell (Apr 14)
- Re: DMARC -> CERT? Miles Fidelman (Apr 14)