Re: *tap tap* is this thing on?

["Dovid Bender" <dovid () telecurve com>]

The reason they are the big boys is because they don't fund such operations. They see money before what you call 
obligations. Right or wrong they will sell a product if they think they can make it work. Making it work is all 
subjective. You say it means handling abuse complaints while they say it means the client being connected and able to 
ping the world.


------Original Message------
From: Rich Kulawiec
Sender: NANOG
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: *tap tap* is this thing on?
Sent: Oct 27, 2015 06:30

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 02:48:59PM -0600, Brielle Bruns wrote:
> I get it that it is hard for large providers to be proactive about
> things going on due to the sheer size of their networks, but come
> on. That excuse only works for so long.

1. It's not hard.  It's far easier for large providers than small ones,
although many of them flat-out lie and claim the opposite.

2. Whatever happened to "never build what you can't control?"  If you
can't stop your operation from emitting abuse, you should shut it down.
Immediately.  That's what professionals do.

3. Large providers pretend to be "leaders", but are among the worst in
terms of actually leading by example.  Just try getting a response from
them via postmaster@ or abuse@.  Of course these large operations should
individually answer *every* message to those addresses promptly, 24x7,
and initiate immediate investigation/remediation on *every* complaint.
That's baseline operational competence 101, and given their enormous
financial and personnel resources, it would require only a tiny amount
of resources.  But they don't -- and everyone else pays the price for it.

---rsk

Regards,

Dovid