Re: while i'm on the subject of filtering, here's today's list of spammers

["Brett D. Watson" <bwatson () genuity net>]

> > No, it isn't.  You have guests and other users.  If you have IP customers,
> > then they have guests and other online users.  By accepting spam you allow
> > your resources (which you offer for cooperative reasons) to be used in a
> > noncooperative way.  If you have downstream customers you are subjecting
> > them to the same abuse.
>
> We offer our customers Internet access, and when they complain about
> spammers we do something about it.  However, what we do affects only our
> network and our customers.  It does not affect the world as a whole?

  why does everyone keep insinuating that paul is blocking root level 
name service from the whole world? that's essentially the argument 
and it's completely off base.

  i can admit that *maybe* it's not even reasonable (even after my 
last post) to block *any* entity from reaching a single root name 
server but this is turning into a tar and feathering of paul for 
"affecting the world as a whole" which is way out of proportion.


> > connections.
>
> Again, you can't block everyone.  Why you feel it necessary to impose your
> social mores on the net as a whole is beyond me.

  sigh.  when has he imposed his social mores on anyone here?  paul 
blackholes spam sites *within* his own network which he pays for.  he 
happens to run a public root name server (one of many) and the spam 
sites are denied access to part of the public resource (root name 
service).

  you can *actively* (as opposed to passively or without your 
permission) take this list of networks from paul via a bgp peering 
session and block access from spammers within your own network.

  so where in that scenario is paul forcing morals on anyone?  or 
blocking the "whole world" from reaching a root name server in his 
network?

-brett



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -