nanog mailing list archives

Re: Netgate.net.nz/ORBS spam colusion


From: "Alex P. Rudnev" <alex () virgin relcom eu net>
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 10:08:58 +0300 (MSK)


Anyway it's better do not touch this heap of troubles named ORBS. Those who
wanted did protected themself by filtering them out; if you open some kind of
lawsuite it force them to change the provider, not more - and cause sysadmins to
protect themselves once more... Don't trouble troubles and troubles don't
trouble you -:).

I do not want discuss if ORBS is good or bad - it EXIST.



On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, William Allen Simpson wrote:

Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 23:02:47 -0500
From: William Allen Simpson <wsimpson () greendragon com>
To: nanog () merit edu
Subject: Re: Netgate.net.nz/ORBS spam colusion


Dean Anderson wrote:

I would like to get your opinions on this.

My opinion is that you should sue them vigorously -- and lose.  This 
would help the rest of us immensely by providing a solid precedent for 
common carrier liability regarding the activities of our subscribers. 

My technical evaluation is that you were discovered to be operating an 
open relay, you have been notified that you are operating an open relay, 
and have failed to secure your open relay.  Thus, through your own
deliberate action, the publication that you operate an open relay 
constitutes an invitation to use the open relay.  Your failure to 
enforce secure authorization practices is negligent, and you have 
failed to abate a public nuisance.

Whether your threat to encourage illegal penetration of another's system 
is criminal should be brought to the proper authorities for evaluation.

I'm sure that many of us would be happy to testify on behalf of Netgate.

WSimpson () UMich edu
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32



Aleksei Roudnev,
(+1 415) 585-3489 /San Francisco CA/




Current thread: