nanog mailing list archives
Re: SPEWS?
From: "Regis M. Donovan" <regis () offhand org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:06:49 -0400
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 01:48:48PM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Regis M. Donovan wrote:On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 02:35:16PM -0400, Steven J. Sobol wrote:*Spamming* or launching a DoS attack in response to spam is definitely abusive.and black-holing "innocent bystander" networks not a denial of service?Its my box, my hardware, my property. No one has an inherent right to force speech on an unwilling recipient.
of course. but blocking the networks involved in the spam takes care of that. blocking these "innocent bystander" networks does nothing to solve your spam problem and merely blocks potentially useful traffic. black-holing networks that are not engaged in any abusive behavior in the vain hopes of getting a response from some difficult-to-contact ISP seems a bit excessive. particularly coming from a group that is, itself, difficult to contact. --regis
Current thread:
- Re: SPEWS?, (continued)
- Re: SPEWS? Regis M. Donovan (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? Dan Hollis (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? David Charlap (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? Dan Hollis (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? Randy Bush (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? David Charlap (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? Dan Hollis (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? measl (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? Steven J. Sobol (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? Greg A. Woods (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? Regis M. Donovan (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? Dan Hollis (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? Steven J. Sobol (Jun 20)
- RE: SPEWS? Benjamin P. Grubin (Jun 20)
- RE: SPEWS? Steven J. Sobol (Jun 20)
- RE: SPEWS? Benjamin P. Grubin (Jun 20)
- RE: SPEWS? Steven J. Sobol (Jun 20)
- RE: SPEWS? Benjamin P. Grubin (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? Sandy Harris (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? Steven J. Sobol (Jun 20)