Re: Extreme spam testing

["Paul" <paul () rusko us>]

andy,

From: "Andy Dills" <andy () xecu net>
> On 23 Dec 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> > > You'd be hard pressed to frame what NJABL does in terms of "abuse",
> > > because of the intent, and because of the actual bit volume involved.
> >
> > intent does not, and cannot, matter.  when an isp hears a complain about
> > spam, and seeks explaination from their spamming customer, an answer of
> > the form "we have only the best of intentions", then the result still
has
> > to be service disconnection.
>
> Therefore, in accordance with your logic, if I have a "spam in hand", and
> I probe your servers to determine if you're an open relay, I'm myself
> spamming, and that is network abuse, and my ISP should disconnect me.
>
> So intent doesn't matter, huh?

if i parsed paul's post correctly, that is exactly what he is saying. i
agree. his logic and the statement you consider ridiculous make perfect
sense to me.

i have *not* given anyone permission to scan my boxes by sending out mail.
trying to somehow justify around this is conjecture - a conjecture that, in
my mind, is equivalent to the argument that people have given permission to
be mailed (and spammed) by putting their address on a website.

njabl is welcome to scan me and i, in turn, am free to drop their traffic at
my edge. i do the same to a multitude of abusive sources every day.

paul