nanog mailing list archives
Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:53:41 -0400
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 05:12:19PM -0500, Frank Bulk wrote:
If they're properly SWIPed why punish the ISP for networks they don't even
"punish"? Since when is it "punishment" to refuse to extend a privilege that's been repeatedly and systematically abused? (You have of course, absolutely no right whatsoever to expect any services of any kind from anyone other than those you've contracted for. Everything beyond that is a privilege, generously furnished to you at the whim of those operating the service. It may be restricted or withdrawn at any time, for any reason, with or without notice to you. Now as a general rule, we all have chosen to furnish those services -- by default and without limitation. But that doesn't turn them into entitlements.) The word "punish" is completely inapplicable in this context.
operate, that obviously belong to their business customers?
Questions: 1. Is your name on it in any way, shape or form? (This includes allocations.) 2. Is it emitting abuse? If the answers are "yes", then it's YOUR abuse. Trying to evade responsibility by claiming that "it's one of our customers" is just another pathetic excuse for incompetence.
Of course, it doesn't hurt to copy the ISP or AS owner for abuse issues from a sub-allocated block -- you would hope that ISPs and AS owners would want to have clean customers.
Unless of course the ISP or AS owner *are* the abuser under another name, or unless they're actively complicit. Both are quite common. Beyond that: any *competent* ISP or AS owner will already know about the abuse. They will have deployed measures designed to detect said abuse well before anyone else out there reports it to them. (Example: setting up their own spamtraps explicitly designed to catch their own customers.) By the time an external observer reports a problem to them, it should already be old news and already be well on its way to remediation. ---Rsk
Current thread:
- Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Fergie (Apr 07)
- Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks william(at)elan.net (Apr 07)
- RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Frank Bulk (Apr 07)
- RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks william(at)elan.net (Apr 07)
- RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Frank Bulk (Apr 07)
- RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks michael.dillon (Apr 09)
- RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Chris L. Morrow (Apr 09)
- RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Frank Bulk (Apr 07)
- Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Rich Kulawiec (Apr 13)
- Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Steve Sobol (Apr 13)
- Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks william(at)elan.net (Apr 07)
- RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Frank Bulk (Apr 10)
- Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Rich Kulawiec (Apr 11)
- Message not available
- RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Frank Bulk (Apr 11)
- RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Mikael Abrahamsson (Apr 11)
- Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Leigh Porter (Apr 12)
- Message not available
- RE: Limiting email abuse by subscribers [was: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks] Frank Bulk (Apr 12)