nanog mailing list archives
Re: IP-Echelon Compliance
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:20:39 +0200
http://www.procmail.org/I wouldn't necessarily recommend that approach. There is no obligation for victims of spammers to continue providing Internet services to them, including SMTP services.
computers are cheap. my time is finite and i value it highly. what is the minimal action i can take to see that idiots do not take my time? randy
Current thread:
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance, (continued)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Baldur Norddahl (Oct 13)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Rich Kulawiec (Oct 13)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Fred Hollis (Oct 13)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance seth (Oct 13)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Bob Evans (Oct 13)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Peter Kristolaitis (Oct 13)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Jason Hellenthal (Oct 13)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Randy Bush (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Rich Kulawiec (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Stephen Satchell (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Randy Bush (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Christopher Morrow (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Matthias Leisi (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance George Herbert (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Mike Hammett (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Rich Kulawiec (Oct 15)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Andrew Kirch (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Christopher Morrow (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Eric Kuhnke (Oct 13)
- RE: IP-Echelon Compliance Tony Wicks (Oct 13)