bzs at world.std.com
Wed May 28 22:08:56 CDT 2008
On May 28, 2008 at 21:43 beckman at angryox.com (Peter Beckman) wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2008, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
> > I would think that simply requiring some appropriate amount of irrevocable
> > funds (wire transfer, etc) for a deposit that will be forfeited in the case
> > of usage in violation of AUP/contract/etc would be both sufficient and not
> > excessive for allowing port 25 access, etc.
> Until you find out that the source of those supposedly irrevocable funds
> was stolen or fraudulent, and you have some sort of court subpoena to give
> it back.
> I don't believe there is a way for you to outwit the scammer/spammer by
> making them pay more of their or someone elses money. If you have what
> they need, they'll find a way to trick you into giving it to them.
Are you still trying to prove that Amazon, Dell, The World, etc can't
By your reasoning why don't the spammers just empty out Amazon's (et
al) warehouses and retire! Oh right, they'd have to sell it all over
the internet which'd mean taking credit cards...
I'm still curious what a typical $ sale is on one of these cloud
compute clusters, in orders of magnitude, $1, $10, $100, $1000, ...?
P.S. For the record I'm not a great fan of blocking port 25 as someone
mis-cited me here, I don't really care strongly either way, it's a
I am a big, big fan of assessing charges for AUP abuse and making some
realistic attempt to try to make sure it's collectible, and otherwise
make some attempt to know who you're doing business with.
The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide
Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
More information about the NANOG