It Continues...Sprint Is played the fool...
dvv at dvv.ru
Tue Jan 7 03:24:16 UTC 1997
On Tue, 7 Jan 97 01:27:07 GMT, "William Allen Simpson"
<wsimpson at greendragon.com> wrote:
>Moreover, it was very important to me to learn about this Sprint policy
>of allowing spamming. I'm in the middle of writing the RFP evaluation
>criteria for a fairly large network buy. In addition to the paragraphs
>on accepting routes into its own address space for multihoming (which
>disqualified Sprint earlier), I'll add some language that:
> - the service provider must have a written and enforcable policy
> prohibiting any of its customers from sending any traffic to
> recipients that have not requested the traffic -- including (but not
> limited to) the sending of off-topic or unsolicited mail messages to
> mailing list exploders, subsets of mailing list registrants, news
> groups, and posters to news groups (termed "mail spamming"). The
> requirement for a response to any such unsolicited message to prevent
> future messages is unacceptable.
What about the Web spamming, i.e. all these flashy dynamic GIFs that pop up on
nearly every page and have no relation to its contents whatsoever? I don't
really request all this trashy traffic either and my my browser's downloading
them wastes my precious free hours online.
> - the service provider must have the capability of isolating any
> external network addresses and connections within 10 minutes of
> notification about operational problems of its other customers and
> network connections -- including (but not limited to) broadcast
> flooding, connection flooding, routing loops, address spoofing, mail
> spoofing, and mail spamming.
> - The service provider will guarantee reimbursement of costs for each
> minute (or fraction thereof) beyond the specified 10 minutes.
>I believe these will disqualify Sprint, too.
Together with whom? Who is left qualified, anyway?
>WSimpson at UMich.edu
>BSimpson at MorningStar.com
More information about the NANOG