Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems)
owen at DeLong.SJ.CA.US
Thu Feb 4 19:01:45 UTC 1999
> Thats a different claim. Spammer is authorized to send packets. You can't
> charge them with a real theft. "Theft of service" is a term used by
> anti-spammers, not a legal statement of a criminal activity. In this case,
> you don't have any bonafide abuse of your property rights. So you can't
> claim the abuse clause.
Spammer is _NOT_ authorized to send SPAM packets through my network. Spammer
has no way to get to my network other than through networks which have
signed an AUP/TOS which specifically precludes them from sending SPAM packets
through my network for SPAMMER. As such, spammers SPAM packets are theft
of service, and I have the property rights to block them.
More information about the NANOG