Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems)

Phil Howard phil at
Thu Feb 4 01:16:09 UTC 1999

Bob Allisat wrote:

>  Technicians have no right to scan any mail for
>  contents that does not violate the more important
>  civil rights of citizens to privacy and precious
>  freedoms of expression. What Mr. Howard is, in fact,
>  proposing is the computer systems equivalent of that
>  staff of thousands in the form of software that scans
>  and then junks anything the programmers decide is
>  unacceptable. Which is totally egregious.

The programmers would not get to make those decisions.  They would
instead be made, in effect, by my customers through their choice
of service provider.

>  Instead of designing systems and software that can
>  handle the modern volume of electronic communications
>  (the good the bad and the ugly) these allegedly capable

The volume of mail isn't the issue.  It's the annoyance factor
that my customers face.  I already get complaints from customers
just because I have not actually implemented/deployed any of
the blocking facilities I speak of.  I want to, and I suspect
I will have to.

>  professionals advocate choking off what "We the People"
>  can or cannot send each other and call it a public 
>  service. When in fact the public would be served far
>  more by recieiving all of the mail from systems that
>  didin't choke at every silly cyber-flyer, dumb make
>  money scheme or wedding/birth announcement.

I have no plans to block by content.  My current plans are to block
known open relays and dialup ports.  I won't need to look inside the
mail (by program) at all to make the blocking decision.

 --    *-----------------------------*      Phil Howard KA9WGN       *    --
  --   | Inturnet, Inc.              | Director of Internet Services |   --
   --  | Business Internet Solutions |       eng at        |  --
    -- *-----------------------------*      phil at        * --

More information about the NANOG mailing list