SPEWS?

Thu Jun 20 20:00:06 UTC 2002

I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but the fact of the matter
is, if SPEWS behavior is abusive towards a network, that network does
have a limited recourse: null-route SPEWS.  Thus, the more providers
they anger, the less network they can reach.  Some users may complain,
but if SPEWS is abusing your customer base, I think it's a valid
response.  It's a powerful threat, and incentive for SPEWs to play
fair.

On 6/20/2002 at 20:33:43 +0100, Chrisy Luke said:
> 
> Steven J. Sobol wrote (on Jun 20):
> > If the offending ISP does not respond, and you have exhausted all avenues
> > available to you to get the ISP to get its customer to stop spamming - 
> > whether by TOS'ing the customer, education or whatever - then escalation 
> > may work if the collateral damage caused by escalation is enough to get 
> > the spammers' neighbors to complain to the ISP.
> 
> Can't find the terrorists you're looking for so start killing bystanders
> until someone submits? Sounds militia to me.
> 
> The service providers are not the enemies. If you treat them like enemies
> then enemies they will become.
> 
> Perhaps we should move mail transfer to a peering model. You wanna send
> email to my SMTP server? Where's the peering contract? BGP-equivalent for
> SMTP anyone?
> 
> -C
> (tired of getting bounces for email I never sent!)