Extreme spam testing
andy at xecu.net
Tue Dec 23 23:27:58 UTC 2003
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Paul wrote:
> if i parsed paul's post correctly, that is exactly what he is saying. i
> agree. his logic and the statement you consider ridiculous make perfect
> sense to me.
> i have *not* given anyone permission to scan my boxes by sending out mail.
> trying to somehow justify around this is conjecture - a conjecture that, in
> my mind, is equivalent to the argument that people have given permission to
> be mailed (and spammed) by putting their address on a website.
I think the concept of "permission" is antiquated in terms of the
I repeat my previous assertion: The only authority on the internet is over
Because you only have authority over your network, and not mine, it is
unfair for you to dictate any sort of rules to me, and likewise.
Your authority stops at your routers. You don't want my packets, drop
That's the sole concept of social authority that exists on the internet.
You control what packets traverse your network.
Given that, you connecting to the internet and accepting my packets is
implicit permission for me to send packets to those boxes. Don't like it?
Drop my packets, revoke my permission.
> njabl is welcome to scan me and i, in turn, am free to drop their traffic at
> my edge. i do the same to a multitude of abusive sources every day.
Exactly. This is CLEARLY not what Paul V. wants. He feels that if he can
declare something abuse, that should be sufficient grounds for
disconnection. He also thinks that the network who must do the
disconnecting should ignore anything external to the evidence he provides.
This isn't really my problem, I'm not a source of anything anybody would
term abuse. But from talking to network operators, many feel the same way
I do and I think this point of view should be stated.
More information about the NANOG