boycotting peers (was Re: E-Mail authentication fight looming: Microsoft pushing Sender ID)

Sat Jul 9 17:44:27 UTC 2005

On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, J.D. Falk wrote:

> > (I may believe in the principles here, mind you, but I'm far to small to
> > make a point.  A workable net-boycott absolutely requires that action be
> > taken by a non-castrated 800lb gorilla.)
>
> 	Having lots of vocally unhappy customers == castration?

No, "castration" here means not having the bollocks to instigate a mail
block against an entire remote ISP (even for a short time) so that the
offending ISP will wake up and take notice.

And, of course, *sending* mail to the offending ISP is unaffected.  8-)

Of course, this sort of response is the kind that is only warranted in
principle when a cesspool gets really bad.  That's unfortunately subjective,
but a network with several *hundred thousand* zombied boxes, and doing
nothing about it, would probably qualify.  As would a provider collecting
pink contracts by the pallet.

-- 
-- Todd Vierling <tv at duh.org> <tv at pobox.com> <todd at vierling.name>