[admin] Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net

Tue Nov 20 20:33:11 UTC 2007

On Nov 20, 2007 3:11 PM, Alex Pilosov <alex at pilosoft.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:21:19 PST, goemon at anime.net said:
> > > This seems a rather unwise policy on behalf of cox.net -- their
> > > customers can originate scam emails, but cox.net abuse desk apparently
> > > does not care to hear about it.
> >
> > Seems to be perfectly wise if you're a business and care more about
> > making money than getting all tangled up in pesky things like morals and
> > ethics. It's great when you can help the balance sheet by converting
> > "ongoing support costs" and "loss of paying customers" into what
> > economists call "externalities" (in other words, they make the
> > decisions, but somebody else gets to actually pay for the choices made).
> This is one of the threads where posting further will not be productive.
>
> Cox abuse has been named and shamed, and hopefully, the next post we see
> to the thread will be from them.
>
> As a reminder, political discussions, and discussions about spam filtering
> (other than operational, such as abuse@ or noc at emails) are off-topic for
> nanog. Please keep it this way.

Actually, filtering techniques as applies to the operational aspect of
a mailer, MX to MX, are fine.

-M<

(BTW: Next time please run this to the MLC beforehand. Our public
policy says "consensus based" and public. You forgot the consensus
part.)