No subject

Robert E. Seastrom rs at
Wed Aug 22 01:13:34 UTC 2012

George Herbert <george.herbert at> writes:

> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:06 PM,  <goemon at> wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, George Herbert wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM,  <valdis.kletnieks at> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:11:49 -0500, Grant Ridder said:
>>>>> I love spam from Honduras.  I am hoping that someone is going to kick
>>>>> this
>>>>> email from the members list.
>>>> I'm hoping for something a tad more drastic. The bozo has an upstream,
>>>> and this
>>>> is NANOG. :)
>>> Back when I was at Berkeley, we used to punish offenders by routing
>>> their packets out to Finland and back (before Finland's net admins
>>> figured out what we were doing and quite rightly complained).
>>> Does anyone have a very lightly used, long long low bandwidth link
>>> they can dedicate to The Cause?
>> I'm thinking wire cutters would be more effective.
>> -Dan
> No, no, no no.
> The objective is to maximize wasted spammer time.  The trick is to not
> just disconnect them - that happens every day, they just move on.
> It's to make their life irritating, painful, and less productive, to
> the point where time they'd be spending getting new business and
> working on new anti-filtering technology is spent corresponding with
> net providers and doing network quality checks, wondering if they
> should or have to bail out of a now flaky network.  With just the
> right mixture, you can waste five, ten, twenty times more of their
> time with a carefully engineered glitch than you can just chopping
> them off.
> They've already factored wire cutters in; raise the bar.

per-packet load-balancing between default route and null0 could
accomplish that goal.


More information about the NANOG mailing list