Past policies versus present and future uses

Tue Jan 26 14:02:43 UTC 2021

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:26:51AM -0500, Rob McEwen wrote:
> Is DDoS-Guard without blame? Probably not, but them hosting some occasional
> criminals is NOT UNLIKE EVERY OTHER GLOBAL NETWORK!

You might wish to scroll back up to the message I sent here on January 21
with the Subject "DDOS-Guard"  and note the list of domains that I provided.

That's not a network with "occasional" issues, that's a network with
pervasive issues.

> By these SAME standards, many other large and famous
> networks should lose most or much of their IPs too!

Yes, that's exactly what should happen.  "Large and famous" operations,
by their very nature, have plenty of money to spend on large, trained,
competent, empowered, 24x7 abuse staff as well as on customer screening
-- and should do that.  Those that don't should not have their problematic
allocations confiscated: they should have *all* their allocations confiscated.

Why?  Well, first because there are no acceptable excuses for running
an operation like that.  NONE.  And second, because when those operations
refuse to pay the costs of keeping abusers out, you know who *does* pay
for that?

We do.

---rsk