You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: Commecial vs fairness (was: spam support)

  • To: Jan Meijer < >
  • From: "Allen Smith" < >
  • Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:07:56 -0500
  • Cc: "anti-spam-wg@localhost" < >

On Feb 14,  9:53am, Jan Meijer wrote:
> > I'm sure they wouldn't, but the problem is that times have
> > changed.  The days when you could rely on an AS admin/technical
> > contact to care about the traffic that was originated from their
> > network are gone.  There needs to be a central organisation that
> > will act if the network provider will not.  RIPE is, by far, the
> > best placed organisation to fill this role. Setting up a new
> > organisation to deal with this would not only be more costly, but
> > also would duplicate a lot of the work that RIPE are already
> > doing.
> There are many networks that *do* care.  However, it is a problem
> but your solution is not the answer.  I feel the central
> organization you're proposing is in conflict with the essence of the
> Internet.  Asides from this: it has been tried before as EuroCERT,
> and that didn't work.  What would be a far better idea is to get the
> Good Guys talking, and let them decide, each of them on their own,
> to block the unwilling networks.

Agreed. Among the ways for people to work together on such are various 
blocklists/blacklists, which hosts can decide for themselves whether
to use to block email (or other services subject to abuse, if
necessary). Don't like a blacklist's policy? Don't use it. Like a
blacklist's policy, but feel they've missed some needed targets? Send
the maintainer(s) information on said target.


Allen Smith			easmith@localhost
September 11, 2001		A Day That Shall Live In Infamy II
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>