On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Andy Johnson wrote:
> > > > I fail to see how blacklisting neighboring subnets (not associated with > > > the organization in question) instead of just the offending one is "in > > > order". > > > > Let me clarify, then. > > > > If the offending ISP does not respond, and you have exhausted all avenues > > available to you to get the ISP to get its customer to stop spamming - > > whether by TOS'ing the customer, education or whatever - then escalation > > may work if the collateral damage caused by escalation is enough to get > > the spammers' neighbors to complain to the ISP. > > > > And I don't think this is a potential solution only for spam; it is > > appropriate (IMESHO) in other abusive situations too. > > > > Doesn't anyone see the irony here? Fighting abuse with abuse is somewhat > counter-productive. SPAM prevents people from reading their email by a) > filling up mail server queues b) filling up user mailboxes (and/or quotas) > c) increased message count causes more time to be spent hitting delete, than > searching for operational or important communications. BLing isn't "abuse". Anyone has a right to subscribe to any BL they like, as long as both the BL and the subscriber (if it's an ISP) disclose their guidelines to their customers. Of course, for an ISP to subscribe to a capricious, arbitrary or over-zealous BL is likely suicidal for their business. James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://3.am =========================================================================