On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 11:08:20AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is your price for cocaine?
No, seriously.. If, as some estimates have it, 80% of the traffic is P2P, and
as other estimates have it, 90% of that is copyright-infringing, then if that
traffic disappears, anybody who was
Paul Ferguson wrote:
My next question to the peanut gallery is: What do you
suggest we should do on other hosting IP blocks are are continuing
to host criminal activity, even in the face of abuse reports, etc.?
Seriously -- I think this is an issue which needs to be addressed
here. ISPs cannot
There's this concept known as dual criminality in such situations,
when you're looking at international prosecutions (or whatever).
So, while lesé majesté - insult to the king - is a crime in thailand
(liable to get you lynched before you get prosecuted, at that) that
doesnt mean the thai
Suresh,
In a parallel universe we're considering profiles for licit use of
some mechanism. One element of a multi-part test to distinguish licit
from illicit was the presence or absence of known signatures for
malware. After some thought it was understood that this test was
equivalent to the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Paul Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- Marc Sachs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS27595v=4view=2.0
My only concern here is that by the publicity this issue continues
to receive, these activities will
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:48:12 -, Paul Ferguson said:
My next question to the peanut gallery is: What do you
suggest we should do on other hosting IP blocks are are continuing
to host criminal activity, even in the face of abuse reports, etc.?
Seriously -- I think this is an issue which
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Paul Ferguson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Paul Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- Marc Sachs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS27595v=4view=2.0
My only concern here is that by the publicity this
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 05:36:47AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Serious question, that - how many long-haul providers would be in serious
trouble if all the spam and filesharing suddenly stopped and only legitimate
traffic travelled through their pipes?
define legitimate
--bill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:48:12 -, Paul Ferguson said:
Is this an issue that network operations folk don't really care
about?
If somebody's paying you $n/megabyte for transit/connectivity, what's your
incentive to make them clean up their act and get rid of their
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:21:24 CDT, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. said:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:48:12 -, Paul Ferguson said:
Is this an issue that network operations folk don't really care
about?
If somebody's paying you $n/megabyte for transit/connectivity,
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:08:20 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a) There exist providers that are willing to take money from scum.
b) We won't get rid of the scum until we admit (a) is true.
I mostly agree with you -- but I get very worried about who defines
scum. Consider the following cases,
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:08:20 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a) There exist providers that are willing to take money from scum.
b) We won't get rid of the scum until we admit (a) is true.
I mostly agree with you -- but I get very worried about who defines
scum.
Who
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:33:21 EDT, Steven M. Bellovin said:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:08:20 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a) There exist providers that are willing to take money from scum.
b) We won't get rid of the scum until we admit (a) is true.
I mostly agree with you -- but I get very
13 matches
Mail list logo
