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
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 09:21:24AM -0500, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
> [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/c
Eric, as you say, it is a multi part test. With fairly clear
distinctions between a compromised node and one under the direct
control of a criminal
So while it is unrealistic when viewed in isolation, put together with
other factors it starts to make a lot of sense.
thanks
srs
On Wed, Sep 3, 200
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 t
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 author
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 c
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
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".
Wh
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,
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/con
[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 P2
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"
--b
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=AS27595&v=4&view=2.0
My only concern here is that by the publicit
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 whi
-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=AS27595&v=4&view=2.0
>
>My only concern here is that by the publicity this issue continues
>to receive, these a
15 matches
Mail list logo
