nanog mailing list archives
Re: Suggestion for NANOG Meeting
From: Sean Donelan <SEAN () SDG DRA COM>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 3:35:45 -0600 (CST)
As a carrier, we at ACSI have issued a statement that we cannot be responsible for customer traffic. I know that legally we cannot filter any customer traffic, but I am really getting sick of getting emails about customers that continue to send unsolicited emails. We as a community need to come up with a common carrier policy on how to handle such customers and how to deal with complaints.
Talk to you company lawyer about what you legally can and can not do. Even common carriers have a lot of leeway writing their tariffs. Yes, tariff writing is a business decision. Common carriers write the darndest things in their tariffs. And even more amazing, if you had a smart lawyer write the right things, you can get a court to enforce those darndest things too. Personally, I would be happy if the IETF-RUN group put out a document on the right and wrong way to complain. Spamming your complaint about spam is a bit hippocritical. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: Suggestion for NANOG Meeting, (continued)
- Re: Suggestion for NANOG Meeting Paul A Vixie (Jan 20)
- Re: Suggestion for NANOG Meeting Mike Leber (Jan 20)
- Re: Suggestion for NANOG Meeting David Schwartz (Jan 20)
- Re: Suggestion for NANOG Meeting Howard C. Berkowitz (Jan 20)
- Re: Suggestion for NANOG Meeting Philip J. Nesser II (Jan 20)
- Re: Suggestion for NANOG Meeting Paul A Vixie (Jan 20)
- Re: Suggestion for NANOG Meeting Philip J. Nesser II (Jan 21)