nanog mailing list archives
Re: DoS attacks, NSPs unresponsiveness
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: 3 Nov 2000 01:49:32 -0800
On Thu, 02 November 2000, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
We can write as many RFCs and BCPs as we want and discuss this item again and again - the truth is - nothing we say or do will make a difference until the government creates regulation on the matter. The same way every phone company has to run a 911 number in event of emergencies, so too must ISPs provide an abuse () xxxxx net email address that not only gives an auto-reply but actually has people behind it to handle the problem.
People from at least three different US Government agencies have asked me if there is a need for government intervention in this precise area, either full-blown laws and regulations; or nudging such as including it in GSA and other government contracts (i.e. like the drug-free workplace requirements if you want to bid on a government contract). I'm old enough to remember the AUP NSF days (and I walked to school in the snow, up hill both ways). I'm afraid if we go down this path, the intervention won't be limited.
Current thread:
- Re: DoS attacks, NSPs unresponsiveness, (continued)
- Re: DoS attacks, NSPs unresponsiveness dies (Nov 03)
- Message not available
- Re: DoS attacks, NSPs unresponsiveness Hank Nussbacher (Nov 02)
- Re: DoS attacks, NSPs unresponsiveness Sven Nielsen (Nov 02)
- Re: DoS attacks, NSPs unresponsiveness Jeff Workman (Nov 04)
- Re: DoS attacks, NSPs unresponsiveness Dan Hollis (Nov 04)
- Re: DoS attacks, NSPs unresponsiveness Jeff Workman (Nov 04)
- Re: DoS attacks, NSPs unresponsiveness Bill Fumerola (Nov 04)
- Re: DoS attacks, NSPs unresponsiveness Jeff Workman (Nov 07)
- Re: DoS attacks, NSPs unresponsiveness Bill Fumerola (Nov 07)