Re: Spam. Again.. -- and blocking net blocks?

[David Lesher <wb8foz () nrk com>]

I'm not taking sides here, but do want to mention some other
aspects:


Unnamed Administration sources reported that Scott Silzer said:
> I could understand if an ISP was allowing spam from a portion of 
> there (sic) network.  But in this case the only thing that the ISP did is 
> host a website, the SPAM was sent from from a third party's network. 
> The ISP did terminate the customer but in the meantime the entire 
> NSP's network has been blacklisted, for a rouge webhosting account 
> does sound a bit harsh.

Excuse me, the ONLY thing?

        I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program
        because of a single slip-up.
                General "Buck" Turgidson

Since 90% of the spam I get is relay-raped off of some .kr/cn site,
It'd say the gonads^H^Hweb address is exactly the correct target.
It's the asset in place.

What's missing in your report is timeframes. How long was the
spamsite up? When did the first report hit .sightings? Were there
responses from abuse@, postmaster@ etc?

For the record, my view on SPEWS is this.... 

0) I'm less than comfortable with it but...

1) It would not exist if there was not a demand for it; after all,
it's powerless if no mail host looks at it.

2) The fact there is so much heat over it is proving its impact.

3) Past, more moderate approaches proved very ineffective, for
reasons of policy or getting sued into silence.

4) Like it or not, it IS waking up large carriers who have
previously turned a blind eye. 

5) No one has offered a better solution so far. As Perot said -
"I'm all ears.."



-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz () nrk com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433