nanog mailing list archives
Re: SPEWS?
From: Clayton Fiske <clay () bloomcounty org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 11:37:00 -0700
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 01:12:20PM -0400, Steven J. Sobol wrote:
If the offending ISP does not respond, and you have exhausted all avenues available to you to get the ISP to get its customer to stop spamming - whether by TOS'ing the customer, education or whatever - then escalation may work if the collateral damage caused by escalation is enough to get the spammers' neighbors to complain to the ISP. This principle is based on the fact that an ISP is more likely to listen to its paying customers than to outsiders.
Fair enough. I agree with the idea in spirit. However, care must be taken to define acceptable criteria. I think the concerns here (at least my concerns) are that a) some organizations do it before exhausting other avenues, and b) the avenues for removal from such listings can be difficult to nonexistent (as is the case with SPEWS, from the sound of it). As for specific criteria, I think this is probably where the most debate lies. If an ISP is a haven for a significant (yes, that is a subjective term, but humor me) number of spammers, or if they have either actively refused to solve the problem or allowed a spammer to evade filtering by renumbering into a new block, then I'd say this is a reasonable action to take against them. However, if it is only one or two problem customers, and they are not being evasive, renumbering, etc then I'm not so sure the end justifies the means. After all, you do have the means to avoid receiving the spam (such as listing them on a blackhole list). I think one must be cautious to avoid seeking vengeance on something whose mere existence bothers them, independent of whether it actually affects them or not. It's easy to make such a decision, but most people fail to account for the other side of that "collateral damage". One cannot assume that all of the non-spamming customers of an ISP can afford to be blackholed in order to facilitate one's own moral victory. Unfortunately, this discussion provides an avenue to the age-old thread about blackhole lists with political agendas, which imho is not the point of this thread.
And I don't think this is a potential solution only for spam; it is appropriate (IMESHO) in other abusive situations too.
Agreed.
I don't advocate doing it unless you have tried all other reasonable methods to get in touch with the ISP and ask them to disconnect or otherwise educate their customer.
Agreed. However, my impression from the initial post(s) in this thread is that the specific list(s) in question have not been doing this. -c
Current thread:
- Re: SPEWS?, (continued)
- Re: SPEWS? Sandy Harris (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? Jim Segrave (Jun 21)
- Re: SPEWS? Richard A Steenbergen (Jun 21)
- Re: SPEWS? Peter Galbavy (Jun 21)
- Re: attention network operators who are listed in blacklists! your problem is with the blockers, not the blacklist managers! (was: SPEWS?) Greg A. Woods (Jun 21)
- Re: attention network operators who are listed in blacklists! your problem is with the blockers, not the blacklist managers! (was: SPEWS?) Peter Galbavy (Jun 22)
- Re: attention network operators who are listed in blacklists! your problem is with the blockers, not the blacklist managers! (was: SPEWS?) Bruce Campbell (Jun 24)
- Re: SPEWS? Måns Nilsson (Jun 21)
- Re: SPEWS? Jim Mercer (Jun 21)
- Re: SPEWS? up (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? Clayton Fiske (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? Steven J. Sobol (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? Chrisy Luke (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? David Lesher (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? Chrisy Luke (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? Dan Hollis (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? Steven J. Sobol (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 20)
- Re: SPEWS? Steven J. Sobol (Jun 20)
- chinanet cleanup? blitz (Jun 21)
- Re: SPEWS? william (Jun 20)