RE: "Make love, not spam"....

["Miller, Mark" <mark.miller () qwest com>]

 Your argument seems to assume a T1 garage operation co-lo that is
perpetually out to lunch. Provided Lycos delivers the restrictions on
bandwidth they are stating, why would it exceed capacity? Come on, kids.
If you can't deliver to begin with, don't sell it.

 I am not saying that the proposal is intrinsically right or wrong, I am
saying it could have merit if just in waking up a brain-dead co-lo
facility operator to deal with spamming clients.

-mm



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf Of
Paul G
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 4:11 PM
To: nanog () merit edu
Subject: Re: "Make love, not spam"....




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Erik Haagsman" <erik () we-dare net>
To: "Paul G" <paul () rusko us>
Cc: <nanog () merit edu>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: "Make love, not spam"....


> I agree and I'm surprised you even mentioned the wordt justice...since

> when is retaliating bad practices with more bad practises that are 
> hardly likely to take out the real target considered a good idea..?

'justice' was mentioned in the message i quoted. it appears i was not
remiss - i got an email from a guy running a small town isp telling me,
essentially, that:

1. if i get hit with cc fraud, it is my own darn fault for not asking
every single $9.99/mo customer to fax me their retina scan. 2. incurring
a humongous bandwidth bill instead of being out said $9.99 is adequate
punishment for my 'stupidity' 3. he likes the kind of justice where a
provider gets harmed instead of the abusive customer, because Good ISPs
Recognize Bad Guys On Sight.

i've got news for you:

...
 *Abbreviated*