nanog mailing list archives
Re: sorbs.net
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:07:16 -0500
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:27:21 PST, Wes Hardaker said:
I wish it were always so easy. I've been talking to an administrator lately who's policy is that "loosing occasional email is ok if it means we keep out a whole bunch of spam". If they're that far over the fence I'd need a strong bull with a long rope to try to pull them back to my side. I keep trying to tell him I'm potentially losing business due to his position, but he's convinced spam is worse. Some people simply can't be educated.
On the other hand, which should he choose - *you* losing business due to his position, or *HIM* losing business if he takes the other position? If he lowers his spam filters enough to allow your *potentially* lost business through, and he loses 10% of his customers to someplace that has a heavier-duty spam filter policy, are you going to repay him for that lost revenue?
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: sorbs.net, (continued)
- Re: sorbs.net Paul G (Mar 15)
- Re: sorbs.net Rich Kulawiec (Mar 15)
- Re: sorbs.net Jason Slagle (Mar 21)
- Message not available
- Re: sorbs.net Jay R. Ashworth (Mar 21)
- Re: sorbs.net Suresh Ramasubramanian (Mar 21)
- Re: sorbs.net Michael . Dillon (Mar 22)
- Re: sorbs.net Jay R. Ashworth (Mar 22)
- Re: sorbs.net Michael . Dillon (Mar 22)
- Re: sorbs.net Jay R. Ashworth (Mar 22)
- Re: sorbs.net Wes Hardaker (Mar 22)
- Re: sorbs.net Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 22)
- Re: sorbs.net Suresh Ramasubramanian (Mar 22)
- Re: sorbs.net Christopher L. Morrow (Mar 21)
- RE: sorbs.net Edward B. Dreger (Mar 15)
- Re: sorbs.net Niels Bakker (Mar 15)
- Re: sorbs.net Edward B. Dreger (Mar 15)
- Re: sorbs.net Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 15)
- Re: sorbs.net Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 15)