nanog mailing list archives

Re: amazonaws.com?


From: Barry Shein <bzs () world std com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 23:08:56 -0400


On May 28, 2008 at 21:43 beckman () angryox com (Peter Beckman) wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Dorn Hetzel wrote:

I would think that simply requiring some appropriate amount of irrevocable
funds (wire transfer, etc) for a deposit that will be forfeited in the case
of usage in violation of AUP/contract/etc would be both sufficient and not
excessive for allowing port 25 access, etc.

  Until you find out that the source of those supposedly irrevocable funds
  was stolen or fraudulent, and you have some sort of court subpoena to give
  it back.

  I don't believe there is a way for you to outwit the scammer/spammer by
  making them pay more of their or someone elses money.  If you have what
  they need, they'll find a way to trick you into giving it to them.

Are you still trying to prove that Amazon, Dell, The World, etc can't
possibly work?

By your reasoning why don't the spammers just empty out Amazon's (et
al) warehouses and retire! Oh right, they'd have to sell it all over
the internet which'd mean taking credit cards...

I'm still curious what a typical $ sale is on one of these cloud
compute clusters, in orders of magnitude, $1, $10, $100, $1000, ...?

P.S. For the record I'm not a great fan of blocking port 25 as someone
mis-cited me here, I don't really care strongly either way, it's a
tool.

I am a big, big fan of assessing charges for AUP abuse and making some
realistic attempt to try to make sure it's collectible, and otherwise
make some attempt to know who you're doing business with.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs () TheWorld com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Login: Nationwide
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*


Current thread: