Re: ARIN email address (was cogent spamming directly from ARIN records?)

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

Problem with that theory is the ratio of collateral damage to pain inflicted. 

Filter or deeper cogent and they don’t feel anything themselves. Their customers _might_ miss being able to reach your 
customers (or you), but then it is Cogent’s customers that feel the pain the most and Cogent to a much lesser degree 
and only as a second order effect. 

You will definitely miss connecting to some of Cogent’s customers, so you have also directly inflicted pain upon your 
self (and likely your customers). 

Personally, I would support any of my providers teaching Cogent a lesson this way, but most customers aren’t so 
understanding or even aware of the situation and they don’t care even if it is explained to them. They expect their 
packets to get delivered. That’s why they pay you.

It would be nice if there were a way to get Cogent fined or to sue Cogent for these acts and raise their costs directly 
without harming their customers, but so far nobody has figured out a way to do it. (Perhaps the layer 9 types in the 
list can put their brains to work on this problem). 

Owen


> On Oct 4, 2023, at 04:30, borg () uu3 net wrote:
>
> This is not the outcome of internet ecosystem, this is outcome
> of commercialization, where money is what is all cared, not good
> product, ethical behavior, etc.
>
> This is also because good guys do NOT fight back strong enough.
> Cogent start to give you hard time? Start to filter they whole
> prefixes? Maybe depeer them?
>
> I know this sound extreme, but.. everything else seems to fail..
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
>
> From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>
> To: nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: ARIN email address (was cogent spamming directly from ARIN
>    records?)
> Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2023 15:48:11 -0400
>
> i agree this is a sad outcome of the internet ecosystem.
>
> > We keep discussing it because we care about keeping the internet
> > running. It's similar to why we keep looking for new security holes in
> > existing software: we don't stop because inevitably we'll find more so
> > it's a lost cause, we keep looking because inevitably we'll find more
> > so the product becomes more secure.
>
> those are a bit of a false equivalence... but... ok.
> I think: "Oh look, more spam, delete"
> is basically how this sort of problem (email from randos trying to
> sell me ED pills or 10Gs) should be treated.
> I don't know that it's helpful to keep re-litigating that end state :(
>
> I'm sure telling dave shaeffer: "Hey, your sales droids are being
> rude" is going to end as well as sending him ED pill emails.