This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friaças
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Mon May 11 23:46:15 CEST 2020
Hi, On Mon, 11 May 2020, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Precisely. But I wonder whether it is a greater problem to be packeted by a bot with C2 in IP space that would have been better off not being allocated, rather than being spammed > or phished from there. And how much greater or lesser any or all of those compared to the inconvenience routing and networking people face from having resources taken away for > originating such traffic. Spam and phishing happen above layer3, however, significantly reducing spam and phishing (and other malicious bits) would also reduce packets to be pushed around... I can understand that for some people 90Gbps is (commercially) better than 9Gbps, even if 81Gbps of it are just plain crap... Oh, and one man's crap can be another man's gold. Especially if the first is in the receiving end and the latter in a sender position. :-) Regards, Carlos
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]