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] Question about spam to abuse inbox
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Question about spam to abuse inbox
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Question about spam to abuse inbox
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Sun Feb 21 23:18:23 CET 2021
In message <m2blcdkzvx.wl-randy at psg.com>, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote: >there is a fair bit of spectrum between the internet of cooperating >competitors running their networks as prudently as they can afford >and an internet desired by some where everything is done uniformly >by rigid written rules. You are using the word "afford" in this context as a blanket excuse for incompetence and/or willful anti-social negligence. What is the cost of adding a "cleanup fee" clause to your standard service contracts, and why are you so abysmally bad at business that you cannot afford to do that? What is the cost of filtering outbound port 25 by default, and why are you so abysmally bad at business that you cannot afford to do that? The data is in, and applying one or both of these simple measures to any given network has been demonstrated to reduce the need to pay humans to staff an "abuse desk" dramatically. Are you also unable to "afford" to implement BCP 38? Regards, rfg
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Question about spam to abuse inbox
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Question about spam to abuse inbox
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]