[anti-abuse-wg] Question about spam to abuse inbox

The question I ask is... do these ISP's have such difficulty communicating
with their customer, or suspending their customer's service if the customer
were to fail to pay their fees?

I ask the same question of RIPE. If these entities which RIPE "has no
control over" fail to pay their fees, does this "inability to control"
still continue?






*" That excuse might almost be a reasonable justification for bad
behaviorand even worse operating policies if it hadn't already been in
continuoususe for the past 20+ years."*

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 6:53 PM Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com>
wrote:

> In message <m28s7hkyr8.wl-randy at psg.com>,
> Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
>
> >we are in a 'maturing' industry...
>
> That excuse might almost be a reasonable justification for bad behavior
> and even worse operating policies if it hadn't already been in continuous
> use for the past 20+ years.
>
> The spam problem has existed on the Internet since the late 1990s.  May
> we optimistically hold out some hope that this industry might be able
> to get its shit together by, say, 2045?
>
> >so margins are low and people are overworked and underpaid.
>
> Maybe margins are low *structurally*, because just like in the spam trade,
> everybody and his brother got enticed by the low barriers to entry in the
> commercial hosting business, resulting in tens of thousands of "me too"
> operators that, in point of fact, have no commercial advantage, and thus
> no reason to even exist.  And they are all now competing with tens of
> thousands just like them, as well as trying, vainly, to compete with a
> few othjer outfits you may have heard of, e.g. Amazon, Google, Microsoft.
>
> "Margins are low" is the same excuse that polluters used back in the day
> for dumping toxic waste into rivers in the dead of night.  Now it is being
> trotted out as an excuse for an inability... or rather an unwillingness...
> to do this simple things (like blocking outbound port 25) needed to stop
> the effluent of spam from leaking out into and onto the global Internet.
>
> Profits may be in short supply in the commecial hosting business, but
> fortunately there is never any shortage of lame excuses to justify the
> status quo.
>
>
> Regards,
> rfg
>
>
> P.S.  I am at pains to stress that essentially 100% of *all* network abuse
> of ALL KINDS these days originates from commercial hosting providers.
>
> I do not, in general, get spam, or break-in attempts, or port scans, or
> any other such abuse from government networks, from academic networks,
> from non-profit associations, or from legitimate businesses that have
> their own netblocks and that are not fundamentally in the Internet
> services business.  Nor do I have to endure such crap from any of the
> thousands of so-called "eyeball networks", e.g.  Comcast, etc.  Rather,
> the sum total of essentially all network abuse these days is consistantly
> emanating from commercial hosting providers, and specifically from the
> ones that have elected to entice miscreants and criminals to their
> services by having deliberately loose contractual policies or else
> deliberately loose enforcement of their stated policies.
>
> It's a fairly moronic way to try to make a living, or to turn a profit,
> but I guess that when you have nothing else to offer in the way of
> competitive advantage...
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20210222/b769c32e/attachment.html>