RE: Commecial vs fairness (was: spam support)

[<]

14 February 2002 14:43, Jan Meijer wrote:

> What would
> be a far better idea
> is to get the Good Guys talking, and let them decide, each of
> them on their own,
> to block the unwilling networks.  The essence of the Internet is
> interconnectivity.  Break the interconnectivity of a network,
> and you'll bring
> it down to its knees.  There are far more ways of organizing
> activity then to
> create one big central organization to police the Internet.

It would be great if all the big networks took a decision to stamp on
spammers and block spam-friendly networks. But again this comes down to
commercial interests. Do big networks really have a business reason to stop
spam? Sure, it hogs bandwidth, but they're selling bandwidth. The get paid
danger money from a spammer, and then reap more in return for the added
bandwidth customers need to receive the mail.

It's quite clear that many of the biggest guys out there have a policy of
pink contracts for spammers. There is no other explanation as to how some
blatant spammers can stay in one place so long. Ultimately the big networks
will only act properly to cut spammers off when it is commercially
beneficial to do so. That means either legislation or those who buy
bandwidth pressuring their provider over its failure to act against
spammers.