North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical


  • From: Steven J. Sobol
  • Date: Thu Jun 20 13:14:45 2002

On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Clayton Fiske wrote:

> > I agree with that, *if* initial notifications to the ISP are ignored. 
> > Escalations are then in order, definitely.
> I fail to see how blacklisting neighboring subnets (not associated with
> the organization in question) instead of just the offending one is "in
> order".

Let me clarify, then.

If the offending ISP does not respond, and you have exhausted all avenues
available to you to get the ISP to get its customer to stop spamming - 
whether by TOS'ing the customer, education or whatever - then escalation 
may work if the collateral damage caused by escalation is enough to get 
the spammers' neighbors to complain to the ISP.

This principle is based on the fact that an ISP is more likely to listen 
to its paying customers than to outsiders.

And I don't think this is a potential solution only for spam; it is 
appropriate (IMESHO) in other abusive situations too.

I don't advocate doing it unless you have tried all other reasonable 
methods to get in touch with the ISP and ask them to disconnect or 
otherwise educate their customer.

Steve Sobol, CTO LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH  888.480.4NET
- I do my best work with one of my cockatiels sitting on each shoulder -
6/4/02:A USA TODAY poll found that 80% of Catholics advocated a zero-tolerance 
stance towards abusive priests. The fact that 20% didn't, scares me...