I can't parse your statement. I didn't say "assignment of IP space __impunes__ a service". Perhaps you meant to say that your assignment of IP address space to abusers doesn't impune the rest of your services. This was the claim made by Media3 in Media3 v. MAPS. Media3 lost. But assignment of IP address space does indicate a relationship. Your denials of that relationship are frivolous. Now, as in January, a close read of your message reveals that you didn't actually _deny_ the relationship, you tried to convince me that there was no _proof_ of any relationship. With regard to spam, we call such "deniable" relationships "pink contracts". The spam-hoster tries to deny that anyone has any proof there is a relationship with the spammer. I'd love to be able to say you were violating you AUP, but you don't have one published. Indeed, it is rather interesting that neither EP.NET (Bill Manning), nor ISC.ORG (Paul Vixie) had published AUPs. But as Media3 V. MAPS demonstrated, we can call a spade a spade. You host abusers, we can call you abuse-friendly. I suspect this is off-topic from the subject of abuse on DNSOP lists. I would like to redirect anyone who would like to continue this offlist. I will shortly put all of your January emails and you current emails regarding EP.NET and ISC.ORG on the web under IADL.ORG (Internet Anti-Defamation League). --Dean On Tue, 11 May 2004 bmanning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > assignment of IP space does not impune any other > service. Asserting otherwise is foolish. Pressing > the point, esp. in public fora, appears to be > willful ignorance. Please enjoy your blissful state. > > --bill > > > On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:02:45PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: > > The following message indicates that EP.NET has assigned an IP address to > > ISC.ORG. You are quite well aware of this. Dissembling will not help > > you. > > > > --Dean > > > > > > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:26:42 -0500 (EST) > > From: Dean Anderson <dean@xxxxxxx> > > To: bill <bmanning@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: Complaint regarding www.sorbs.net (204.152.186.189) (fwd) > > > > > > On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, bill wrote: > > > > > I have no reason to act as your relay agent. We have no > > > agreement in place for me to act in this manner. > > > > The traceroute I forwarded shows that your IP addresses 198.32.176.4 is > > assigned to ISC.ORG, which typically indicates a relationship. > > > > > 8 paix-gw4.isc.org (198.32.176.4) 92.828 ms 91.036 ms 91.415 ms > > > > On Mon, 10 May 2004 bmanning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > > but ISC.ORG doesn't want to take a complaint. Bill Manning, of EP.NET > > > > (ISC.ORG upstream) says he has no contract with me to accept complaints > > > > about ISC.ORG. > > > > > > > > --Dean > > > > > > Dean... you are asserting a relationship that you have no > > > way to prove exists. Unless or until you can prove that > > > ep.net is an upstream for isc.org, please refrain from > > > making such statements. Traceroute is not your friend in > > > this case. Defamation works many ways. > > > > > > --bill > > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf