if you are serious, please feel free to contact your legal council to persue remedies. On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 03:32:27PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: > 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