On Sun, 4 May 2003, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > At 15:22 4/25/2003 +1000, you wrote: > >On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Ladislav Bodnar wrote: > > > Because your measure has a potential to block email from a customer. If you > > > don't see how that is wrong, then there is no point in debating this issue > > > further. > > > >You don't and haven't worked in a network operations center before have > >you... > > Presumptuous as well as insulting. Ladislav's level of experience is both > unknown and irrelevant. > > I happen to have worked at ISP's before, and I also happen to agree with > him/her (can't figure out the gender from the name). So assuming that > his/her (sorry!) position is bred from ignorance or naïveté is > reprehensible. His/her (sorry!) opinion is perfectly valid. Maybe, but when it comes to my network all that counts is what I think I've had no customers leave because I've done this, if they have and havn't told us, they certainly didnt leave en mass. You might have a way of dealing with it that differes from many, since implimenting the measures spam has reduced by a tremendous level, theres no denying the facts speak for themselves. > Both of you agree that spam is evil and should be eliminated. However, > Ladislav does not believe that an ISP or NOC should make the decision to > eliminate domains or countries in order to reduce spam since this > may/can/will hurt your own customer, and that one should implement as much Ok, so we accept it and invoice him/her for all that traffic ? I think they be pleading with us the reblock them when they get their invoice <G> I would rather prevent my customers privacy being invaded by these low life gutter scum maggots, and as nobody has knowingly left because of entire aol ban (oh and fyi, a measly 3 people contacted us saying they needed to get email from aol, and nobody at all said they needed to get email from yahoo users) i think it says how much that mattered, aol isnt a big isp in this country so here its a non issue, which is probably why the incompetant tossers ignore spam complaints. > your ultimate ideal. You, on the other hand, see blocking some legitimate > email as a necessary sacrifice in the fight to block as much spam as > possible, and you see this as a genuine service to your customer. with the exception of aol, yahoo, cn and br we have implimented entire bans before when ignored over periods of time, when we have done so, its been no more than a few days before we get contacted by the isp concerned and indicated they have taken action, so in the case of the non arrogant companies, it is a neccassary evil that yeilds results. thankfully most never go that far, and as much as I despise micro$oft, I must say I have the upmost respect for their abuse section, they always send a human response with a day or so on top of their immediate auto responder, confirming action was taken, It's a pitty most ISP's abuse units didn't operate the same way they do. -- -Res lns01-wick-bne> ipfirewall addb reject all from aol.com to 0
