On Sun, 4 May 2003, Res wrote: > > 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. Redhat is no longer blocking Rogers Cable useers. -- Gerry "The lyfe so short, the craft so long to learne" Chaucer
