RE: "Antispam UOL" spam from petsupermarket@uol.com.br?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Fink [mailto:carl@fink.to]
> Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 2:55 PM
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: "Antispam UOL" spam from petsupermarket@uol.com.br?
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 01:48:28PM -0600, Seth Goodman wrote:
>
> > Losing a large part of their email connectivity might be the event
> > necessary to encourage a competitor with more clue to come
> > along and eat their lunch.
>
> Anyone else remember the Usenet Death Penalty? Or when backbone
> provider AGIS was threatened within an inch of its existence for
> hosting famed spammer Spamford Wallace and his many domains,
> including the amazingly-arrogant ispam.net? (In fact, some
> blame this matter for AGIS's end.)
Just to be clear, I was in no way suggesting organized vigilante action
as in your examples. My hope was that if enough individual mail systems
decided to ban UOL traffic based on their own local policy, that
something positive would likely result. Perhaps I did not make that
clear.
Stated another way, no matter what anyone else does or thinks, I don't
have to accept UOL's mail and they don't have to accept mine. Because
it's my mail system, I don't even need a reason. I do happen to have
one, though nobody else has to agree or even listen to it. UOL operates
a C/R system that emits lots of backscatter, and I consider that abuse
of my network resources as well as those of the net in general. This
bogs down my system and raises my connectivity costs. By rejecting
their connection requests, I lessen the effects of both problems.
Hopefully, if enough other systems made the same choice, UOL might
decide to get some clue and fix their problem. Alternatively, another
company may notice that UOL's conduct has created a business
opportunity. I don't have a personal interest in how the problem is
solved. If nobody else makes the choice I do, that's their absolute
prerogative.
Forming a mob and engaging in vigilante action is very dangerous, which
is why it is illegal in many countries. Just as an angry mob of people
is a threat to civil order, so is a vigilante action dangerous to the
internet. Even if you happen to sympathize with the particular wrong
that a vigilante action aims to correct, the process is so broken and
dangerous that we should advocate strongly against it and avoid any
temptation to participate.
--
Seth Goodman
Reply to: