On 10/26/2015 10:41, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/26/2015 06:46, John Souvestre via Outages wrote:
I haven’t seen anything but a steady stream of spam on NANOG for the last 1.5 days or so. Is this what you are seeing? They can’t filter it?
I have no useful information for the currently active problem except to say that identifying it is so trivial that my Thunderbird filters catch 100% of it with no false positives.
I do have one or more questions that I will raise on -discussion.
My apologies for the duplicate--I did not recognize the addressing error. I am no longer on the line, but back in the day I got banned from NANOG several times for raising the issues of network abuse and insisting that abuse of the network was a proper topic for Network Operators. But in spite of the fact that I managed a 65,000-address address space with several thousand active addresses spread of much of eastern Nebraska, I was not worthy of any respect. In addition, it appears that the major operators were (are?) in fact pro-abuse because it generates revenue producing traffic. No argument that people who provide "for a cash cost transit" get paid for the abuse traffic. One of my questions is this: Don't the people that have to pay for transit have an interest in reducing the traffic they have to pay for? A related question: Don't the people that operate networks have a loss in man-power dollars supporting the abuse traffic? In equipment dollars? In loss of goodwill? -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)