>Several of the spam databases list huge blocks -- in your case, >http://www.spambag.org/cgi-bin/spambag?record=sprintlink shows that they >block a whole /12 range (4,096 class C ranges). These (SPAMBAG, XBL, and >a couple others) just aren't used to block spam. They are used to get >people's attention.
I would say "inflict maximum pain on the network owner and collateral damage to innocents". I think this is a valid tactic, at this advanced state of the mail abuse war, when a network is a source of abuse. If the network owner does not stop the abuse, he will lose innocent clients. The objective of such punishment would be deterrence. Blocking a single ip for abuse is minimizing the pain and damage. We are way past such politically correct, kid-gloves treatment. Quite the opposite, we have been in brass-knuckles, knife-fight, below-the-belt battle for quite some time. Len www.menandmice.com/DNS-training : DNS Training BIND8NT.MEIway.com : ISC BIND for NT4 & W2K IMGate.MEIway.com : Build free, hi-perf, anti-abuse mail gateways Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html to be removed from this list. An Archive of this list is available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Please visit the Knowledge Base for answers to frequently asked questions: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
