Ronald F Guilmette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let's just say that it would be a Better World if everyone who provides
> bandwidth to spam sources would be somewhat more pro-active about its
> elimination.
Sure, agreed. But at the same time, in general when peering with someone
(whether at the IP layer or the application layer), there's some degree of
mutual respect and ongoing relationship, and people have a right to police
their own houses in a way that they consider appropriate (provided that
the results are acceptable).
The way I see it, there's a chain of appeal. The end-user provider,
whether for the machine originating the spam, the machine relaying the
spam, or the machine providing hosting services for the drop-box or web
site, should be the first contact. If that first contact is ignored, then
escalation to their upstream providers or peers may be appropriate.
I'm not familiar with the intricacies of IP peering, but to take an
example from an area that I am very familiar with (namely news peering),
it annoys me to get complaints about spam originating at my peers when the
person has clearly not even attempted to contact the originating site
first directly (or is just cc'ing everyone in the Path header). If they
can show that they've already contacted the other site and they didn't
respond, then I might be able to do something, but otherwise the complaint
is just going to get ignored (since I generally have some trust in the
abuse desks of sites that I peer with).
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
