On Nov 20, 2007 3:11 PM, Alex Pilosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:21:19 PST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > > This seems a rather unwise policy on behalf of cox.net -- their > > > customers can originate scam emails, but cox.net abuse desk apparently > > > does not care to hear about it. > > > > Seems to be perfectly wise if you're a business and care more about > > making money than getting all tangled up in pesky things like morals and > > ethics. It's great when you can help the balance sheet by converting > > "ongoing support costs" and "loss of paying customers" into what > > economists call "externalities" (in other words, they make the > > decisions, but somebody else gets to actually pay for the choices made). > This is one of the threads where posting further will not be productive. > > Cox abuse has been named and shamed, and hopefully, the next post we see > to the thread will be from them. > > As a reminder, political discussions, and discussions about spam filtering > (other than operational, such as abuse@ or [EMAIL PROTECTED]) are off-topic > for > nanog. Please keep it this way.
Actually, filtering techniques as applies to the operational aspect of a mailer, MX to MX, are fine. -M< (BTW: Next time please run this to the MLC beforehand. Our public policy says "consensus based" and public. You forgot the consensus part.)
