-------- Original Message -------- Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [Alexander Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:55:02 +0200 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Alexander Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [swinog] Backbone Solutions is spamming again.
On Tue, 30 March 2004 12:23:30 +0200, Jon Martin wrote:
Hi all,
I'm interested in why de-peering is seen as an appropriate response to the spamming issue. What is the desired result? What relief does this bring to the victims of the spam? Or is this only used as a way to censure the offending network?
Help me determine why I should de-peer with AS13250. ;-)
You want to put anti- spam clauses in your peering contracts or agreements, rather, simply to make ppl hurt for doing such things, which are bad things no matter how you put it.
Spam sucks, and in no variant I can imagine spam sucks less.
Regards, Alexander
(my very private opinion)
---------------------------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maillist-Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/swinog%40swinog.ch/
