[outages] [Outages-discussion] NANOG

[Larry Sheldon]

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)