Recent issue with SORBS

[Res]

Oh my lots of typos.
You get the jist of what I was saying.. I hope... Time for bed I think...


On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Res 
wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, am.lists wrote:
>
>> Part of what SORBS does by doing entire netblocks is intentionally
>> causing pain/grief for the host. It's a negative reinforcement
>> attitude. Punish the many for the deeds of a few, and everyone will
>
> LIke I said in  a previous post, it is not the normal way they do things, 
> they might reserve the right to, and may in cases , like yours, do it, but 
> given my other comment about blocking 66.x.x.x ranges I did, may in fact be 
> the same reason SORBS  use netblocks.
>
>> [hopefully] learn from it and stop doing the bad things.
>
> Mostly they do, but some dont, some just dont even want to know.
>
>> 
>> In this situation, it forces providers to be stricter on their
>> customers (well, in therory at least).
>
> Providors have a responsibility to the internet community to keep their 
> customers in check. They get one warning from me, then suspension until they 
> can prove why I should let them back on, 3rd time I don't care you're gone, 
> however if it is deliberate spam, no warnings, no suspensions, it's
> instant termination of all services, their acceptance of the service
> contract is the only warning they get, if like most custoemrs enver read the 
> terms bewfore singing, well thats just tuff luck for them :)
>
>
>

-- 
Cheers
Res

"We can be Heroes, just for one day" - Davey (Jones) Bowie