Subject:
|
Re: eBay nailed?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Feb 2000 14:43:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
693 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.theory, Troy Cefaratti writes:
> Frank Filz <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:38A1735A.6EEA@mindspring.com...
> > What we need to do very soon is start charging per packet. It could be
> > kept very cheap, but that would trim SPAM and most of these denial of
> > service activities.
>
> Charging for packet transfer will not solve ANY of these problems, as most
> of these things are done by shady charachters who mask their original
> identity and location.
Charging for packet transfer might well indeed incent those large server admins
that seem to be lax to tighten up a bit. I don't think that it's fair NOT to
charge an admin who has a big machine that is an "attractive nuisance", just as
it's not fair to not hold a property owner who keeps open mineshafts on his
property in sight of kids on a playground liable for an "attractive nuisance".
Tim Courtney, in another thread on another group, spoke of the spamcop.com site
which leads to orbs.org which is a watchdog site for open relay machines.
http://www.orbs.org/
Neat reading.
Here are some machines where sysadmins have been told of security holes and
either: are in league with spammers, or: don't care, or: are clueless. Why NOT
charge them for packets? They've been warned and don't seem to care.
Now, DoS attacks and spam are only mildly related, but both waste bandwidth and
both may well be checked a bit by per packet charges.
Bandwidth isn't free and I would say that a sysadmin who through his negligence
allows his bitpipes to be polluted with crud, thus polluting the internet
environment, is just as liable as a plant engineer at a chemical plant who
through his negligence allows discharge pipes to be polluted with chemical
waste, thus polluting his environment.
So hopefully you see what I'm saying because I cut the rest of the post away.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: eBay nailed?
|
| (...) and (...) NOT (...) bandwidth and (...) negligence (...) away. (...) Under the conditions you describe above, it would surely work. And if an admin has been warned, then I agree, they should be held accountable. I still feel, however, that on (...) (25 years ago, 11-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: eBay nailed?
|
| Frank Filz <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:38A1735A.6EEA@m...ing.com... (...) Charging for packet transfer will not solve ANY of these problems, as most of these things are done by shady charachters who mask their original identity and (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
