<html>
<body>
<font size=3>Not what I meant. What I said was this IS a
problem. Entities buying large blocks, reselling them, then washing
their hands of the responsibility is a HUGE problem. I couldn't
agree with you more. They ARE as responsible as the abuser.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.<br><br>
Brian<br><br>
At 11:34 18 02 03 Tuesday, you wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Brian:<br>
Being a vocal anti-spammer, I have to disagree with this statement
(or<br>
did you not mean it to sound this way). Just because a provider SWIP's
an<br>
address block to someone who deploys it on another network does not
mean<br>
they are absolved of responsibility for its use. The "chain of
custody" is<br>
critical. If a provider reassigns space and accepts no responsibility
for<br>
its use, they should be considered as culpable as the actual
abuser.<br><br>
Chuck<br><br>
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Brian S. Bergin wrote:<br><br>
> If I might, while I'm new to this list, I deal with the junk
daily. The <br>
> problem is ISPs and individuals buying large blocks of IPs then
reselling <br>
> them to others and then washing their hands of the mess. I can
point you <br>
> to dozens of examples of this. Someone goes out and buy 30-40
/24's then <br>
> sells them to whomever will pay for them and since they're not
hosted on <br>
> the same backbone as the address owner they are not held liable by
their <br>
> upstream provider(s) for the spam generated on the resold
blocks. Those <br>
> blocks often end up in Asia or South America where ISPs often do not
<br>
> enforce any kind of AUP.</font></blockquote></body>
</html>