🚀 go-pugleaf

chrisw@wwa.com (Chris Williams) wrote:

>>However, you cite no provable connection between Verio
>>mining and Verio causing a DoS

>Sure, but Holtzman was worried (rightly so) about getting sued, and 
>couldn't name names. So the writer was forced to *infer* that Verio is
>one of the culprits of the DOS. 

Hell, I've had people infer and hint at and imply all kinds of things
about me - that doesn't make any of them true.

It's fun to get wound up over things like this, but I prefer to have
real evidence at hand before I go jumping ship.

Of course, if you're jumping ship because the service at WWA suddenly
sucks, that's another thing entirely!

>Sure, but if the people who bought my ISP are paper-spamming every
>owner of a .com domain, I want nothing to do with them.

Fair enough, and I can appreciate that. Heck, Enteract recently had a
little taste of that sort of thing when they sent out a snailmail
advertisement to their own customers and received heat for it.

Oh, an argumentative aside (sorry, can't help myself) - paper-based
junkmail isn't spam. It's annoying as hell, yes, but the sender bears
the burden of the cost, which is what differentiates it from
e-mail/usenet spam.

>It indicates a poor understanding of the culture of the Internet, 
>and a disregard of the value of WhoIs.

Here we're in full agreement. All I can figure is that someone
somewhere must actually buy stuff from spammers, since the practice
continues to be so commonplace. I'd love to be able to simultaneously
whack the spammers *and* their idiot customers on the head with a
stick.