>> end of story.
It strikes ME (from a _victim's_ point of view, naturally) that maybe
24 hours is at least 23.75 hours *TOO*LONG to be getting shat upon by
the customer of an ISP that doesn't know how (or doesn't care enough)
to require that the customer _not_ do that.
You can run your network 'however you d*mn well please'.
I have the same right, as regards _my_ network.
IF some other network causes my network problems, _I_ have a solution for that
problem. I don't accept *anything* from the ISP that lets their customer
'run amok' even if "only for a _little_ while".
This fixes _my_ problem. If my 'solution' causes *you* difficulties, too bad,
that's not *my* problem.
If you don't like the way _I_ deal with problems *your* customer causes me,
then avoiding it *really* is simple -- SEE TO IT that your customer _does_
_not_cause_me_ problems in the first place.
The cold, cruel, fact is that you ARE "known by the customers you keep".
If they screw up, you _are_ held responsible. This _is_ the way the
Internet works. Other people 'extend trust' to you -- allowing you to
use parts of _their_ networks (like incoming mail servers) at no cost to
you *ON*THE*ASSUMPTION* that you will not abuse that _privilege_. If you
take advantage of, or otherwise abuse, that trust, they reserve the right
to revoke it.
If you choose to let others use your network resources and connectivity,
you _are_ responsible to see to it that _they_ behave appropriately as
well. Failure to do so is an abuse of the trust that the rest of the
net has extended to you AS A NETWORK OPERATOR. If your customers abuse
other people's resources, *you* will be held responsible, as well the
actual abuser. It can be argued, in the case of the end-user that
'they didn't know any better'. You, the provider do *NOT* have that excuse;
you are *supposed* to 'know better' -- that's part of being a professional
in the business. *AND* a claim by the customer that they (the customer)
'didn't know any better' is an indictment of _your_ failings as a provider
to see that they _were_ so educated *BEFORE* letting them use your network.
People like '
backscatters.org' don't "owe you" a d*mn thing -- the only
people they need to keep happy are the people who _use_ their service.
Any systemic/systematic 'errors' in operation are _self-correcting_; if
the rules by which the list operates are not a 'good match' with the
policies of the sites using it, those sites _stop_ using it -- and the
effectiveness of the list decreases accordingly. Such a list has an
impact that is directly related to the number/size of places that feel
it's policies *ARE* an appropriate response to the problem being addressed.
If that causes _you_ (a non-user of the list) problems, "Tough sh*t" applies.
The list operator _doesn't_care_ whether you are happy or not. :)
If you think there's a 'better' way to do it, feel free to start such a
list and _prove_ it. If it really _is_ better, the user community will
start using your list *instead* of the inferior one. And thus your problem
is SOLVED.
"Put up, or shut up" applies.`
As for your "bright idea" of "notify the ISP first", *WHO*PAYS* them to
do that? Do you really think they should work for you (an ISP) for free?
Any ISP that _CARES_TO_, can monitor network traffic on their network, and
detect the things that '
backscatters.org' objects to -- and do it *LONG*BEFORE*
'
backscatters.org' sees enough reports to take action.
You have a choice:
1) continue sloppy enforcement of policy, with the resultant listings,
because thats all the effort you're "willing to spend" on the problem.
2) take the steps necessary to fully eliminate the problem from your network.
One choice is 'cheap' and delivers impaired Internet connectivity.
The other costs more money, but lets you deliver 'what you promised' to your
customers.
The choice *IS* yours. "Choose wisely."
