Re: Cisco 2611 as a firewall?

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@example.com>]

>>>>> "jb" == Jonathan Q <jq@example.com> writes:

    jb> Stephen J. Turnball (turnbull@example.com) wrote:
    >> Don't terminate them, just charge by the packet.  Free up to a
    >> certain number, then exponentially.

    jb> This sounds like an argument that it's OK to spam as long as
    jb> you pay the sending ISP?  What about paying the receiving ISP
    jb> and the spam victim?  They deserve at least compensation for
    jb> their costs.

Do the math, man.  It's punitive, just looks reasonable.  You remember
the story about the Rajah and the wizard who invented chess?  Bill
Gates couldn't afford spam #564 on my fee schedule.

If we had the infrastructure, I'd really like to see a
"fee-for-acceptance" structure.  "I don't feel like talking to anyone
today, $50/packet except Mom is free."  Since we don't, let the ISP do
the enforcement, and collect the fines to pay for their trouble.

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."