Imri, On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Imri Zvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do you know abuse@ doesn't "really take care of users"? It seems like > your whole response is generalizing and vague. > I know because if after two weeks from their reply that they will "handle it" I see the same user doing the same thing again from the same ISP, then... What does an AUP worth if it is not enforced? The whole Israeli spam market is dominated by a VERY little amount of people, and there is a reason that they're still spamming. Given that there are like 3 ISPs in the country nowdays, they're not doing so because they jump from an ISP to ISP after each one is denying them service, rather then because they're paying customers, and denying them service means less income. > > I don't see how the old QoS argument as anything to do with dealing with > abuse. I must remind you that downloading copyrighted materiel is officially > abuse too. > > It does for a very simple reason; ISPs care only about cashflow. Removing bad users from the possibility to get service leads for less profits. Paying more for bandwidth leads for less profits. Re. your comment about copyrighted material, I have three things to say: 1. I don't really understand how is that abuse; You're not attacking any system, and you're distrubing no-one (besides RIAA, BSA and others - but that's not abuse). 2. The ISPs want to play the police and court? Fine, I guess it's their right (and being a FOSS user, I couldn't care less...) - if the law permits them to observe traffic and sabotage it - I have no problem with that (what about BitTorrent to download the latest Linux release?) 3. They DENY the fact that they're doing it! They claim that "there are no means to do that!". If you don't believe me, read official commentary from various spokesmen in Ynet articles regarding slow P2P in various ISPs. Finally, I was not even talking about P2P - that was YOUR assumption. They're [at least some of them] QoSing NON-HTTP traffic. Like CVS checkout from an Open Source project, or my connection to an IRC network (how else can you explain a 180ms ICMP but a 1 second IRC "ping" command roundtrip?). How is that an abuse or illegal? But that's really OT, so let's stop here. I was just giving another example for "we deserve this for not standing for our customer rights". -- Shimi
