George Herbert <george.herb...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:06 PM, <goe...@anime.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, George Herbert wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:11:49 -0500, Grant Ridder said: >>>>> >>>>> I love spam from Honduras. I am hoping that someone is going to kick >>>>> this >>>>> email from the members list. >>>> >>>> I'm hoping for something a tad more drastic. The bozo has an upstream, >>>> and this >>>> is NANOG. :) >>> >>> Back when I was at Berkeley, we used to punish offenders by routing >>> their packets out to Finland and back (before Finland's net admins >>> figured out what we were doing and quite rightly complained). >>> >>> Does anyone have a very lightly used, long long low bandwidth link >>> they can dedicate to The Cause? >> >> >> I'm thinking wire cutters would be more effective. >> >> -Dan > > No, no, no no. > > The objective is to maximize wasted spammer time. The trick is to not > just disconnect them - that happens every day, they just move on. > It's to make their life irritating, painful, and less productive, to > the point where time they'd be spending getting new business and > working on new anti-filtering technology is spent corresponding with > net providers and doing network quality checks, wondering if they > should or have to bail out of a now flaky network. With just the > right mixture, you can waste five, ten, twenty times more of their > time with a carefully engineered glitch than you can just chopping > them off. > > They've already factored wire cutters in; raise the bar.
per-packet load-balancing between default route and null0 could accomplish that goal. -r
