while i'm on the subject of filtering, here's today's list of spammers

> No, it isn't. You have guests and other users. If you have IP customers,
> then they have guests and other online users. By accepting spam you allow
> your resources (which you offer for cooperative reasons) to be used in a
> noncooperative way. If you have downstream customers you are subjecting
> them to the same abuse.

We offer our customers Internet access, and when they complain about
spammers we do something about it. However, what we do affects only our
network and our customers. It does not affect the world as a whole?

  why does everyone keep insinuating that paul is blocking root level
name service from the whole world? that's essentially the argument
and it's completely off base.

  i can admit that *maybe* it's not even reasonable (even after my
last post) to block *any* entity from reaching a single root name
server but this is turning into a tar and feathering of paul for
"affecting the world as a whole" which is way out of proportion.

> connections.

Again, you can't block everyone. Why you feel it necessary to impose your
social mores on the net as a whole is beyond me.

  sigh. when has he imposed his social mores on anyone here? paul
blackholes spam sites *within* his own network which he pays for. he
happens to run a public root name server (one of many) and the spam
sites are denied access to part of the public resource (root name

  you can *actively* (as opposed to passively or without your
permission) take this list of networks from paul via a bgp peering
session and block access from spammers within your own network.

  so where in that scenario is paul forcing morals on anyone? or
blocking the "whole world" from reaching a root name server in his