Re: Worsening google service reputation and abuse

[Mike Hammett via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

Sure, ultimate freedom, but freedom doesn't come without sacrifice and consequence. Allow or disallow whatever you 
want, but don't be upset when the community bands together to create best practices, you violate what the community 
considers best practice, and you get blocked from the community for violating those best practices to an egregious 
degree (from the standpoint of the community). I used community instead of individual because it's easier to defend.



----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 


----- Original Message -----
From: "nanog--- via NANOG" <nanog () lists nanog org>
To: "North American Network Operators Group" <nanog () lists nanog org>
Cc: nanog () immibis com
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 9:19:07 AM
Subject: Re: Worsening google service reputation and abuse

Should everyone have the freedom to police their own network the way 
they want, or should everyone police their network the way *you* want? 
If the latter, why *you* instead of, say, the way Donald Trump wants? He 
is the president after all.


On 18/08/25 13:42, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Everyone that has a network, everyone that runs an organisation that 
> provides and registers resources - netblocks, asns, domains .. 
> everyone that insists it isn’t their problem it is somebody else’s.
>
> --srs
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* nanog () immibis com <nanog () immibis com>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 18, 2025 4:42:46 PM
> *To:* North American Network Operators Group <nanog () lists nanog org>; 
> Suresh Ramasubramanian via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>
> *Cc:* Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists () gmail com>
> *Subject:* Re: Worsening google service reputation and abuse
> I'm curious who you think is the internet police.
>
>
> On 18 August 2025 04:18:18 CEST, Suresh Ramasubramanian via NANOG 
> <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
>
>     It isn’t just cops it is all the various people and orgs in the
>     ecosystem who are all convinced they aren’t the internet police. --srs
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     From: Michael Thomas via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> Sent:
>     Monday, August 18, 2025 7:46:01 AM To: nanog () lists nanog org
>     <nanog () lists nanog org> Cc: Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>
>     Subject: Re: Worsening google service reputation and abuse On
>     8/17/25 5:15 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian via NANOG wrote:
>
>         Real economics as a factor has been studied quite a lot -
>         check for papers by Vern Paxson, Stefan Savage etc and you’ll
>         find some going back 20+ years. A lot of the real economic
>         impact just doesn’t lie in technical solutions though. 
>
>     There is a lot of damage done for tons of things. Yet, Visa still
>     exists. Fraud exists. It's a cost of doing business. It's just
>     petty crime. Nothing is going to stop it. That is what the joke
>     is. The cops don't give a flying fuck about this, and never will.
>     They don't care about anything if it doesn't involve donuts. Mike
>
>         From: Marc Binderberger via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>
>         Date: Sunday, 17 August 2025 at 5:37 PM To: North American
>         Network Operators Group <nanog () lists nanog org> Cc: Marc
>         Binderberger <marc+lists () sniff es> Subject: Re: Worsening
>         google service reputation and abuse On Sat, 16 Aug 2025
>         17:24:04 -0700, Michael Thomas via NANOG wrote:
>
>             Barry has been going on about this idea for decades, I
>             think. It wouldn't work then, it won't work now. 
>
>         Until some idea suddenly works. Or an old idea becomes
>         feasible. Frankly, many things we take for granted today would
>         not exist with that "won't work" attitude. The better question
>         (imho) to Barry is: how is your idea different from the
>         already existing proposals? Barry has a reasonable theory -
>         that the economics of spamming is brittle - but it is just
>         that: a theory. And most of the (failed) proposals seem
>         academic and avoid actual "costs" in terms of money. Or raise
>         the real-world costs for everyone, if you need CPU cycles to
>         participate in the email system. So Barry stepping out of this
>         box and suggesting real economics as a factor is not
>         unreasonable. I am not sure if there are more concrete details
>         though (?).
>
>             Nobody can put up a coherent argument for why the current
>             cat and mouse situation isn't the acceptable balance, 
>
>         I guess "acceptable" can be defined as: Hey, I can always get
>         a free personal account with gmail. And as a company I pay
>         Google or Microsoft, save money on my IT staff. And good luck
>         blocking "me" (i.e. Google, Microsoft). Maybe a problem if you
>         are in the email business, fine with me, my domain is a
>         private hobby. In fact, for all their "flaws", seeing the
>         insanity of the know-it-all experts (some here on the list) I
>         think I prefer Google requesting some reputation steps and a
>         webpage explaining it. The alternative: being blocked for
>         "Excessive Spam - Come back when you have fixed it". No
>         further details. Sure, private domain, private VPS, no
>         BL/score listing that I can find ... fortunately that blocking
>         was just a Cc: to one of my posts, so I could not care less.
>         The acceptable state of the mail system today! So there you
>         may have an argument: that the increasing number of
>         mechanisms, lists, tricks make the mail system less work-able
>         and more broken. But I have no crystal ball, if email will
>         finally break or will keep going - I don't know. Would be just
>         sad if it breaks (but I have a gmail account as a backup ;-) Marc
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         NANOG mailing list
>         https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/SAZSIVJFOO2HJX4JPDFXXZZBLT3ZBKQ5/
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         NANOG mailing list
>         https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/DCKS64CINBGHI7M5I6IHMJ7NVCJLTBLG/
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     NANOG mailing list
>     https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/G7FDDNH3JPETIG2UGUL34POYPDO2BDGR/
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     NANOG mailing list
>     https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/Z54AAQL64TAPICROM3UEYHCOD73FQTWV/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/SQC2E3E2Y4Z3H44QANB6Z773FMAYDD33/

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/TPYI2J3L6IG5NSDZNR4HCEY4PQGSSYDR/