[130746] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bret Clark)
Tue Oct 12 13:01:23 2010
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:57:55 -0400
From: Bret Clark <bclark@spectraaccess.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <9BFF0BE7-632F-47E1-8D0E-5B07A2A15C8E@ianai.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 10/12/2010 12:46 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> I kinda-sortta feel like many others who have posted here. This is a mail thing, not netops. Grow a pair and post under your own name. Is it even on-topic for NANOG? Etc.
>
> I even started typing a message to the effect of: "even though I don't like SORBS, they should be allowed to publish a list and let others do as they please". But then I realized, that is all this anonymous person is asking. Or at least it could be.
>
> If "iHate SORBS" wants to create a (another?) list of prefixes which should not be routed, and put SORBS on it, he (she?) should be allowed, just as SORBS should be allowed to have a list of mail servers SORBS doesn't like. Then each operator can decide whether to implement a block based on the list or not. Your network, your decision.
>
> Of course, I fully expect no one to implement the block. But that is no reason to deny the ability to create the list.
>
> Now, I feel like quoting Pastor Niemöller so we can end this thread. :)
>
>
Not to mention it's bad enough with congress trying to pass laws to make
us network operators police the Internet, I don't need to police SORBS
on top of it!
Bret
