[29849] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RBL-type BGP service for known rogue networks?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Shawn McMahon)
Sat Jul 8 07:27:14 2000
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 07:24:15 -0400
From: Shawn McMahon <smcmahon@eiv.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20000708072415.A19815@eiv.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <39664EF2.F57FD3ED@depaul.edu>; from jtk@depaul.edu on Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 04:43:14PM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 04:43:14PM -0500, John Kristoff wrote:
>=20
> Regardless, if that were to be SOP, then I don't think that's the answer
> the Internet should be looking for. Hearing from others, it appears as
> though the MAPS approach may have the desired affect without blackholing
> sites recklessly.
That's what I was advocating.
The ORBS approach is completely justified for open relays, which are easily
testable programmatically (which is what they do), but clearly something li=
ke
the MAPS and/or UDP approach is necessary for this.
You can't really test people at random to see if they're harboring script k=
iddies,
you have to observe it in action and observe their reaction when contacted.
--GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE5Zw9fEcl9bQ0RMt0RAk+4AKCvmPMTkOt7kWpMOgQL2WvqLEB5jACcDCR9
fmFZ6l4LyXaw7JSJHRriXlQ=
=LfnK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw--
