[29857] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RBL-type BGP service for known rogue networks?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter van Dijk)
Sat Jul 8 13:25:30 2000
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 19:20:25 +0200
From: Peter van Dijk <petervd@vuurwerk.nl>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20000708192025.K16030@vuurwerk.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20000708131350.A20220@eiv.com>; from smcmahon@eiv.com on Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 01:13:50PM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 01:13:50PM -0400, Shawn McMahon wrote:
[snip]
>
> That's right; it's a very simplified technical description of what happens.
>
> You can get on the list after a single automatic test; not multiple complaints,
> not after being warned and refusing to fix things; just bang zoom, you're on.
Correct. I agree.
> I was not value-judging it, nor was I attempting to speak to their motivations,
> I was describing what happens.
Ok :)
> > That's because MAPS is not automated, and not objective. MAPS relies on
> > reports of abuse, which can be forged. IIRC MAPS does check if a server is
> > an open relay. If it didn't I would rant :)
>
> Again, nobody said it was objective. I was describing at a very high level how
> it works.
>
> As you will see from the rest of the discussion, the difference is important
> because spam relays can be objectively tested, but script kiddie harbors are
> going to be subjective.
Yes. The ORBS approach won't fit for what we're discussing. The MAPS
approach might.
> That's an important distinction for our discussion, don't you agree?
I agree, I was just defending ORBS because what you said seemed like a
value-judgement. I apologize for misreading.
Greetz, Peter.
--
petervd@vuurwerk.nl - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:ircoper]
