[56223] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: anti-spam vs network abuse
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Irving)
Fri Feb 28 17:23:36 2003
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:15:28 -0500
From: Richard Irving <rirving@onecall.net>
To: Andy Dills <andy@xecu.net>
Cc: Charlie Clemmer <cclemmer@nexgennetworks.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> In this case, your door being unlocked cannot cause me harm. However, an
> "unlocked proxy" can. Legit probes are an attempt to mitigate network
> abuse, not increase it. If there was a sanctioned body who was trusted to
> scan for such things, maybe this wouldn't be an issue. But there's not, so
> it's a vigilante effort.
Not completely "Vigilante", many of the Network providers reserve
the right to "manage" (including probe) any network block that
they -=announce=-... if not, they simply won't announce it.
(While I have experienced many a probe, I have neither heard of
anyone actually being declined from announcement, nor have
I been part of such an experience, FWIW, but the right is "reserved".)
That activity is considered by many,
proper administrative "due diligence", or "managed network service".
Now, if Genuity were to start probing UUnet blocks, then that
becomes a little more "Vigilante"... although, in most cases, not
illegal.
(AFAICT)
[Any comments construed as legal advice, are purely do to an errant
perception on the part of the reader... illigitimi non carborundum]
