|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:20:11 +0300 From: Petri Helenius <pete@he.iki.fi> To: Simon Lockhart <simon.lockhart@bbc.co.uk> Cc: Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>, nanog@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <20040628174323.GF18167@rd.bbc.co.uk> Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu Simon Lockhart wrote: > It's wholy unfair to the innocent parties affected by the blacklisting. > >i.e. the collateral damage. > > > YouŽll get burned anyway in a bad neighborhood because of the bandwidth consumed by the crap. >Say a phising site is "hosted" by geocities. Should geocities IP addresses >be added to the blacklist? > >What if it made it onto an akamaized service? Should all of akamai be >blacklisted? > > > As with any list, whitelisting space that takes care of complaints is always an option. >LINX produced a paper recently on why BGP poisoning is exactly the wrong >answer to removing access to undesirable web content (i.e. phising sites). >I've asked if it can be made public. > > Looking forward to it. Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |