[78659] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: sorbs.net
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Mar 15 15:28:53 2005
To: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:42:24 CST."
<200503151942.j2FJgOwv001093@host122.r-bonomi.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:28:17 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1110918497_4720P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:42:24 CST, Robert Bonomi said:
> As with any other 'voluntary use' blocklist, it's "clout" is only as good
> as the number of people using it. If serious questions arose as to the
> 'integrity' of the list, or the list operator, the vast majority of the
> mail-server operators using it would *stop* doing so. And any lack of
> integrity would be a moot issue, since 'practically nobody' would still
> be using it. It is _textbook_perfect_ "self regulation" at work.
This is, of course, making the rather big assumption that the person who
decided to use said blocklist:
a) was fully cognizant of the list's goals and policies when they chose to use it.
*and*
b) is willing and able to track deviations on an ongoing basis.
*and*
c) whoever replaces them is also able to do so.
If it was in fact "textbook perfect", we'd never hear about stuff breaking when
a block list goes belly up with six month's warning, and people *still* being
surprised when suddenly everything returns 127.0.0.2 and a lot of mail goes kaboing.
--==_Exmh_1110918497_4720P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFCN0VgcC3lWbTT17ARAh12AJ47lDM0d4WEYAyj/h1GZc5j5bkaaQCgsDGg
2OTHi9ah7rO0DcSudf712LM=
=iPyf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1110918497_4720P--
