|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:04:37 -0800 From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@eeph.com> Reply-To: matthew@eeph.com To: nanog@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0701312016440.4020@evccyr> Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu Brian Wallingford wrote: > ... Considering the time passed since maps went > defunct, Paul is entirely justified in doing whatever is necessary to > cluebat the offending networks, imho. That's my opinion too. But I do have some domain name server addresses that get a lot of traffic due to historical misconfiguration by people who are likely too clueless to adjust it properly. And I tried some interesting experiments around providing "wrong" wildcard answers to queries that were received. And then, after getting some nasty complaints (including threats of legal action) from people who, for instance, didn't like that whenever their PC tried to use me as a resolver, they couldn't get to their favorite web sites any more and who weren't interested in removing me from their resolver list... I talked to my lawyer. And while I am not a lawyer, I can tell you that my lawyer pointed out several interesting legal theories under which I could have some serious liability, and so I don't do that any more. (As an example, consider what happens *to you* if a hospital stops getting emailed results back from their outside laboratory service because their "email firewall" is checking your server, and someone dies as a result of the delay) So while I think you'd be justified in doing it, I think you'd find that 1) lots of people wouldn't change their configs at all, and 2) you might find that your liability insurance doesn't cover deliberate acts. Matthew Kaufman matthew@eeph.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |