North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: RBL-type BGP service for known rogue networks?
On Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 08:00:34PM -0400, Steve Sobol wrote: > > [sigh... I thought this wasn't going to turn into a big debate] > > "Greg A. Woods" wrote: > > > It is critically important to also realise that "ORBS" itself doesn't > > "go crazy" and do these things -- such "rogue net-block" listings are > > directly a result of pressure from ORBS users. > > The issue isn't with ORBS, it's with Alan Brown, the administrator. > > Alan runs what could be a useful service, but if you don't allow him > to test your systems, he adds you to a "static" list... in his defense, > this is NOT a list of systems that have tested as open relays, but many > people block sites on that list too, even if there is no documented > spam coming from those IP's. Yes. The problem then lies with 'many people' and not with Alan. Alan provides a way to objectively lookup known open relays, and you are also able to find out that a host is 'untested' instead of a 'verified open relay'. You may choose to block those too. Good arguments for that can be found. The problem with ORBS is that many people implement it incorrectly, and then ORBS is blamed. > It's ridiculous. He also doesn't stop when told not to probe people's > networks. RoadRunner and AboveNet both blocked him because he refused > to honor the requests to stop, and of course they both were subsequently > placed on the list of untestable systems. AboveNet blocks without warning. I do not know about RoadRunner. [snip] > > But I will not use ORBS as a spamblocking tool. Neither will I. Even tho I like ORBS and support it's goals (the hosting company I work for hosts the current ORBS relay tester, even!), I feel that I as an admin do not have the right to block mail for my users. I will someday (when I find the time :) [snip] > > e-mail). To this end an impartial and independent testing service such > > as ORBS > > ORBS isn't always "impartial." Until someone shows me an example of *one* host that is *not* an open relay that still got listed *as an open relay*, I firmly believe that ORBS is impartial. > > Finally it cannot be pointed out enough times that the administrators of > > the so-called "rogue" blocks need only change their attitudes and > > Yeah, ok. RoadRunner isn't rogue. Neither is AboveNet. AboveNet is. > > Being irrational about public testing of public services > > I'm sorry. If you're doing something to my network, and I ask you > not to do it, you stop. If you do not stop, I block you (and > possibly complain to your service provider.) You do not have > the ultimate right to determine what I do with my network. I own > the network, and as the network owner, I am the one with that > right. Correct. This is why ORBS has the 'untested/untestable' listing. You request ORBS to stop, ORBS puts you in *that* lists and won't ever probe you again. > Maybe people aren't justified in asking Alan to stop. That doesn't > justify Alan ignoring them. I have found Alan to be a very reasonable and thoughtful guy. Greetz, Peter. -- firstname.lastname@example.org - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:ircoper]