North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Lazy network operators - NOT
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Doug White wrote: > Well, Paul did advance a methodology - blackhole them all <grin> If Paul came up with a practical way to fix millions of compromised computers which didn't involve hiring entire second-world countries to talk grandma through the process, I think many people would be interested in talking to him. On the other hand, repeately shocking the rat regardless of what it does, just results in the rat sitting in the cage afraid to do anything. > I prefer to send a > > 550 IP blocked for USE - for resolution contact your service provider. If you haven't noticed, the infected user doesn't notice this. However many other people with legitimate uses are frequently caught up in the collateral damage. That's why I keep advocating better ways to identify the specific sources of the unwanted traffic, even if they change IP addresses. That way you could positively block the infected computers from not only mail but anything else you don't want to supply (no more GOOGLE/YAHOO/CNN for you), without massive collateral damage. Then the cost-benefit equation would be closer. If you annoy a lot of people, lots of people can completely and positively ignore you. With better identification, you directly receive the benefit of keeping your computer clean. You eliminate the third-party dependency of needing to fix other's peoples mistakes in order to do your work. It also makes it easier for other people to take action, because the collateral damage is less. > The job becomes even more difficult when not everyone can agree on what is spam > and what is legitimate. Stop requiring people to agree on it. If you want to force third-parties to do stuff, you must define exactly what you want them to do or not do. On the other hand, if you have the power to make the decision yourself, you don't need to convince a third-party the activity was a violation.