North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Criminals, The Network, and You [Was: Something Else]

  • From: Sean Donelan
  • Date: Tue Sep 18 14:47:01 2007

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
here because I found the contrast between their years-long history of utter
negligence and their officially-stated position to be particularly striking.
Comcast, Charter, SBCGlobal, Ameritech, Level3, SWBell, Nextgentel, Pacbell,
and Qwest, just to name a few off the cuff, are equally culpable.

They all suck isn't very useful information. Although collectively they've probably fixed hundreds of thousands of customer computers over
the years, like bad Boston drivers, there is always more.

Instead of they suck, it might be more useful to highlight providers of
similar scale which you think do a good job which others could emulate.

Anyway: the use of generic rDNS patterns for outright rejection turns out
to be quite effective with a very low FP rate.

Some people think that users on dynamic addresses should be read-only, and
not allowed to operate servers or send messages. Like most forms of red-lining, it tends to become self-fulling. Websites that only support Internet Explorer probably get very few false positives because people affected are used to working around that or just ignore them. Networks
that don't update their Bogon lists probably get very few false positives
because people learn to work around them or ignore them. And so on.

Unlesss accept all those messages from those addresses and check them, you really don't know the false positive rate. You only know the self-reported complaint rate; which is usually a fraction of the actual false positive rate.