Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks

["Fergie" <fergdawg () netzero net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

- -- Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org> wrote:

1. There's nothing "indiscriminate" about it.

> I often block /24's and larger because I'm holding the *network* operators
> responsible for what comes out of their operation.  If they can't hold
> the outbound abuse down to a minimum, then I guess I'll have to make
> up for their negligence on my end.  I don't care why it happens -- they
> should have thought through all this BEFORE plugging themselves in
> and planned accordingly.  ("Never build something you can't control.")

I would have to respectfully disagree with you. When network
operators do due diligence and SWIP their sub-allocations, they
(the sub-allocations) should be authoritative in regards to things
like RBLs.

$.02,

- - ferg

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.0 (Build 214)

wj8DBQFGGBIlq1pz9mNUZTMRAkLuAJ4sjBnZ1IF4FBjFvMn4NlgK7lZysgCg3gT2
8e9PswhChgNhDHnCsY+Yf9M=
=oJaW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawg(at)netzero.net
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/