Re: RBL-type BGP service for known rogue networks?

[Peter van Dijk <petervd () vuurwerk nl>]

On Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 01:13:50PM -0400, Shawn McMahon wrote:
[snip]
> That's right; it's a very simplified technical description of what happens.
>
> You can get on the list after a single automatic test; not multiple complaints,
> not after being warned and refusing to fix things; just bang zoom, you're on.

Correct. I agree.

> I was not value-judging it, nor was I attempting to speak to their motivations,
> I was describing what happens.

Ok :)

> > That's because MAPS is not automated, and not objective. MAPS relies on
> > reports of abuse, which can be forged. IIRC MAPS does check if a server is
> > an open relay. If it didn't I would rant :)
>
> Again, nobody said it was objective.  I was describing at a very high level how
> it works.
>
> As you will see from the rest of the discussion, the difference is important
> because spam relays can be objectively tested, but script kiddie harbors are
> going to be subjective.

Yes. The ORBS approach won't fit for what we're discussing. The MAPS
approach might.

> That's an important distinction for our discussion, don't you agree?

I agree, I was just defending ORBS because what you said seemed like a
value-judgement. I apologize for misreading.

Greetz, Peter.
-- 
petervd () vuurwerk nl - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:ircoper]