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

[Sabri Berisha <sabri () vuurwerk nl>]

On Sun, 9 Jul 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

> > Sabri Berisha: Sunday, July 09, 2000 8:27 AM

> > I can understand your grief. However, I expect you to have
> > the same commen
> > sense most of us have and you will probably know who to blame
> > for this. Do
> > you wish to blame the spammers or the volunteers who fight
> > spam?
>
> Now that you mention it, yes I do. Spammers don't block access.
> The RBL, which my systems subscribe to, only lists systems that
> are PROVEN to originate or relay spam. ORBS simply is on the
> "close all relays" jihad even if the system never saw spam. 

It is not about a war against open relays. It's about giving a network
admin the *choice* to accept mail from open relays.

> This
> is very Napoleanic, not something that I can condone. Also, as I
> said, there are valid reasons to allow third-party relays. 

Allowing third-party relays may affect more than your own users...

> If you don't see requireing internal confidential email to go
> through an untrusted IAP mail hub as a security issue then we
> have nothing more to talk about.

Ever heared of pgp?
 
> > You can find the criteria on http://www.orbs.org
>
> The criteria is arguable, but more importantly, where is the
> oversight?

What do you mean by oversight?

> > You are free to come with a proposal?
>
> How about setting up a REAL organization for once, rather than
> these ad hoc hanging committees? You know, incorporate a
> non-profit, feed it $$$ and watch it grow? Require membership
> approval, oversight, etc.? You know, legitimate operations.

Like I said; come with a proposal and we can all see if we can agree on 
it?

-- 
Sabri Berisha