nanog mailing list archives
Re: sorbs.net
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:28:17 -0500
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:42:24 CST, Robert Bonomi said:
As with any other 'voluntary use' blocklist, it's "clout" is only as good as the number of people using it. If serious questions arose as to the 'integrity' of the list, or the list operator, the vast majority of the mail-server operators using it would *stop* doing so. And any lack of integrity would be a moot issue, since 'practically nobody' would still be using it. It is _textbook_perfect_ "self regulation" at work.
This is, of course, making the rather big assumption that the person who decided to use said blocklist: a) was fully cognizant of the list's goals and policies when they chose to use it. *and* b) is willing and able to track deviations on an ongoing basis. *and* c) whoever replaces them is also able to do so. If it was in fact "textbook perfect", we'd never hear about stuff breaking when a block list goes belly up with six month's warning, and people *still* being surprised when suddenly everything returns 127.0.0.2 and a lot of mail goes kaboing.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: sorbs.net, (continued)
- Re: sorbs.net Jay R. Ashworth (Mar 22)
- Re: sorbs.net Wes Hardaker (Mar 22)
- Re: sorbs.net Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 22)
- Re: sorbs.net Suresh Ramasubramanian (Mar 22)
- Re: sorbs.net Christopher L. Morrow (Mar 21)
- RE: sorbs.net Hannigan, Martin (Mar 15)
- RE: sorbs.net Edward B. Dreger (Mar 15)
- Re: sorbs.net Niels Bakker (Mar 15)
- Re: sorbs.net Edward B. Dreger (Mar 15)
- RE: sorbs.net Edward B. Dreger (Mar 15)
- Re: sorbs.net Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 15)
- Re: sorbs.net Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 15)
- Re: sorbs.net Jerry Pasker (Mar 15)
- Re: sorbs.net Paul Vixie (Mar 15)
- Re: sorbs.net william(at)elan.net (Mar 15)
- Message not available
- Re: Sorbs.net Jay R. Ashworth (Mar 28)
- real-time black-hole listing Douglas Otis (Mar 28)
- Re: Sorbs.net Dean Anderson (Mar 28)