|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: RBL-type BGP service for known rogue networks?
> Sabri Berisha: Sunday, July 09, 2000 10:15 AM > > 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. The problem is that what ORBS calls an open relay may, in fact, only be a third-party relay to limited net-blocks. > > 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? Yep ... and that dog don't hunt well ... Lottsa reasons. We have X.509 mail certs but I don't want to predict what our marketing types wind up setting their Outlook2K to after the third mail hub address change. Not all of us have little beanies with propellers on them. > > > 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? Who watches the watchers? > > > 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? I think I just did <g>. Look faster as it comes by again... Volunteers tend to join these things because they are true believers. It's about time we had some objective paid professional help on these sorts of things.
|