I am a 99% lurker, but I didn't assume you were beating around the bush. It *seems* to me that in response to complaints about how several blacklists were run you said that because blacklists are subscription services, and everyone has a choice whether or not to use them, that the poorly-operated blacklists are not dangerous. That implies (to me!) an understatement of the potential effect of poorly-operated blacklists. If I am wrong in that implication, I apologise. ------ Benjamin P. Grubin, CISSP, GIAC Information Security Consulting bgrubin@pobox.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Steven J. Sobol Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 11:13 PM To: Benjamin P. Grubin Cc: 'Dan Hollis'; 'Regis M. Donovan'; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: SPEWS?
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Benjamin P. Grubin wrote:
Saying that a report is voluntary and/or advisory gets more and more irrelevant as rate of adoption increases. Yes, the thousands of credit card companies could choose to evaluate you in any manner they wish, but yet they *all* judge you solely on your credit report. So in *reality*, is it really still useful to say it is voluntary and advisory therefore undeserving of scrutiny/complaint?
I'm really not sure why you're making these assumptions. I don't beat around the bush... I've never seen you on NANOG before, nor have I talked to you in any other venue, so I assume you aren't aware of that particular point. I didn't say SPEWS or any other listing service was undeserving of scrutiny. I didn't even try to imply that.
-- Steve Sobol, CTO JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH 888.480.4NET - I do my best work with one of my cockatiels sitting on each shoulder - 6/4/02:A USA TODAY poll found that 80% of Catholics advocated a zero-tolerance stance towards abusive priests. The fact that 20% didn't, scares me...