On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Mark Segal wrote:
I think some RBLs might get better responses from the ISPs when they stop taking "collateral damage gets the abuse department's attention" attitudes.. Some RBLs cause many providers a LOT of headaches, so it is not surprising that when it is their turn to complain, the ISPs will just say: post to abuse.ddos.isp.net and we might get around to fixing it. :).
Regards, Mark
True. However I also subsribe those beliefs. When an ISP knowingly allows a spammer to sign up for network service, knowing full well what they are planning to do with it (read: pink contracts), and ignores abuse complaints then what other form of action is there than to use collateral damage at that ISP? Providers more often than not intentionally put non-spamming customers' networks within spitting distance of their spamming customers in the hopes that RBLs won't blacklist the provider's networks around the spammers. I don't want to start an off-topic flame thread on NANOG but the merits of collateral damage have been discussed numerous times in numerous places. Many people won't use it. Most don't like it. No one has offered another plausible alternative. Anyhow, this is getting OT. Back to the topic at hand, DNS RBLs coming under the gun. :-( Justin