On Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 01:13:50PM -0400, Shawn McMahon wrote: [snip]
That's right; it's a very simplified technical description of what happens.
You can get on the list after a single automatic test; not multiple complaints, not after being warned and refusing to fix things; just bang zoom, you're on.
Correct. I agree.
I was not value-judging it, nor was I attempting to speak to their motivations, I was describing what happens.
Ok :)
That's because MAPS is not automated, and not objective. MAPS relies on reports of abuse, which can be forged. IIRC MAPS does check if a server is an open relay. If it didn't I would rant :)
Again, nobody said it was objective. I was describing at a very high level how it works.
As you will see from the rest of the discussion, the difference is important because spam relays can be objectively tested, but script kiddie harbors are going to be subjective.
Yes. The ORBS approach won't fit for what we're discussing. The MAPS approach might.
That's an important distinction for our discussion, don't you agree?
I agree, I was just defending ORBS because what you said seemed like a value-judgement. I apologize for misreading. Greetz, Peter. -- petervd@vuurwerk.nl - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:ircoper]