On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
sean@donelan.com (Sean Donelan) writes:
If the block list operators think it is a "dialup" range, they pre-emptively block all the addresses in the range.
providers who refuse to enter the "race to the bottom" can get their dialup blocks delisted from any blackhole list operator i know of, just by demonstrating clue and conviction.
There are several blacklists that clearly want more from the ISP than an explanation that the offendors are being/were removed... one good example is 'spews'.
It has very little to do with the quality of the ISP's abuse desk.
long term, it does. my sister is in sbc-dsl territory and before i linuxed her and tunneled her, i had a terrible time getting e-mail from her. the /24 that her nat/dsl box got by dhcp had a dozen open proxies in it. sbc's abuse desk sure as hell didn't want to hear from me about it and the owners of the infected pee cee's wouldn't've wanted to hear from me even if i'd had some way to identify them and offer them a free linux upgrade if they'd just open their front door and lead me to their pee cee.
As was pointed out to me by a co-worker: "Linux is not anymore inherently secure than anyother OS." The difference really comes in the administration of the pee cee. So, would upgrading joe-random-user to Linux really make things better for them? (or us?) That is not clear at all at this point. Certianly the point central to your arguement is that with the right abuse-desk to customer ratio AND the right customer base, things could be kept clean for smtp/web/ftp/blah 'hosting'. This is most certainly the case... I look forward to seeing your list of providers and prices :) --Chris (formerly chris@uu.net) ####################################################### ## UUNET Technologies, Inc. ## ## Manager ## ## Customer Router Security Engineering Team ## ## (W)703-886-3823 (C)703-338-7319 ## #######################################################