Re: BGP list of phishing sites?
the root cause of network abuse is humans and human behaviour, not hardware or software or corporations or corporate behaviour. if most people weren't sheep-like, they would pay some attention to the results of their actions and inactions.
It's easy to blame the user, and usually they deserve it, even if they're innocent this time they're guilty of something else. But if software is created in such a way that regular users manage to screw up consistently, maybe the software can be improved rather than the user chastised?
we're just not communicating here. prescriptive statements ("can be improved?") are inappropriate unless somebody's asking for your advice. in this case i think it's safe to say that software vendors don't care what we think about this topic and they have their own plans. same thing for sean's and chris's employers. see padlipsky for the best description to date on prescriptive vs. descriptive in the networking field. what matters isn't what folks ought to do, but what they will do and are doing, or won't do, etc.
... If people do the wrong thing, by all means let them suffer the consequences so they may think twice about doing it again. What worries me is the potential for hurting innocent bystanders, or even active subversion of these mechanisms. I mean, what better way to DoS someone than have them put on a blacklist?
in the medium and long term, no arbitrary blacklist will have global or lasting effect. you don't need to take this effect into consideration, it's a marginal corner case at best, and a distraction.
I think the one true way is to be found somewhere between the extremes of controlling every little thing a customer does and not doing anything.
ah. you're pining for what are now thought of as "the good old days", eh? when reasonable people wanted to do reasonable things and needed help from vendors and suppliers, and unreasonable people hadn't discovered "the net" yet and were still making money the old fashioned way (bilking little old ladies out of their life savings, etc). i have bad news and worse news. the bad news is, there's no going back. the worse news is, as carole king so aptly sang, "THESE ARE the good old days".
But the real issue is that this is even necessary. The biggest problem we have with IP is that it doesn't provide for a way for a receiver to avoid having to receiving unwanted packets. It would be extremely useful if we could fix that.
you realize that the virtual circuit X.25/TP4 people are laughing their asses off as they read those words, don't you?
On 29-jun-04, at 5:46, Paul Vixie wrote:
But if software is created in such a way that regular users manage to screw up consistently, maybe the software can be improved rather than the user chastised?
we're just not communicating here. prescriptive statements ("can be improved?") are inappropriate unless somebody's asking for your advice. in this case i think it's safe to say that software vendors don't care what we think about this topic and they have their own plans.
So you think it's futile to try to get software vendors to improve their products. I suppose I can go along with that to a certain degree. But how can you expect end-users to work around the brokenness in the software they use? This seems both unfair and futile.
what matters isn't what folks ought to do, but what they will do and are doing, or won't do, etc.
Einstein taught as that even the simple act of observation influences our surroundings. Wouldn't it make sense to try to leverage this influence such that the future is shaped more to our liking, however small the change may be?
in the medium and long term, no arbitrary blacklist will have global or lasting effect. you don't need to take this effect into consideration, it's a marginal corner case at best, and a distraction.
I disagree. Even bad stuff that's limited in time and space is bad, and should be avoided if possible.
I think the one true way is to be found somewhere between the extremes of controlling every little thing a customer does and not doing anything.
ah. you're pining for what are now thought of as "the good old days", eh?
For those who suffer from a bad case of nostalgia I recommend IPv6. It's the closest thing to traveling back in time and watch the net as it was ten years ago. However, that's not the place where I'm coming from. It's simply that each absolute is worse than the middle of the scale. Same thing with copyright violations. If we were 100% unable to do anything that the copyright holder doesn't want us to do, we'd be spending much more money on much less content. But if people were able to copy to their heart's content with impunity, artists wouldn't be able to make a living and there wouldn't be any content. So the current situation is indeed the good old days, even though few people seem to realize it. Unfortunately this isn't entirely the case with abuse handling as there are both people who are to lax and those who are too strict.
But the real issue is that this is even necessary. The biggest problem we have with IP is that it doesn't provide for a way for a receiver to avoid having to receiving unwanted packets. It would be extremely useful if we could fix that.
you realize that the virtual circuit X.25/TP4 people are laughing their asses off as they read those words, don't you?
It's easy to laugh if you don't have a world wide network to run.
--- Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:
Einstein taught as that even the simple act of observation influences our surroundings. Wouldn't it make sense to try to leverage this influence such that the future is shaped more to our liking, however small the change may be?
nitpick: it wasn't Einstein, but rather Heisenberg who developed the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle only speaks of electrons (or other small wavicles) and describes how it's not possible to know both the position and momentum. If you're not interested in knowing both of those at the same time, the uncertainty principle does not apply. The principle has been analogized to describe larger systems and items, and is a useful but not always completely accurate metaphor. It is entirely possible to observe some things without affecting them. -David Barak -Fully RFC 1925 Compliant __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On 29-jun-04, at 22:53, David Barak wrote:
Einstein taught as that even the simple act of observation influences our surroundings. Wouldn't it make sense to try to leverage this influence such that the future is shaped more to our liking, however small the change may be?
nitpick: it wasn't Einstein, but rather Heisenberg who developed the uncertainty principle.
Einstein's take on this was to ridicule it somewhat: "When a person such as a mouse observes the universe, does that change the state of the universe?"
The principle has been analogized to describe larger systems and items, and is a useful but not always completely accurate metaphor. It is entirely possible to observe some things without affecting them.
Is it? If I want to look at you, I must bounce photons off of you. Similar stuff needs to happen for other types of observation. This may not have a very large effect on you, but there is _some_ effect.
--- Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:
The principle has been analogized to describe larger systems and items, and is a useful but not always completely accurate metaphor. It is entirely possible to observe some things without affecting them.
Is it? If I want to look at you, I must bounce photons off of you. Similar stuff needs to happen for other types of observation. This may not have a very large effect on you, but there is _some_ effect.
for some value of _some_, right? ;) I agree that there is an affect, but not necessarily due to the observation itself: consider a webcam. Whether I am observing you in the camera is not dependent on my interacting with you per se: the photons were already on their way from you to the lens. You could argue that those photons cause a change, but I would respond that the photons would have caused that change regardless of whether they are measured. Perhaps some beer and philosophy at the October meeting? ===== David Barak -fully RFC 1925 compliant- __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
participants (3)
-
David Barak -
Iljitsch van Beijnum -
Paul Vixie