Why not write a real-time script and loop the querier right back to his own self... Luzer --> *.vix.com --> Luzer This sort of reminded me of the days of "bandwidth raping" where others used someone's own bandwidth to their own disadvantage.
We've told people for years that when they choose to use a DNSBL or RHSBL that they need to (a) subscribe to the relevant mailing list, if it has one and/or (b) periodically revisit the relevant web site
Akin to a mailing list asking someone to configure their options so autoresponding "Out of the office" replies don't annoy. Rarely works. In the case of system administration/network administration, the industry shifts so much whereas someone who managed a machine is likely not working for that company any more. From my experiences, I've seen the horrible documentation(ing (Bushism?)) companies maintain so its likely unknown to these offenders. Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
Bottom line is that in the absence of a promise -- explicit or implicit (!) -- to the contrary, you can usually turn off your gear and get on with your life
Promissory Estoppel might hinder shutting off the power. http://facstaff.gallaudet.edu/marshall.wick/bus447/promissory_estoppel.html -- =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo echo @infiltrated|sed 's/^/sil/g;s/$/.net/g' http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1383A743 "How a man plays the game shows something of his character - how he loses shows all" - Mr. Luckey
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 09:29:12 CST, "J. Oquendo" said:
Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
Bottom line is that in the absence of a promise -- explicit or implicit (!) -- to the contrary, you can usually turn off your gear and get on with your life
Promissory Estoppel might hinder shutting off the power.
http://facstaff.gallaudet.edu/marshall.wick/bus447/promissory_estoppel.html
That could be as interesting to litigate as the hospital example, because: a) it's likely that a lot of the offenders "relying" on the promise of RBL service are qmail sites that don't even *realize* it. b) I'm pretty sure that Paul wasn't aware of the qmail issue either. So who, exactly, was promising (and to whom) that a given RBL was usable 6 years after it went belly up? If anything, the cited legal definition page would seem to suggest that the person who needs to keep running the RBL would be the person who made qmail reference it.. .:)
If no one's been sued before because they've wild carded a defunct RBL, what's the big deal? When someone tries their best, goes out to an intelligent group to get their opinions, and spends a HUGE amount of effort, and incurs measurable monetary damage (bandwidth, time, etc) and when the only reasonable answer (dare I say group consensus?!?!) is "shut it off, in a way that could break things to get their attention" how can there be grounds for a lawsuit? That's just silly! Pay service or not, it doesn't matter when that period of time has passed. Paul could be found negligent when a server admin was negligent for 6-7 YEARS?! Seriously?! I don't buy it that argument. Now, if he set up the DNS to wild card 1% of packets on day 1, 2% on day 2, 3% on day three, etc, in an attempt to be less disruptive then perhaps, I could see someone being upset about that, because as a clueless person (bad admin) trying to troubleshoot some problem like that, they'd definitely play a good victim. And I bet they would wait until day 80 to call in a consultant. The only sane way is to pick a date, announce it far in advance, and flip the switch at 00:00:00 on that day. I suppose in some universe, it *IS* possible that Paul could be found negligent by some jury trial and ordered to pay millions of dollars. But that's the same universe were swine routinely fly to and fourth across the green sky. Just my humble opinion.
participants (3)
-
J. Oquendo -
Jerry Pasker -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu