nanog mailing list archives
Re: Lazy network operators - NOT
From: Petri Helenius <pete () he iki fi>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:11:13 +0300
Paul Vixie wrote:
What is the estimated cost per subscriber of such an operation in your opinion and where should it be to make it feasible? Off-the-shelf automation can accomplish this for pennies per subscriber per month, keeping the catalogs up to date and informing users automatically. After deployment there is a smallish support burst, but after the levels of infection plummet and stay at levels two orders of magnitude lower than prior situation, queues will shorten and customers will be significantly more happy.So-called "broadband" user populations (cable, dsl, fixed wireless, mobile wireless) are full time connected, or nearly so. They are technically unsophisticated, on average. The platforms they run trade convenience for security, and must do so in order to remain competitive/relevant. Margin pressure makes it impossible for most "broadband" service providers to even catalogue known-defect customer systems or process complaints about them.
I think the late developments have been more geared towards "go fix the world in far and remote places also". :-)MAPS or SORBS or somebody needs to set up a "BBL" (broad band list) which is just a list of "broadband" customer netblocks, with no moral/value judgement expressed or implied. If it's complete and updated frequently, I'd pay for a feed because of all the work it would save me personally and in my dayjob. (Apropos of JCurran's comments above, it wouldn't matter if netblocks on this "BBL" disabled outbound TCP/25, or not, so, they probably just wouldn't, but, they probably aren't going to, no matter whether a "BBL" exists or not.) The new motto here is: "Blackhole 'em all and let market forces sort 'em out."
I would expect the community who uses similar blackhole criteria as you to be fairly insignificant to the spammers revenue stream. So the stream must be cut at the source, not just fending off the 1% somewhere.
Pete
Current thread:
- Re: Lazy network operators - NOT, (continued)
- Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Paul Vixie (Apr 18)
- Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Steven Champeon (Apr 20)
- Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Rik van Riel (Apr 28)
- Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Paul Jakma (Apr 18)
- Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Mike Jezierski - BOFH (Apr 18)
- Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Matt Hess (Apr 18)
- Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Mike Jezierski - BOFH (Apr 18)
- Blocking Win95 hosts [WAS: Lazy network operators - NOT] Patrick W . Gilmore (Apr 18)
- Re: Blocking Win95 hosts [WAS: Lazy network operators - NOT] Matt Hess (Apr 18)
- Fingerprints (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Sean Donelan (Apr 19)
- Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Petri Helenius (Apr 18)
- Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Paul Vixie (Apr 18)
- Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Jerry Eyers (Apr 18)
- Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Lou Katz (Apr 18)
- Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Rodney Joffe (Apr 18)
- Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Doug White (Apr 18)
- Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Sean Donelan (Apr 18)
- Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Doug White (Apr 18)
- Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Sean Donelan (Apr 18)
- Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Brandon Shiers (Apr 18)
- Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Petri Helenius (Apr 18)