North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Fw: Administrivia: ORBS
- From: Alex P. Rudnev
- Date: Thu Jan 13 21:40:45 2000
> If you're running an attractive nuisance, it's simply a matter of time
> until someone -does- find you.
If this time is _10_ years (which is not too bad assumption_) - why not? let the
people do their work instead of fighting with the shadows.
> ORBS is simply being proactive about it, on advisement from people around
> the Internet.
> > What ORBS is doing is like some man who is walking by the street and,
> > if you forgot to close your car, break the ignition locks and write
> > message _dear sir; you did not closed your car, and it could be stolen
> > or used for the crime; to prevent it, I broke your car - now bad guys
> > could not abuse it for their dark purposes_. Guess when this man
> > finish his work?
> ORBS is NOT damaging your car, your network, or your ability to provide
> service. ORBS is merely letting you know that you left your car parked
> without the emergency brake on, and that it might roll down the hill and
> run over someone when you're not looking. And it's letting people who
> might be in the area know too. Yes, this means that someone might give
> your car a quick shove down the hill. But it also means people can get out
> of the way first. Aren't analogies fun?
> ORBS is simply investigating and reporting mail servers which are provable
> open relays, and netblocks which are unverifiable due to administrative
> choice (either requesting addition to the listing, or by blocking the
> testers). It's making use of information that is easily obtainable, on the
> suggestion from someone who has probably already checked that you might be
> a good choice to investigate (meaning someone has already noticed you, and
> you're not hidden from view anymore).
> I get regular ORBS probes, and I welcome them. As long as my service is
> not directly impacted by those probes (ie. they start bogging down my
> systems with tests, or consume a noticable chunk of bandwidth), I'll
> continue to do so.
> > Just the same ORBS. It's your concern to have open relay as long as it
> > does not bother others.
> And it's my prerogative to not listen to your mail server if I believe it
> is being operated negligently, if I don't believe your mail is RFC
> conformant, or if it's tea time. *shrug* ORBS helps me in making my
> decision with the first part. I decide if it's tea time by myself. :-)
> Edward S. Marshall <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.xnet.com/~emarshal/
> [ Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. ]
(+1 415) 585-3489 /San Francisco CA/