> David Schwartz wrote:
> >> Perhaps ORBS could instead list the netblock as 'unscanned but
> >> well-policed' if no addresses in the entire netblock currently
> >> appear in MAPS. ...
> >> Is this a reasonable way to increase the value of the information
> >> served by ORBS, i.e. would this reduce rejection of good email?
> >
> > I would be happy if ORBS just stopped lying to people about
> > what they are.
>
> Let's avoid loaded words like "lying".
Okay, you tell me what you prefer. How about "deliberately misrepresenting
in order to deliberately induce third parties into unintended actions that
harm other third parties."
> Yes, ORBS's own FAQ isn't as clear
> as it should be, and its author has a chip on his shoulder. But the
> data he provides is clearly labelled; when you look up an address,
> it tells you clearly whether it was scanned or not, and if so,
> whether there
> was an open relay there. That's about as close to their original mission
> statement as I can imagine coming.
I just looked through the using ORBS files, and their examples don't seem
to show me any way to make use of this labelling. In fact, the examples tend
to include messages like "mail refused because it is an open relay". More
deliberate misrepresentation.
> Now, assuming that ORBS makes its FAQ clearer, I assume that you
> still won't
> use their service, since you seem a bit negative on ORBS.
I would still not use ORBS. To let someone else tell you who to blacklist
requires that you trust them. All trust in ORBS is long gone.
> But would you use
> it if it were modified by my proposal? Alan Cox seems to think it would
> reduce the number of false positives.
Only if the management was honest about their past mistakes and explained
the principle behind why they were wrong. Otherwise, there is nothing
stopping them from doing it again. I don't trust people who don't screw me
out of happenstance. I trust people who don't screw me out of principle.
> btw, hats off to Rahul Dhesi for his objective FAQ on the subject,
> http://www.rahul.net/dhesi/orbs.faq.txt
The FAQ states that ORBS policy is "be probed or be list", but I see no
indication that this is in fact ORBS policy. I'm not sure if Rahul Dhesi is
in a position to make policy for ORBS, but it seems to me that it's simply a
deniable excuse. If it works, ORBS is excused. If it fails, its content can
be denied with words like, "Well, that's what Mr. Dhesi thinks about ORBS,
but actually it's this way, ..."
That's really not conduct I consider reputable. Mr Dhesi's motives may be
admirable, but an explanation from an outside isn't good enough. A stand has
to be taken by ORBS, so we know why they act the way they do.
DS
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:14 EST