[OCCAID] RE: [SPAM] Occaid Digest, Vol 19, Issue 10

[Michael Nicks]

On 01/08/05 18:18:31 -0600, Cook, Timothy C. wrote:
> 
> I would first like to point out that at this time I haven't even set up any
> rdns so however this turns out really has no affect on me at all.  So I
> guess I feel like I can approach this with at least a semi-impartial
> opinion.  That being said, I think that this reasoning is bs.
> 
> How many donating corporations sit on IRC all day and dns, then trace the
> source of the IP block of any person they see with a hostname they dislike?
> I really really really don't think that's going to be a reason for anyone
> who would normally donate not to.  And if it is I think they need a nice
> reality check if they base occaid solely on some of it's end users.  Are you
> *snip*

It's not about donations specificly, it's about maintaining a reputation, and
maintaining a reputation as a network does not include hosting abusive users.

> *snip*
> space.  If it's not hurting the network, who cares?  I would think they'd be
> more inclined to pull funding knowing that you were putting restrictions on
> it's use which in my mind makes it less of an "educational" network.
> There's already a policy in place that removes any user who's taking
> extensive DOS attacks... I think that in and of itself solves the entire
> problem of it becoming a "kiddie" network.

DNS abuse does hurt the network. It reflects badly on the network itself and 
responsibile parties involved with the administration of it. Also, there's a 
difference between an educational network and a kiddie network (see, foonet).
Also, I'm not aware of a policy stating that if a user is getting DOS attacks
to terminate their transit/peering. I believe the typical course of action for
that is to nullroute their assigned blocks until the attack his subsided, and 
then contact the downstream.

>   I can whois and paste you a dozen different "kiddies" on IRC right now who
> would all fly well below spamcalc, which is just one more reason I think
> that the reasoning of this preventing "kiddies" from joining up is BS.  And
> in all reality, any "kiddie" who would use some rediculously long and
> annoying hostname probably wouldn't know the fist thing about setting up
> BIND anyways, so it doesn't really matter.

And in some cases, kiddies don't even take the time to setup reverse dns.

> Spamcalc in and of itself is flawed, hell, one of the occaid bots scores a
> 73... "jeeps.are.wacky.ws".  Regardless, I really don't see any benefit to
> the project, and I *REALLY* don't see it keeping kiddies out.  Sounds like
> someone's personal vendetta more than anything to me because that reasoning
> just doesn't hold water.  Anyways, just adding my 2c, and as I said, it
> really doesn't affect me one way or the other.  Hopefully I didn't make
> anyone too upset :)  Keep up the good work guys.  Hopefully I have my
> thoughts collected into an understandable format as I'm kind of in a hurry.
> 
> Tim

#occaid != mailing list.

Thanks,

-M

-- 
Michael Nicks				     IOPort Technologies, LLC
nicksm at ioport.com			
1(913)-378-6516