Article View: comp.dcom.modems.cable
Article #121Re: @Home Blacklisted by ORBS on 9 of 10 New Email Servers
From: Mike Stump
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:45
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:45
41 lines
2934 bytes
2934 bytes
In article <MPG.14cb17861394b8e8989f4a@207.126.101.100>, Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote: >There are a significant group of people in the sysadmin and/or >computer security field that consider simple network scanning >to be a malicious act - indeed there has been (to my knowledge) >some degree of effort to criminalize such activities - ie >port scanning. I might agree in general, however when mail servers are a nuisance (open relay), it is also reasonable to have law enforcement, government, trade association or some other well established entity nuisance scan them. Until some more credible and respected entity other than ORBS steps forward to fill the role that is demanded, ORBS will be scanning. To get them to stop, just solve the problem. >It is also well-established net.etiquette that probing systems >external to you without any intention of actually engaging in the >transfer of information is at the least a somewhat rude act - >particularly when you are doing it without the permission of the >target network. So? That doesn't mean that there are specialized cases where it is reasonable. For example, @HOME found themselves in a bad position where they felt they had to port scan machines, just to keep from getting whacked (UDP). Welcome to the complex world we live in. >I will add that since ORBS by their own admission simply scans for >servers which "may potentially be used for spam" rather than servers >which have any proven association with it On the Internet, nothing is proven. Welcome to the Internet. >the repeated scanning of servers which have proven - over and over >again - to be NOT vulnerable.. is easily taken as an unecessary and >even abusive practice. Ok, why don't you give us the cutoff number for which you consider to be ok, and any more often, and that would be rude. And what would the number be if MAPS did it? What would the number be is the FBI did it? This is far more useful I think, then just repeating the same tired arguments.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<G78L3L.HpC@kithrup.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!falcon.america.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!kithrup.com!mrsReferences:
<3A4997AD.B58ACAD5@spamcop.net> <B672BB7E.2F427%no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com> <92k15k01s2p@enews3.news <MPG.14cb17861394b8e8989f4a@207.126.101.100>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fa874,20ce3a920b14a2e4 X-Google-Attributes: gidfa874,public X-Google-Thread: 113850,20ce3a920b14a2e4 X-Google-Attributes: gid113850,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-15 20:01:01 PST Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems.cable,ba.internet Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!falcon.america.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!kithrup.com!mrs From: mrs@kithrup.com (Mike Stump) Subject: Re: @Home Blacklisted by ORBS on 9 of 10 New Email Servers Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Message-ID: <G78L3L.HpC@kithrup.com> References: <3A4997AD.B58ACAD5@spamcop.net> <B672BB7E.2F427%no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com> <92k15k01s2p@enews3.news <MPG.14cb17861394b8e8989f4a@207.126.101.100> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:45:21 GMT Lines: 41