🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3A550FE2.518B9815@dvv.org>, Dima Volodin  <dvv@dvv.org> wrote:
>Mike Stump wrote:
>> 
>> In article <3A53D488.881EB678@dvv.org>, Dima Volodin  <dvv@dvv.org> wrote:
>> >Mike Stump wrote:
>> >> And we have yet to see the proof that it isn't nearly identical to the
>> >> MAPS RSS list.  Someone gets spam, submits the complaint, and if it
>> >> relays, on the list it goes.  QED.  Thanks for playing.
>> >
>> >Bzzzt, wrong answer. Nobody can claim that there were any spam from
>> >my host that ended up listed by ORBS, yet it's there. No spam, no
>> >complaints, ORBS entry. QED.
>> 
>> Congradulations, what you have done, is shown a single example of when
>> it didn't work the way I described.
>
>So it doesn't work the way you described. QED.

Of course it does.  What you fail to grasp is that in a complex
environment, there mere existence of a deviant case doesn't negate the
generalization of the systems behavior.  For example, I can say,
people don't walk around all day long killing people, and even though
you can find a case were that has happened, that doesn't mean I am
wrong.

>I don't need to do any surveys to see that ORBS is all too eager to
>throw the baby away and wack it over the head to be sure it's dead -
>I've seen it happen already.

Duh, we already know that you think that, thanks for sharing.  I said
this _is_ how they operate even!

>> To counter your data sample of one, let me point out 18,768 data
>> samples from rss from Jun 5th, 2000 that were also in ORBS.  I am led
>> to believe that all of these in fact were directly associated with
>> spam.  Can you provide any data to counter this data?
>
>How about - out of 65536 addresses of that RR block I was writing about
>only 598 allow connections to port 25 from the outside, and none of
>these addresses is either on RBL or RSS.

Good, now you're starting to see how the game is played.  Now, I get
to counter, while they do that from time to time, it is not typical.
Now, you get to show that there are X networks, and they did it
already to Y network, and this a Z%, and Z is greater than, oh, let's
say 10%.  Or you can just bury your head in the sand, ignore the
facts, and just say, obviously they do it to 90% of the networks, I
already posted a proof.

Keep in mind, we are talking about how they work in general.  These
being general statements, means that you can't use single instances of
contrary behavior to win.  You have to show tons of examples of such
behavior to win.