Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:48:28 -0700 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> To: "Brad Knowles" <blk@skynet.be>, "Brett Glass" <brett@lariat.org>, "Rahul Siddharthan" <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in>, <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: ORBS vs MAPS Message-ID: <NCBBLIEPOCNJOAEKBEAKMEBNJNAA.davids@webmaster.com> In-Reply-To: <v04220803b59be49e3b7d@[195.238.1.121]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> At 3:37 PM -0700 2000/7/19, David Schwartz wrote: > > > Since it's entirely among entities that have given informed written > > consent, it's quite a stretch to call it fraudulent. > I have to disagree. The MAPS eBGP4 routing tables are supposed > to be used for the specific purpose of black-holing all packets going > to or coming from servers that are generating lots of spam or are > actively allowing themselves to be abused for relaying lots of spam, > and for whom repeated attempts to get them to fix their problem have > fallen on deaf ears. ORBS consistently attempts to pass email through other people's machines through the use of spoofed headers. This is illegal in many jurisdictions. IMO, a single spoofed header is SPAM and network abuse. > While I disagree with a lot of the things that the ORBS project > does, I don't see it doing any of these things, and therefore there > is no reason why they should be having packets to/from them being > black-holed across all ISPs that having peering agreements with > Above.Net or other networks that are actively advertising these > routes. Err, they send email with forged headers. > This is affecting more people than just those that are > subscribing to MAPS -- even networks that aren't subscribed to MAPS, > but are peers of Above.Net, are seeing these bogus routes, and in all > probability are propagating these bogus routes. No, Above.Net is not propogating any bogus routes. I'm looking at all the routes I'm getting from Above.Net right now, and the only one I see for ORBS is "4648 6461". 4648 is Netgate, New Zealand. This is the correct route and originated at ORBS' provider. What Above.Net is doing, on the other hand, is refusing to carry traffic across its network from a site that consistently violates the law. > I haven't heard Dave's or Paul's side of this matter, and I think > I know them well enough to give them a great deal of "benefit of the > doubt", however given what little I've heard so far, it really does > sound to me like they are doing themselves a grave dis-service in > this matter, and at precisely the sort of time that they don't want > or need to be unnecessarily muddying the waters, what with the other > legal battles they're already embroiled in. Personally, I'm glad they did. ORBS has been rogue and ignoring the law for months now. It's about time somebody put a stop to them. I'm much happier seeing it done commercially, through providers regulating their own traffic, then through government regulation. I don't speak for them though, so their reasons may not be the same as I imagine they are. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?NCBBLIEPOCNJOAEKBEAKMEBNJNAA.davids>