On Saturday, December 14, 2002, at 05:15 PM, Don Weber wrote: > my point is UUNET is not the abuse address for anything occuring on > smartbusiness IP space, smart business IS, that is who should and does > have > the required addresses for contact.
What if I want to complain ABOUT SmartBusiness? What if there is a problem with the way the BGP route for SmartBusiness' network has been announced? What if my traffic is just vanishing inside the UUNet network as it goes to SmartBusiness? These are not things I can contact SmartBusiness about, these are things that you need to be able to contact their upstream about. > IMO when smartbusiness > contacts you and provides everything they need to be RFC compliant they > should be removed from any blacklisting, keep UUnet there, Even if I agreed in principle (which I don't for the reasons listed above), there would be no incentive for a backbone provider or webhosting company to solve their problem if all of their customers' entries were exempted. DNSBL's are about incenting someone to change their ways. If you go whitelisting all the subnets, the parent has no incentive to solve the problem because (since they don't themselves USE the space, just resell it to others) they're never adversely affected. > i understand you are punishing smartbusiness for something they have NO > control of whatsoever. To be pedantic, they do have control over it. They are "being punished"[1] because they sit in UUNet address space. They could very easily switch to a non-listed provider. They could also requisition an IP allocation via Direct Assignment from ARIN, at which point they'd no longer be in the UUNet block. D [1] Your words, not mine. We're punishing UUNet, not end users.
