It is not vigilantism, it is the common law, rooted in
ancient English history, of the shire reeve, who we now
call the sheriff.
Reeve means called, from the Germanic verb rufen.
In other words, this person is someone who is called
to the duty by the shire. The point that has been
raised
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 1:40 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And those network security people generally don't hang out
on NANOG. Instead they hang out in various security forums
like MAAWG etc.
Not sure why you assume that -- I'm sure there are
I'll argue that the term vigilante doesn't belong in this conversation.
(Apologies to those who have seen this reasoning elsewhere.)
Nobody did anything *to* them, it's just that folks stopped doing
things *for* them, as an act of self-defense after many years of
non-stop, prolific abuse.
---Rsk
, September 24, 2008 9:59 PM
To: William Pitcock
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: the Intercage mess
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 7:52 PM, William Pitcock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 19:28 -0700, Paul Ferguson wrote:
I think
: Re: Renesys Blog Article [Was: Re: the Intercage mess]
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Paul Ferguson wrote:
Just a side-note: Rensys has an interesting blog article up today on this
Atrivo/Intercage mess:
http://www.renesys.com/blog/2008/09/internet_vigilantism_1.shtml
FYI,
I have but one comment
Henry Linneweh wrote:
If a consensus can be reached here, we have seen a rise in this, that does
raise concerns
of a RIAA/MPAA type of mindset, which is detrimental
vigilante Definition vigi·lante (vij′ə lan′tē, -län′-)
It is not vigilantism, it is the common law, rooted in ancient
On 9/25/08, Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so, now begins the search for the line that mustn't be crossed. if they
have N spamming customer or M captured machines running CC and they
disconnect such customers after P warnings or Q days, then will the
community still rise up in arms
No, but forcing them offline now that they are taking a new approach to
handling abuse is ridiculous.
Intercage are reaching out to the anti-abuse community and yet some
people on NANOG keep interfering with the cleanup process. How do you
expect them to clean up their network and return to
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 21:50 -0700, Paul Ferguson wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 8:10 PM, William Pitcock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Esthost are nullrouted as of this morning. Even their administrative
network is nullrouted.
I think that is a good indication. As I said, if you have any
*Hobbit* wrote:
Where's
the BACKBONE to go after the real high-volume sources, rather than
continuing to kick sand in the face of some podunk little guy who
can no longer defend himself?
_H*
He never could defend himself, but he still hosts these companies
(though months and years later
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, *Hobbit* wrote:
While it's good to see some community effort going toward slapping
a lid on misbehaving sources, how about a little consistency in
the bigger picture?
Consider this sort of scenario: An ISP allows its infrastructure
to emit spam and host compromised
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 01:37:43PM +, *Hobbit* wrote:
[snip]
If this happened to some of the other major sources of crap that
I'm thinking of, it would make the freaking NATIONAL NEWS. Where's
the BACKBONE to go after the real high-volume sources, rather than
continuing to kick sand in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Joe Provo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The spine to do it left with suits minding the store managing to
the tune of fickle investors. For the same reason just refusing
deaggregates has become difficult: the bad guys
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Paul Ferguson wrote:
Just a side-note: Rensys has an interesting blog article up today on this
Atrivo/Intercage mess:
http://www.renesys.com/blog/2008/09/internet_vigilantism_1.shtml
FYI,
I have but one comment.
There is a difference between Vigilantism as it is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Bambenek wrote:
When there is no law to speak of all that is left is tribal justice.
this way lies lynch mobs
shall we at least apply a vernier of civilization?
I think
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 19:28 -0700, Paul Ferguson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Bambenek wrote:
When there is no law to speak of all that is left is tribal justice.
this way lies lynch
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 19:58 -0700, Paul Ferguson wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 7:52 PM, William Pitcock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 19:28 -0700, Paul Ferguson wrote:
I think that _more_than_reasonable_ background research, historical
record, etc. have met the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Blake Pfankuch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ok, as this seems to have turned into a pissing match, can we slow this
down a bit? 50+ emails a day for a week and nothing good of it? Yes yes
we have purged the internet
William Pitcock wrote:
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 19:28 -0700, Paul Ferguson wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Bambenek wrote:
When there is no law to speak of all that is left is tribal justice.
this way lies lynch mobs
Randy Bush wrote:
John Bambenek wrote:
When there is no law to speak of all that is left is tribal justice.
this way lies lynch mobs
shall we at least apply a vernier of civilization?
randy
While I appreciate the points both you and John are attempting to make,
as someone who
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 8:10 PM, William Pitcock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Esthost are nullrouted as of this morning. Even their administrative
network is nullrouted.
I think that is a good indication. As I said, if you have any still open
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Paul Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Why is Intercage hosting Cernel.net?
cernel.net -A- 69.50.176.227
AS | IP | AS Name
27595 | 69.50.176.227| INTERCAGE - InterCage, Inc.
I guess
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Pitcock) writes:
... forcing them offline now that they are taking a new approach to
handling abuse is ridiculous. ...
renaming, renumbering, and rehoming the darkest parts of their empire is
not a new approach to handling abuse, it's the most common thing that gray
23 matches
Mail list logo
