> the root cause of network abuse is humans and human behaviour, not
> hardware or software or corporations or corporate behaviour. if most
> people weren't sheep-like, they would pay some attention to the results
> of their actions and inactions.
It's easy to blame the user, and usually they deserve it, even if they're
innocent this time they're guilty of something else. But if software is
created in such a way that regular users manage to screw up consistently,
maybe the software can be improved rather than the user chastised?
we're just not communicating here. prescriptive statements ("can be
improved?") are inappropriate unless somebody's asking for your advice.
in this case i think it's safe to say that software vendors don't care
what we think about this topic and they have their own plans. same
thing for sean's and chris's employers.
see padlipsky for the best description to date on prescriptive vs.
descriptive in the networking field. what matters isn't what folks
ought to do, but what they will do and are doing, or won't do, etc.
... If people do the wrong thing, by all means let them suffer the
consequences so they may think twice about doing it again. What
worries me is the potential for hurting innocent bystanders, or even
active subversion of these mechanisms. I mean, what better way to DoS
someone than have them put on a blacklist?
in the medium and long term, no arbitrary blacklist will have global or
lasting effect. you don't need to take this effect into consideration,
it's a marginal corner case at best, and a distraction.
I think the one true way is to be found somewhere between the extremes
of controlling every little thing a customer does and not doing anything.
ah. you're pining for what are now thought of as "the good old days", eh?
when reasonable people wanted to do reasonable things and needed help from
vendors and suppliers, and unreasonable people hadn't discovered "the net"
yet and were still making money the old fashioned way (bilking little old
ladies out of their life savings, etc). i have bad news and worse news.
the bad news is, there's no going back. the worse news is, as carole king
so aptly sang, "THESE ARE the good old days".
But the real issue is that this is even necessary. The biggest problem
we have with IP is that it doesn't provide for a way for a receiver to
avoid having to receiving unwanted packets. It would be extremely
useful if we could fix that.
you realize that the virtual circuit X.25/TP4 people are laughing their
asses off as they read those words, don't you?