I am a 99% lurker, but I didn't assume you were beating around the bush. It *seems* to me that in response to complaints about how several blacklists were run you said that because blacklists are subscription services, and everyone has a choice whether or not to use them, that the poorly-operated blacklists are not dangerous. That implies (to me!) an understatement of the potential effect of poorly-operated blacklists. If I am wrong in that implication, I apologise.
------ Benjamin P. Grubin, CISSP, GIAC Information Security Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On > Behalf Of Steven J. Sobol > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 11:13 PM > To: Benjamin P. Grubin > Cc: 'Dan Hollis'; 'Regis M. Donovan'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: SPEWS? > > > > On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Benjamin P. Grubin wrote: > > > > Saying that a report is voluntary and/or advisory gets more and more > > irrelevant as rate of adoption increases. Yes, the > thousands of credit > > card companies could choose to evaluate you in any manner > they wish, but > > yet they *all* judge you solely on your credit report. So > in *reality*, > > is it really still useful to say it is voluntary and > advisory therefore > > undeserving of scrutiny/complaint? > > I'm really not sure why you're making these assumptions. I don't beat > around the bush... I've never seen you on NANOG before, nor > have I talked > to you in any other venue, so I assume you aren't aware of > that particular > point. I didn't say SPEWS or any other listing service was > undeserving of > scrutiny. I didn't even try to imply that. > > > -- > Steve Sobol, CTO JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH > 888.480.4NET > - I do my best work with one of my cockatiels sitting on each > shoulder - > 6/4/02:A USA TODAY poll found that 80% of Catholics advocated > a zero-tolerance > stance towards abusive priests. The fact that 20% didn't, scares me... > > > >