Re: Frank Carmickle and Marco Paganini must die
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 01:11:30PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> Adam McKenna wrote:
>
> > Like I said, I don't consider DHCP addresses to be static. And any
> > commercial ISP that uses that scheme and calls it "static" is asking for
> > trouble.
>
> Why? I get my static IP assigned via DHCP (actually the PPPoE
> equivalent thereof, but it's the same principle -- my ISP gives me an
> IP address whenever I connect, but they guarantee that it'll be the
> same every time). I don't see how this could possibly be construed as
> "asking for trouble".
If the ISP is mixing quasi-static IP's with truly dynamic IP's in the same
subnet, *they* are asking for trouble, because the people who paid for static
IP's are going to be pissed when they start getting added to DNSBL's.
The whole point revolves around being able to block mail from spam hosts
(worm-infected or otherwise). If you have a dynamic IP, it will be
impossible to block you because every time you dial in you will get a new IP
address. This is the reason that dynamic IP DNSBL's came into existence.
I really encourage you all to read the NANOG thread starting here for some
perspective on this issue:
http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/current/msg04150.html
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <adam@debian.org> <adam@flounder.net>
Reply to: