[anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 62, Issue 5

On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 07:50:00 -0800
David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
> Sorry, this discussion has nothing to do what "what I'm paid to do"
> and I had no role whatsoever in the development of RPZ (I left ISC
> long before Paul and Vernon hacked BIND to support it). I don't even
> like it all that much. However, given RPZ solves a particular need
> and that multiple vendors are implementing it, I'd prefer they do so
> in an interoperable way rather than everybody doing their own thing
> in incompatible ways. I would have hoped we (folks who develop
> Internet technologies) learned our lesson from NAT (hey, isn't that
> "lying"?).
> 
Hi David,

No, NAT is not lying. At All, and that you are saying that it is, is a
clear example that you do have a serious ethics challenge. This is not a
"bad" thing, I suck at many things myself, nobody is great at everything.

when you forward traffic for someone else, using your own ip number,
how can you possibly equate that with lying?

RPZ solves particular needs, exactly the same as a brute force password
hacking tool solves particular needs

Do you understand now?

Also, lying is one thing, deception is another level and RPZ is pure
EVIL - It is WORSE than the brute force password cracking tool - as RPZ
can affect lives (actual real living people - as in life & death)

Andre