Ah, I'd pasted the following in a response to the mail you responded to: ~$ whois 208.68.4.129 Comment: --------------- Comment: 208.68.4.128/28 and 208.68.7.128/28 provide privacy services Comment: (incl running tor exit node(s)!) Comment: Abuse reports will be handled but there is likely not much that can be done. Comment: Send abuse to abuse at privacysvcs net. Comment: --------------- ... RAbuseEmail: see-comments-no-b...@example.com
Now you can decide to pass judgement on the idea that someone may want to run a Tor exit node (my data says a good chunk of users are regular internet users in Iran, and I'm not routing hidden service traffic, where a most of the morally-repugnant crap happens), but that's beside the point - outbound ports are super limited, and outbound SSH is rate-limited appropriately. Matt On 4/29/20 7:00 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 3:36 PM Matt Corallo <na...@as397444.net> wrote: >> I do, in this case, have such a right, because I know exactly what is going >> on in my network, > > Hi Matt, > > If someone in your address space is knock-knocking on a stranger's ssh > ports (your example, not mine), you have some work to do convincing me > of your supreme security. > > Don't get me wrong: I've felt the pain of the auto-generated spam > complaint that scrubbed exactly the headers I need to figure out what > happened. But if you're round-filing complaints solely because they > were generated by a program, you're doing it really wrong. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin >
