i dont think anyone would miss sorbs if it was gone, dare i say it not even a single person
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Jeroen van Aart <jer...@mompl.net> wrote: > > Brielle Bruns wrote: > > to come from such a block is more often than not a necessity. It's very > > unlikely to see 1 abuser in between an otherwise perfectly behaving > network > > neighbourhood. > > That's kind of vague to say it's "unlikely to see 1 abuser". What is > the probability that > more IPs in the same /24 are likely to harbor abusers, given that you > have > received abuse from one IP? > > And how have you discovered this? > ( What is the criteria used to determine that it is unlikely, and what > is your source of the information?) > > Are you assuming that if you've seen the abuse, that you probably > weren't the first victim, > that the ISP has probably already been notified by someone else, > that they have likely had a > reasonable amount of time to put a stop to the abuse, and that they > failed to do so? > > > There is the one good case where a single abuser has a dynamic IP address; > but it's not a safe assumption that they will live in the same /24 > next time the abuser dials in. > > So not only does listing an entire /24 list innocent users' IP > addresses, > it also does not necessarily effectively list the one abuser. > > -- > -JH > >
