Should Servers Deal w/ DNS Spam or Shouldn't They.. POLL

General talk about EFnet

Moderators: Website/Forum Admins, EFnet/General Moderators

How should servers deal w/ dns spam ?

They shouldn't, what's the big deal ?
32
67%
DNS SPAM is out of control /Kline Offender
16
33%
 
Total votes: 48
User avatar
strikelight
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 1:13 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Postby strikelight » Sat Jun 26, 2004 5:30 am

Pills wrote:
strikelight wrote:
Pills wrote: Actually, it IS tradition, and one that even the new-school admins stick to. I remember a time where a server that umich had C/Ns with refused to hub us if we were hubbing another server (hobbes.kzoo.edu, IIRC). Servers can dictate what users, and servers, connect to them. Just as no one's forced to exchange C/N lines, no one's forced to allow a particular client on.
Poor pills.... I know it's been a long time since you were a normal user... You must have forgotten the reason why EFNet exists at all... It wasn't just to link a bunch of servers together just so fellow admins and opers could use exclusively. No, it was created for the open public... So as far as tradition goes, we are talking about tradition from a user's stand point... try to remember back that long ago, I know it's hard as you get up in years, but atleast make the effort ;)
First off, my wife has been a normal user for 13 years. I speak to normal users every day. While it was created for the "open public" as you put it, admins have *always* had control. Control over I: lines, control over C/N lines, control over K:lines. As I said, a "normal user" is one who rarely, if ever, deals with the "government" of EFnet. I'm sure that, from a user's standpoint, having K:lines on certain vhosts doesn't make that big a dent in who has problems connecting, or the percentage of users that actually ever see "government". How about comparing it to three years ago, when people were practically offering to buy I:lines because they could not get on a server at all? The only thing that has increased the exposure of the top layer, so to speak, is CHANFIX, and that's mostly automated anyway.

It's been a *very* long time since my wife needed me to do something for her on IRC, or any of my friends (except for the occasional CHANFIX). I know a LOT of ex-opers and admins that have never looked back, and rarely needed an oper after that.

Considering I've held my O:line for over 10 years, I've seen what the early days of the network held, as well as now. The control of the admin over these things has remained constant that whole time.
I'm not saying users should/do call the shots.. What I'm saying is that, as with anything, EFNet (used to?) reflect a certain image to users... Not about the governing politics behind EFNet, but about the freedom of expression.. This is the tradition that I have been referring to from the start... Only opers/admins should/would consider the politics to be a "tradition", as they are basically irrelevant to the users, other than the fact they have to live by them.

Pills wrote:
strikelight wrote:
Pills wrote: So, you're reading operwalls, eh? Hmm...

Back a year or so ago, when I was oper'ing, yes...
Pills wrote: Anyway, to respond to your "freedom of expression" point. This isn't a democracy. It has been the longstanding belief and practice that an individual server can do what they want, as long as it doesn't hurt the network as a whole. Not allowing this.vhost.is.l.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.ng on is an admin's prerogative. Personally, I don't really care. Some do.
EFnet IS an oligarchy, although there are very rare instances that the vast majority sees the "government" behind it. Sure, you may get proxy scanned and/or CTCP versioned on connect, but most users have never needed an IRCop, and probably never will.

Just as a channel has a right to dictate who is on it, a server gets to dictate who uses it.
Well, let's go back to the democracy part... Because, when you think of it... EFNet's foundation of formation was actually based on democracy... There was a server that was uncontrollable and allowed massive amount of spammers and such, that the rest of the network "voted" much like in a democracy, to break off and create a new network... that network being EFNet (and IRCNet)... Heck, there are even votes for servers to be let in, votes for new policies, votes for almost anything.. So please continue on telling me that EFNet isn't based on a democracy, I'm sure you will convince the masses. :roll:
From dictionary.com:

Oligarchy -

1a. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.
b.Those making up such a government.
2. A state governed by a few persons

This is exactly what EFnet is. There are currently about 112k clients on EFnet. Do they have a vote? Do they vote for admins to represent you? No. Democracy implies that everyone has a vote, at least in voting in representatives. This is government by a few, and always has been.

In the examples you give, who voted? Did the few hundred users at the time of the formation of EFnet? No, the admins did. Votes for servers, votes for policies... do you vote? No, but I do, because I'm an admin. So, while the admins themselves has a democracy, the network itself is an oligarchy. You as a user have no power, no vote. As an admin, I have a vote.
The opers/admins of EFNet were not put where they are by the people, but let's face it... It's an open/public service/community, and as such, they are there FOR the people... Thus, indirectly, they become representatives of the people, which is exactly how a democracy works.... looking out for the best interests of the users. If this was not the case, then these servers would/should not have wanted to link to an open/public service/community in the first place. And you are right, the politics don't interest most users, just as the politics in a democracy in the real world don't interest most people. Do citizens vote on every little issue that goes on to become legislation? No... that's what the representitives do, that's their job.. And of course, users have no real power.. but what's to say that makes/has made EFNet a dictatorship? Do you yourself think of EFNet as a dictatorship? Sure there are guidelines to follow, but most are common sense... When it comes down to prohibitting expression that doesn't hurt anybody, that's when it crosses the line into being a dictatorship, imo.

Code: Select all

 ____________
|:   _____  :|
|___    |   .|____
|:  |  :|    |   :|
|_______|_________|
[/color]
- silence isn't golden when i'm holding it inside -
User avatar
Pills
Forum Admin
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 1:14 pm
Location: Long Island, NY
Contact:

Postby Pills » Sat Jun 26, 2004 2:10 pm

I'm not bothering to quote the whole thing because it's three pages.

The only way EFnet used to reflect the users is when the users themselves put up servers. The reason that the eris server was booted was because it had open C/N lines that ANYone could connect a server to. The admins back then didn't WANT just any user to be able to do that.

Any freedom of expression on the network has only ever come because the admins didn't care. Again, the admins run the machines, and usually work at the companies or universities that run the servers. They have every right to determine who uses their equipment.

Again, EFnet is not a dictatorship. It's an oligarchy. "Power" rests with the few: the admins. It has *always* been this way. Even when the network had 2000 users, they barely knew of the administration behind the curtain, so to speak. I know I didn't even know what an IRCop was for a long time; I used to wonder what the * was next to the H on a /who.

Yes, servers are put up so people can use them, for the most part. However, if you're going to compare this to a democracy, the admins don't represent the public, and aren't beholdant to them at all. There have been things that we have passed that I've received plenty of negative feedback on. If we were strictly for the users, why does IRCnet exist? Do you think the users back in 1996 REALLY wanted The Split to happen?

Considering that the new voting system was just put in a few years back, this is the closest to a democracy that we've ever seen on this network, and users still do not have a say in how the network is run. Way back when, it was a power struggle, like the story I mentioned with indiana.edu not hubbing umich if we were hubbing kzoo. No one forced a server to do something they didn't want. Now, the only way that happens is if policy is voted on.

There is no policy on allowing EVERY host that tries to connect to the server to actually connect. There never will be. It always has been the discretion of the admin to allow a host to connect or not.
admin, irc.umich.edu
oper, irc.servercentral.net
User avatar
Jon
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 5:33 am
Location: NB.CA

Postby Jon » Sun Jun 27, 2004 11:20 pm

I guess the point here is that;

If admins block hostnames for their own personal reasons, then it wouldn`t be very fair for the users. Since it won`t prevent an admin and his/her friends from connecting, then so be it. So users have no say and have to follow what that admin decided.

But, admins can do this. They run the machines at their expense (company/time/etc) and users connect and chat away. If an user is blocked from server A, then he/she will move to server B.

An user would argue that it isn`t fair to filter out "dns spam" because it isn`t really justified. If everything was said about the issue, then users can understand/accept and move on.
evil
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 6:18 pm

Postby evil » Fri Jul 02, 2004 1:14 am

I may have missed something but I know people that use a custom vhost not to look "cool", but to make a statement, possibly a political statement. In my opinion that shows a bit of class and respect to others within the same chat channel, it could be a silent protest, I do however see no use for what is deemed to be obscene.
kampfire
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 4:59 pm

Postby kampfire » Fri Jul 02, 2004 7:12 pm

evil wrote:I may have missed something but I know people that use a custom vhost not to look "cool", but to make a statement, possibly a political statement. In my opinion that shows a bit of class and respect to others within the same chat channel, it could be a silent protest, I do however see no use for what is deemed to be obscene.
I see nothing 'illegal' or RFC violating about extremely long and retarded hostnames. However, I think those kind of hostnames aren't in the best interest of EFNet for several reasons.

1. Alot of these kiddies like to have hostnames that make them appear to be from the govt. (i.e. fbi.gov.org)

2. Some talk about hacking the government (i.pwned.teh.federal.governme.nt)

3. With all of these stupid hostnames, they are buying up worthless domains and wasting DNS server cpu cycles with garbage.

4. They look dumb. :)
User avatar
Jon
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 5:33 am
Location: NB.CA

Postby Jon » Sat Jul 03, 2004 10:58 am

kampfire:

But those 4 points aren`t justified.
The only possible issue here is if that USA HomeLand Security see's an anti-gov domain (hostname) then it might want to ban the domain (this is a long shot)

As for the rest, looking dumb is when a user joins #not-a-warez-chan and does !list

It may be a waste of money, but shell providers profit from this. It`s business. It is all about "looking cool" or just the fact that you are on IRC from an IP other than your home IP.

Resources > *
kampfire
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 4:59 pm

Postby kampfire » Sat Jul 03, 2004 4:36 pm

Jon wrote:kampfire:

But those 4 points aren`t justified.
The only possible issue here is if that USA HomeLand Security see's an anti-gov domain (hostname) then it might want to ban the domain (this is a long shot)

As for the rest, looking dumb is when a user joins #not-a-warez-chan and does !list

It may be a waste of money, but shell providers profit from this. It`s business. It is all about "looking cool" or just the fact that you are on IRC from an IP other than your home IP.

Resources > *
I suppose you're right. But in actual honesty, I think it should be up to the individual server what they do about these domains. Like I said, personally I think those domains are stupid and are normally proliferated by packet kiddies but thats just the gist of things, there's no evidence that its a serious risk to efnet and therefore if opers want to keep those domains connecting then thats what they should do.

Besides, opers will do whatever they want anyways. Thats the way it always has been, as long as they dont step out of line.
sparcd
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 11:06 pm

Postby sparcd » Mon Jul 12, 2004 12:32 am

kampfire wrote:
I suppose you're right. But in actual honesty, I think it should be up to the individual server what they do about these domains. Like I said, personally I think those domains are stupid and are normally proliferated by packet kiddies but thats just the gist of things, there's no evidence that its a serious risk to efnet and therefore if opers want to keep those domains connecting then thats what they should do.
Well, they're doing the closest to the fake domains held by opers, whether it be by the perceived "packeteer" or just some person who just wanted something else in their domain name. If it was truly a waste of CPU cycles, nobody except those marketing them would use them. Besides, if you're complaining that it's a waste of cycles, then obviously you are running DNS on a ill-equipped host to run it. Run your DNS on something a bit more powerful than a P2/300 if you're going to do major routes.
Pills wrote: Considering I've held my O:line for over 10 years, I've seen what the early days of the network held, as well as now. The control of the admin over these things has remained constant that whole time.
The arrogance cant ring cleaner thant a bell with this remark, wonder how much of those packets wouldnt be created and sent to the servers if they still had the perspective of a normal user that has none of the favor of the opers, and acted with less arrogance. Without the servers, there would be no users, and without the users there would be more wasted cycles than "weird DNS/vhosts" would bring.
Brushing off the ash from the fires of old, becoming stronger every time.
User avatar
Pills
Forum Admin
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 1:14 pm
Location: Long Island, NY
Contact:

Postby Pills » Mon Jul 12, 2004 12:48 am

sparcd wrote:
Pills wrote: Considering I've held my O:line for over 10 years, I've seen what the early days of the network held, as well as now. The control of the admin over these things has remained constant that whole time.
The arrogance cant ring cleaner thant a bell with this remark, wonder how much of those packets wouldnt be created and sent to the servers if they still had the perspective of a normal user that has none of the favor of the opers, and acted with less arrogance. Without the servers, there would be no users, and without the users there would be more wasted cycles than "weird DNS/vhosts" would bring.
You have absolutely no idea what goes on behind the scenes. The whole point of what we do is so the users won't need us at all. The admins and opers are there to run the servers and protect the users. You should never need us, but we're there. From a user's perspective, we're almost like tech support; we're contacted when we're needed to solve a problem.

The fact is that the admins *are* in control. Sure, without the users, we'd have a small network, but the network would be there. Without the admins, guess what? No network. Is that arrogant? Do you not think that the people who represent the companies and universities whose machines comprise the network should be in control of it? Considering that the admins are much more hands off on this network than most others, especially the larger ones, I'd think that this revelation wouldn't really have much consequence.
admin, irc.umich.edu
oper, irc.servercentral.net
deppy
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 10:30 am
Location: Fairfax, VA

Postby deppy » Mon Jul 12, 2004 5:12 pm

sparcd wrote: wonder how much of those packets wouldnt be created and sent to the servers if they still had the perspective of a normal user that has none of the favor of the opers
Just to add a lil tidbit...Most of us that are opers started out being everyday joe luser's just like everyone else on the network. So the point of an oper 'not having the perspective of a normal user' doesn't hold much validity.

I also fully agree with pills. This network doesn't belong to the users, it belongs to the admins and the people who donate bandwidth. Those people could still talk to eachother even if the rest of the network went away. That's also likely to happen. The friends, the people who the admins actually talk to would stay till the very end.
Rage
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 9:52 pm
Location: a payphone
Contact:

Postby Rage » Tue Mar 22, 2005 10:25 pm

I wanted to rant too. ;]

I find it amusing that of the following 2 hostnames (assiming the same TLD)

ip00c2-2a13-193d-ee34.ipv6.domain.tld (ipv6 only)
I-am.domain.tld (reverses ipv6 and ipv4)

The shorter of the 2 is considered DNS Spam. The first hostname is solely used for IRC. But, the first (not spam) one actually consumes more of the 'precious resources' that everyone's so worried about. I-am is a valid machine name. I also have VII-pm. (I lost my creative zeal for machine names after #9 that week). Anyhow, the longer of the 2 takes almost twice as much bandwidth to transmit, if not 3x, and probably takes (albeiit probably measured in microseconds) more CPU time to run through filters (firewall, regexp, etc). I don't see what most of these hostnames are *actually* harming. Sure, I wouldn't want i.***ked.yo.mamma.com or kill.the.n*****s.com to join my channel, but i mean really, what's the harm in a couple witty (albeit non-rfc... ooooooh no, call the fbi maybel!) hostnames? Or in some cases fully rfc compliant legitimate hostnames. So long as they aren't offensive etc.

OR, is this one of those cases where I should shut my rant hole, and ask someone if they could give me an I: line. ;]
User avatar
HM2K
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 5:34 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Postby HM2K » Sun Mar 27, 2005 2:56 pm

This is such an old topic to be brought up, however while its here, i'll add a little more to it.

Not only is the whole idea of servers enabling DNS spam just rediculous, but the dns spam calc is stupid too...

a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a.hm2k.org is apparently NOT dns spam.
a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.hm2k.org is.

Not that I would ever use it as a vhost, but quite easily could use either if I so wished, however my point is that both are in my mind equally dns spam.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests