Saw this the other day, and had to ask if what it says is true at all.
http://tinyurl.com/hsbyd
Full Version: is this true about these lists?
I'd call it a mix of selected truth and speculation by someone with a personal grudge
against Bluetack. No, I wouldn't take that personal blog as fully truthful at all.
against Bluetack. No, I wouldn't take that personal blog as fully truthful at all.
Personal grudge? Do tell.
So what parts are not true then?
So what parts are not true then?
moron to moron blog
Note how he takes making a stand on principle and slants it into a criminally rude
attempt to abolish his poor little victim from the internet. Such an outrage.
More thought and effort goes into these lists than he is willing to admit
He refuses to mention that the better lists (most of which are here) are updated
more frequently than he craftily implies.
He also implies the sole purpose of blocklists is to protect the little guy from the big bad
MAFIAA spies, which couldn't be farther from the truth. I have a sizeable list in the left
panel, the gnutella templist, that covers many categories of gnutella pollution like
worms, trojans, zombies and high-volume spammers. In short, it covers everything
but what he expected and is updated frequently enough to keep virtually all of it
covered. The noise reduction alone is worth the effort. It just might help you
avoid the worst of the crap out there, saving your download bandwidth for what you
really want.
As for protection from MAFIAA spies is concerned, he falsely assumes they would
spend any effort on his own little "comparative method". That kind of idea is always
doomed to the cocktail napkins because there simply is no point in trying it when far
simpler and cheaper searches for well-known music and video under copyright
protection always find more than enough victims for their next wave of sleazy lawsuits.
Besides, they already have proven they can't even get the simpler way right.
Note how he takes making a stand on principle and slants it into a criminally rude
attempt to abolish his poor little victim from the internet. Such an outrage.
More thought and effort goes into these lists than he is willing to admit
He refuses to mention that the better lists (most of which are here) are updated
more frequently than he craftily implies.
He also implies the sole purpose of blocklists is to protect the little guy from the big bad
MAFIAA spies, which couldn't be farther from the truth. I have a sizeable list in the left
panel, the gnutella templist, that covers many categories of gnutella pollution like
worms, trojans, zombies and high-volume spammers. In short, it covers everything
but what he expected and is updated frequently enough to keep virtually all of it
covered. The noise reduction alone is worth the effort. It just might help you
avoid the worst of the crap out there, saving your download bandwidth for what you
really want.
As for protection from MAFIAA spies is concerned, he falsely assumes they would
spend any effort on his own little "comparative method". That kind of idea is always
doomed to the cocktail napkins because there simply is no point in trying it when far
simpler and cheaper searches for well-known music and video under copyright
protection always find more than enough victims for their next wave of sleazy lawsuits.
Besides, they already have proven they can't even get the simpler way right.
That guy is a fucking moron.
Ludde claims he does not know him at all. There is a big part of p2p users who will never trust Ludde and his app ever again. That's the nature of the beast, I have been around here to know better than to not let people know such a deal went down, It does not matter the details to these people. We have taken the site out of the lists and still people come and ask for the IP so they can block it.
What that blogger did not know, and even denied, was that me and ludde talked in a private pm and he showed me all that he could to convince me he was not out against p2p users. We here at bluetack have to test everyone as to their character and even after being so rude to ludde he was able to talk and be considerate to me and we left the talk on as good of terms as we possibly could.
This led to me putting a link in the block to explain it, then later on led to the removal of the block from level1 list. Ludde came in to our irc the day after it was unblocked as someone must have reported to him it was unblocked, dunno for sure. I was not around but I did read the log of what he said and he seemed pleased, but as usual was busy.
I gotta ask you, In this environment surrounding p2p what do you think is considered "OK"? What one thinks is "OK" the next thinks is completely unacceptable. We have to try to cover everyone and not just one side. IMO, our lists would be no good at all if we only covered one side.
firstaid
Ludde claims he does not know him at all. There is a big part of p2p users who will never trust Ludde and his app ever again. That's the nature of the beast, I have been around here to know better than to not let people know such a deal went down, It does not matter the details to these people. We have taken the site out of the lists and still people come and ask for the IP so they can block it.
What that blogger did not know, and even denied, was that me and ludde talked in a private pm and he showed me all that he could to convince me he was not out against p2p users. We here at bluetack have to test everyone as to their character and even after being so rude to ludde he was able to talk and be considerate to me and we left the talk on as good of terms as we possibly could.
This led to me putting a link in the block to explain it, then later on led to the removal of the block from level1 list. Ludde came in to our irc the day after it was unblocked as someone must have reported to him it was unblocked, dunno for sure. I was not around but I did read the log of what he said and he seemed pleased, but as usual was busy.
I gotta ask you, In this environment surrounding p2p what do you think is considered "OK"? What one thinks is "OK" the next thinks is completely unacceptable. We have to try to cover everyone and not just one side. IMO, our lists would be no good at all if we only covered one side.
firstaid
There is a sad truth here. Uninformed people are going to get burned, perhaps badly. Like "grandma" in Ep 19 of "The Scene." Life isn't "fair."
The router/firewall combos I see from the Telcos arrive with the firewall disabled by default. Windows XP ships with most services enabled by default. Yahoo email starts with a default sub to a boatload of crap and webbugs. Most everyone's privacy statements include disclaimers that they can make any changes to what you are agreeing to at any time. New PCs ship with slimeware preinstalled at the factory from the production image. Vista will supposedly ship with the firewall crippled. Your cell phone can use your car as a vector to infect other phones. The list goes on and on.
People don't want to be bothered, but they get very humble when their eBay account is used to buy a car by someone they don't know. After your data is lost, be it by a bot or a hard drive failure, is a little late to be looking for the how-to.
As big of a pain as they are to maintain and use, blocklists are easier than the real answer; whitelists.
Anytime I read something like this I have to wonder what they're selling, what they have to hide, what they have to lose and what their personal motivations are. I don't think I was always like that.
But the answers I've come up with over the years have made me bitter, cynical and distrustful. Because I'm not one of the smart ones; I'm a lazy human who just want's to get by on the least amount of knowledge of things I'm not really interested in. I'm at risk, and I don't think I deserve to be.
So I fight back by telling every "grandma" I know about B.I.S.S.
--CF
The router/firewall combos I see from the Telcos arrive with the firewall disabled by default. Windows XP ships with most services enabled by default. Yahoo email starts with a default sub to a boatload of crap and webbugs. Most everyone's privacy statements include disclaimers that they can make any changes to what you are agreeing to at any time. New PCs ship with slimeware preinstalled at the factory from the production image. Vista will supposedly ship with the firewall crippled. Your cell phone can use your car as a vector to infect other phones. The list goes on and on.
People don't want to be bothered, but they get very humble when their eBay account is used to buy a car by someone they don't know. After your data is lost, be it by a bot or a hard drive failure, is a little late to be looking for the how-to.
As big of a pain as they are to maintain and use, blocklists are easier than the real answer; whitelists.
Anytime I read something like this I have to wonder what they're selling, what they have to hide, what they have to lose and what their personal motivations are. I don't think I was always like that.
But the answers I've come up with over the years have made me bitter, cynical and distrustful. Because I'm not one of the smart ones; I'm a lazy human who just want's to get by on the least amount of knowledge of things I'm not really interested in. I'm at risk, and I don't think I deserve to be.
So I fight back by telling every "grandma" I know about B.I.S.S.
--CF
I love it how these knowall's get so much airplay. They crap on about blocklists not providing 100% protection, and how IP's change and blah blah blah.
I never remember anyone ever saying that blocklists provide 100% protection, and anyone who beleives they do is severely mistaken. But think about it, If we didn't block even the most obvious of IP's such as those owned by ap2p companies, which is what this guy suggest, then they would have an absolute field day!
But this is the best bit...
A LOT OF WORK GOES INTO TRACKING DOWN ACCURATE RANGES TO ADD INTO THE BLOCKLISTS
That includes suspicious 'Home User' ranges. There is only so many times they can move ip blocks on a wide scale. Why make it easy for them and not block the ones we know about, or suspect.
Although, it would make mine and alot of guys lives around here alot easier,
and would be a lot less work.
I never remember anyone ever saying that blocklists provide 100% protection, and anyone who beleives they do is severely mistaken. But think about it, If we didn't block even the most obvious of IP's such as those owned by ap2p companies, which is what this guy suggest, then they would have an absolute field day!
But this is the best bit...
QUOTE
ust as a side note - I remember discussing the metrits of the comparative method back in 98, when I was a copyright enforcer
WTF! A LOT OF WORK GOES INTO TRACKING DOWN ACCURATE RANGES TO ADD INTO THE BLOCKLISTS
That includes suspicious 'Home User' ranges. There is only so many times they can move ip blocks on a wide scale. Why make it easy for them and not block the ones we know about, or suspect.
Although, it would make mine and alot of guys lives around here alot easier,
and would be a lot less work.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.