[atlas] RIPE Atlas SMTP Measurement

> Making arguments based upon extreme cases, assumptions, or
potential-for-collateral-damage is not scientific. "I know one that even
[...]" Anecdotal  evidence isn't scientific.

>From the perspective of your previous sentences that's kinda humorous. "To
avoid unnecessary costs incurred from disruption of service, excessive
traffic, annoyances using up *my* time, and countless other reasonable
rationale from *my* point of view." Because sure, a few (hypothetical RIPE
probe) connections are exactly that, zero exaggeration, right?

In the end such fail2ban-fueled (or similar) behaviour I initially
addressed, is exactly a non-scientific extreme-case assumption-based
approach. There are better and even more standard ways.

Crutch solutions out in the wild shouldn't be a showstopper for measuring
the ecosystem. (That is already quite neglected)

> What _objective_ risk/benefit analysis are you basing your opinions upon?

And you? What's the implication here about systems being as trigger-happy
as previously described?

Because sure, at some point rate limits make total sense, but certainly not
at the point where it would ban any potential RIPE probes.

>  Are you a systems administrator?

Let's not get into such measuring contests, even if it is the RIPE Atlas
mailing list.

On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 11:42 PM Paul Theodoropoulos via ripe-atlas <
ripe-atlas at ripe.net> wrote:

> On 9/20/2022 10:45 AM, Avamander wrote:
>
> Great to hear it works for you, but the potential unfortunate collateral
> from such a blanket action is not really RIPE Atlas' problem. There are
> more fine-grained methods against bruteforce attempts and open relay
> probes, than triggering on a few connections.
>
> What _objective_ risk/benefit analysis are you basing your opinions upon?
> Are you a systems administrator? My responsibility is to avoid unnecessary
> costs incurred from disruption of service, excessive traffic, annoyances
> using up *my* time, and countless other reasonable rationale from *my*
> point of view.
>
> You suggest that it is "not really RIPE Atlas' problem". That's very true.
> And it is not really my problem if I bounce yoinky, pointless probes of my
> server, and ruthlessly block them from contacting my server ever again. My
> server, my choice, my wallet, nobody's business but my own.
>
> Some webmasters ban IP's for simply visiting a domain, I know one that
> even dispatches an email to your ISP's abuse@ address upon visit. Should
> RIPE Atlas probes then not probe any HTTP servers? The answer is obviously
> no, they shouldn't care.
>
> Making arguments based upon extreme cases, assumptions, or
> potential-for-collateral-damage is not scientific. "I know one that even
> [...]" Anecdotal  evidence isn't scientific.
>
> Note, I run a probe myself. I don't block any RIPE Atlas traffic on my
> separate servers hosted on AWS, Oracle, and GCE.
>
> --
> Paul Theodoropoulos
> anastrophe.com <https://www.anastrophe.com>
> --
> ripe-atlas mailing list
> ripe-atlas at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ripe-atlas/attachments/20220921/b20b5c29/attachment.html>