Posted by speeder on 10/02/05 20:21

On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 18:02:40 -0700, "Billy Joe"
<see.id.line@invalid.org> wrote:

>My concern with IP blocking is the ease with which IPs can be changed.
>Beside which, you refer to the "dynamics" quite often. Also, the necessity
>for some one person (or many persons) being required to track malignant IPs
>and the propensity of we humans to make mistakes, especially when keying in
>numbers. A possible example: in the source URL you cited this appears
>"beyond the network:63.216.0.0-63.223.255.255." That's 458,752 IP numbers.
>If it's incorrect, that's a large number of IPs which can not connect to the
>WPN (should everyone eventually use the DLL). Can they all be malicious??
>On another hand: Do we care? I don't, but you've said that you do.

All the points you are making about IP blocking are valid and true.
But if you look at it with a different expectation you might see its
value.

We would love a solution that works 100% of the time. IP blocking is
not it and it doesn't pretend to be either. In reality there simply is
no ultimate solution. Whatever we create they are bound to find a
countermeasure. Luckily, this works both ways, so they are not in a
better situation either ("they" being the collective dark powers that
want to extinct p2p). Perhaps it was predestined to be in equilibrium
like this.

This cat and mouse game will never end. But currently, IP blocking has
its place and is quite effective. Yes, it's high maintenance, yes, it
will generate collateral damage, yes, it is not 100% guaranteed. But I
say the same things about my anti-virus (daily updates, false
positives and the occasional infection) and I still would think it
insane to not have one. IP blocking keeps Macrovision, Sony, Overpeer
and so many others from having a field day. If they want me, they are
going to have to try harder and hopefully (for me) there will be
easier catch to fry ;-)

>I prefer behavior blocking. And yes, as you've noted, I'd allow the
>behavior to continue while, hopefully, dampening it significantly. The
>premise being, let the beast enjoy some success, rather than stir it to new
>levels of aggression.

I would appreciate this too. In fact, I wouldn't rule out anything, I
believe we need every single weapon to fight this war. But your last
sentence leaves implicit that it is only a matter of time until they
find a workaround. And so the world keeps spinning...

<snip>

>No matter what method is ultimately employed, it is right now a moment of
>opportunity - the WinMX community, in its entirety, needs a solution. I'd
>venture further to say that our typical RUSH TO IMMEDIATE SATISFACTION may
>have produced a methodology which is far from best. It instigates IP
>blocks. Somehow I see their people and our people sitting at consoles and
>typing madly like the schlockiest of TV melodramas with the fastest
>typist(s) hoisting one for the queens ;-0)

I could see the same thing and hopefully we are more to type away than
they are! The recent demonstration of the WinMX community was a
tremendous statement. Huge message it was, I hope they are listening.

[Back to original message]