Forum Moderators: open
Perhaps in the distant future webamsters will ban together as a group for more respect by backbones in demanding compliance of their own (backbones) TOS and responses, other than automated replies.
Such as I reveived from Verio in this thread?
[webmasterworld.com...]
I've received the same automated replies from a multitude of backbones without any resolution.
I've been reading some mails in NG news.admin.net-abuse which has perhaps half-dozen different groups which recieve responses upon banning of servers under the SPEWS heading and some others. Interesting reading.
Before webmasters could possibly progress as a group however some across the board definitions need be agreed upon as to what is an actual violation, infraction or intrusion?
Any suggestions on where we might begin?
Don
Open proxies
Open relays
Allowing use of automated agents w/o a ua containing valid contact info.
(Just a dream, but there it is).
Jim
Would you think a requirement might be compliance with each specific websites TOS?
That might allow you and I, although we have similar restriction option goals to still have independent goals as well?
Perhaps any bot not registered with [robotstxt.org...] or some similar org would automatically be deemed noncompliant and outlaws.
I'm just looking for options and suggestions here as to how we as group might begin this process?
I like the w/o UA and valid contact.
Can you expand or provide some URL's on the proxies and relays?
Compliance with individual TOS would be reliant on the implementation of a coded method of expressing TOS, much like the compact privacy policy format being promulgated by IBM - some way of encoding TOS into a machine-readable standard format. What that means to me is that it's going to take a lot of effort, and adoption by a standards body.
Also, just like robots.txt, a malicious agent could still ignore it, and we'd be back to "manual" enforcement, just as today.
Open proxies and relays are just an ongoing problem, resulting in exploits by bad-bots to hide their real IP addresses, and global forwarding of difficult-to-trace spam respectively.
I'm not wired into the web standards community, so I have no idea how to promote the idea to a standards body important enought to actually research, implement, and enforce it.
Just a few random thoughts...
Jim
<snip>I'm not wired into the web standards community, so I have no idea how to promote the idea to a standards body important enought to actually research, implement, and enforce it.</snip>
Is it possible that we (webmasters) could implement our own standards "as a group" and let others come to us?
By others I mean backbones, IP's, SE's and standard body's?
We're sort of doing it (small as we may be) already. Just not in an organized fashion :( nor a joint effort.
Although many of us are in agreement on many things. We still would need some basic guideleines that might be universal for all websites? Or at least those represented here and in our little group?
Don
