(boston.conman.org)

597 points classichasclass | 1 comments | 25 Aug 25 04:23 UTC | HN request time: 0.243s | source

Show context

Etheryte ◴[25 Aug 25 05:39 UTC] No.45010574[source]▶

One starts to wonder, at what point might it be actually feasible to do it the other way around, by whitelisting IP ranges. I could see this happening as a community effort, similar to adblocker list curation etc.

replies(9): >>45010597 #>>45010603 #>>45010604 #>>45010611 #>>45010624 #>>45010757 #>>45010872 #>>45010910 #>>45010935 #

delusional ◴[25 Aug 25 05:50 UTC] No.45010624[source]▶

>>45010574 #

At that point it almost sounds like we're doing "peering" agreements at the IP level.

Would it make sense to have a class of ISPs that didn't peer with these "bad" network participants?

replies(2): >>45010659 #>>45010714 #

1. JimDabell ◴[25 Aug 25 05:55 UTC] No.45010659[source]▶

>>45010624 #

If this didn’t happen for spam, it’s not going to happen for crawlers.

↑

Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me