Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] The Definition of Fast Flux

[Marc Perkel <marc@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike O'Connor wrote:
> > We are trying so
> > hard to do no harm to non-criminal cases but at the same time we 
> > persist in
> > treating the two applications as one.
> >
> > If it is consentual, it is not fast flux.
> > If it is consentual, it is not a bot net.
> I'm more comfortable using this as the fingerprint.  Could we simply 
> "define away" the consentual-botnet case that came up on the call?  
> Others?
I agree. I think that what we all mean by bot net is non-consensual. We 
could get stuck in definitions forever. For example, if someone is 
tricked into consenting to something that is not what they intended - 
that also non-consensual.