ethics of listing proxy service

Slightly off-topic perhaps; thought I'd query the collective wisdom...

I maintain a page of cache advice (http://vancouver-webpages.com/CacheNow;
slightly stale now and needs more HTTP/1.1 tips) which includes a link
to IRC4ALL. IRC4ALL maintains a list of transparent and non-transparent
proxies, many apparantly Squid on 3128. On this list is a certain company
which doesn't wish to be on it, running an open proxy (didn't have
ACL, does now I think).

What do people think of the ethics of publishing apparantly public
services on well-known ports? I thought it might be compared to
a search engine testing port 80, but my correspondant thinks it's more
like testing port 25 for mail relay. I think it's rude; he thinks it's
abuse.

I seem to recall that NLANR has had ACLs for years, and if I understand
things the ncsa-auth in Squid 2 would allow a roaming user to access the
cache by password, which I think was their reason for not using ACL.

Andrew Daviel
Received on Wed Jan 13 1999 - 19:13:04 MST