> Making arguments based upon extreme cases, assumptions, or potential-for-collateral-damage is not scientific. "I know one that even [...]" Anecdotal evidence isn't scientific.
From the perspective of your previous sentences that's kinda humorous. "To avoid unnecessary costs incurred from disruption of service, excessive traffic, annoyances using up *my* time, and countless other reasonable rationale from *my* point of view." Because sure, a few (hypothetical RIPE probe) connections are exactly that, zero exaggeration, right?
In the end such fail2ban-fueled (or similar) behaviour I initially addressed, is exactly a non-scientific extreme-case assumption-based approach. There are better and even more standard ways.
Crutch solutions out in the wild shouldn't be a showstopper for measuring the ecosystem. (That is already quite neglected)
> What _objective_ risk/benefit analysis are you basing your opinions upon?
And you? What's the implication here about systems being as trigger-happy as previously described?
Because sure, at some point rate limits make total sense, but certainly not at the point where it would ban any potential RIPE probes.
> Are you a systems administrator?
Let's not get into such measuring contests, even if it is the RIPE Atlas mailing list.