-11

As foreseen, I am pleased how others have contributed to and evolved this mini project:

  • Supports both IPv6 and IPv4
  • ipset rather than iptables
  • state files no longer required.

https://gist.github.com/klepsydra/ecf975984b32b1c8291a#gistcomment-1645349

Yet when originally searching for a missing solution--and later developing one--to https://serverfault.com/questions/647891/make-fail2ban-use-public-blacklists/648087#648087 (Subsequently shared back to this very same SE), a wildly different response came about from a few particular members at the time on Serverfault, championed by one's subjective non-expert reactions.

Diplomacy aside, this is not meant to step on anyone's toes. But in my opinion, as others have eventually noted too, this question should not have been closed. At least not so quickly and prematurely, before expertise in the field would have had a crack at it. Technology has since progressed, and hopefully the community on this particular SE had matured a bit too. I wonder if such a question can be re-opened and the voting damage undone, of the original question having fallen victim to the lynch-mob effect, despite being well-researched in advance and clear and relevant.

closed as off-topic by HopelessN00b, kasperd, mdpc, Ward, Jenny D Jan 28 '16 at 19:34

  • This question does not appear to be about Server Fault or the software that powers the Stack Exchange network within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • Original answer, which outlined the technical question's actual solution: serverfault.com/a/648087/104682 – Marcos Jan 22 '16 at 13:56
  • 5
    This was off topic and horrible on the actual Server Fault site. It's even more off topic and more horrible on Meta Server Fault. – HopelessN00b Jan 22 '16 at 15:05
  • @HopelessN00b - you are hopeless. Nice to see you again. – Deer Hunter Jan 22 '16 at 15:08
  • 2
    I would disagree that having this meta discussion here is off-topic. It's just there really isn't much to discuss ... – Sven Jan 22 '16 at 15:12
  • 5
    @Sven I'm having trouble telling if this is complaining about the question being closed... over a year ago ... or an attempt to repost/promote the question here, since it didn't get the reception he wanted on the main. Hence, the close vote. – HopelessN00b Jan 22 '16 at 15:28
  • 3
    It's obvious that this is a project that you really care about. I mainly remember it, however, from your meta post when it was closed. I say this with all respect and good intention: Let it go. – Katherine Villyard Jan 23 '16 at 4:13
11

No.

  • No, we will not reopen this (well, at least I won't).
  • No, the voting can't be changed or reversed. Don't even think about it.
  • No, your question is not a victim of a lynch mob. It's merely a bunch of experienced professionals who see the problems in your approach.
  • No, it's still not well researched.
  • No, there is no advancement in technology since a year ago that I am aware of and that would make this any bit less of a terrible idea.
  • No, reopening this question wouldn't benefit you or anyone else. Remember, Serverfault is a Q&A site and not a forum to have discussions.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .