I'm not an IT guy, so no, I wasn't trolling. Why exactly is it "retarded" to build your system to reject (or at least flag) access patterns that are unlikely to be due to legitimate activity?
I'd recommend using the word "retarded" with a bit more circumspection. Obviously the incoming IP address doesn't uniquely identify a client who's likely to be on the other side of a NAT gateway. But the idea that a system should just sit there silently and carry on business as usual while any one address or class-C block generates large numbers of failed access attempts seems like a good application of the word in question.
