nanog mailing list archives
Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl)
From: Dean Anderson <dean () av8 com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 19:12:23 -0400
If 2511 were relevant to spam, then Wallace Stanford would be a millionaire today instead of having his ass in a sling.
No, Unfortunately, there isn't much in the way of civil penalties. And his contract for service was terminated, which is legal. [that has been one of my points: you have to disconnect *your* customer if you don't like whats coming out of their pipe. You can't smugly pretend your router doesn't work and you can't pretend that spam is an DOS attack if its not.]. Anyway, there hasn't been any evidence that Wallace was ever blocked by anyone who was not a party to his email. AOL, Compuserve, etc are parties to their users email: their contracts give them permission. Sprint (for a madeup example) would not be a party to a spam traveling from Wallaces AGIS connection, over Sprint, to MCI, to AOL. As far as I can tell, Sprint never blocked him, nor did anyone else in their position. But the statute of limitations hasn't expired. If someone would like to admit to blocking him, when they weren't a lawful party to the communications, please contact me. Vix and I have been in agreement that we need a test case. I volunteered to try and find such evidence last year, but I can't. What I've found is that ***no major NSP's block spammers***, or least none actually admit to doing so. One that boasted of such filtering on Nanog last winter, backed down on providing evidence of blocking, and I couldn't find any without some cooperation from them, from my remote point. If you are an NSP, and you are blocking a spammer from transiting your network, where you have no relationship with the parties to the email (the sender or the recipient), and you and your attorney are completely convinced of the legality of your actions, then tell me who you are blocking. And we'll have our test case. It claimed that 2511 Only applies to telephone/voice communications Doesn't apply to email etc. Each of these has been shown to be wrong. There isn't anything left to debate. If you are really doing what you claim you can, then someone should provide some evidence. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean () av8 com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP/DCE http://www.av8.com We Make IT Fly! (617)242-3091 x246 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Current thread:
- Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl), (continued)
- Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl) Paul Vixie (Jun 20)
- Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl) Steve Sobol (Jun 21)
- Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl) Richard Welty (Jun 22)
- Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl) Paul Mansfield (Jun 22)
- Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl) Henry Linneweh (Jun 23)
- Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl) Jeremy Porter (Jun 23)
- Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl) J.D. Falk (Jun 18)
- Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl) Dean Robb (Jun 16)
- Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl) Dean Anderson (Jun 16)
- Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl) Bill Becker (Jun 17)
- Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl) Dean Anderson (Jun 17)
- Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl) Karl Denninger (Jun 18)
- Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl) Dean Anderson (Jun 18)
- Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl) Dean Robb (Jun 18)
- Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl) Karl Denninger (Jun 18)
- Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl) NetSurfer (Jun 19)
- Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl) Brian Wallingford (Jun 18)
- Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl) Rick Smith (Jun 18)
- Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl) Bill Becker (Jun 18)
- Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl) Dean Robb (Jun 17)
- Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl) Richard Welty (Jun 18)