Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users

[Dan Maus <dmaus () converg com>]

Sheryl Chapin wrote:

> > That's right. It stops the practice of using a sacrificial account, from
> > AOL or netcom, to spam for a web-site that is otherwise protected. Does it
> > make a difference that they didn't spam from their own ISP? That customer
> > is *still* a spammer whether they did it from your site or not. Maybe
> > you're of the "It's alright as long as they don't do it here" crowd? Well,
> > that's one of the things that the RBL was built for. The rest of us don't
> > have to put up with your negligence.
>
> I don't see it as "it's alright as long as they don't do it here".  I see
> it as "I have control over my network, but not over anyone elses".  I have
> an AUP that specifically states spamming is not allowed.  I have kicked off
> users who have spammed.  However, I do not have an AUP that says "If you
> ever spam anyone ever in the world on any network anywhere I will
> disconnect whatever service you have".   I don't control the entire
> internet, just my little piece of it. :-)

I see it as "Spammers are just not tolerated here.".  Spamming is lame, and
allowing
spammers to use throw away name brand accounts to advertise sites on your
network is hostile to the spam recipients, and the name brand network they
abuse
to send the spam.  I don't control the whole net either, but I do define the
acceptable
use of my network, and violators of my policies can find a new provider.  It
is a
deterrent, it is not popular with spammers, and I'm glad I'm not the only
person
with this view.   "The only way to win is not to spam."

Clearly the RBL is working, I now reject spam routinely, and I think the
lawsuit
threat is bullying hogwash.   I choose to block spam, and I appreciate the
service that
Paul and the MAPS team provide to me.

Dan

> Sheryl Chapin
> Senior Network Engineer
> CommTel Internet    207.377.3508
> Winthrop, Maine     schapin () ctel net