November 1998 - Test - lists.nanog.org

The RBL & Bob.
by gstewart＠river.netrover.com 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

Wait... Before adding to this thread, please check out the following... http://www.netizen.org/Howling/Kooks/Allisat/ ... just something I found on a search engine ;)

1 0

Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users
by George Herbert 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

Karl Denninger <karl(a)Denninger.Net> writes: >The problem with this is that someone, sooner or later, is going to >take a run at people trying to set up what amounts to a set of contractual >requirements that exceed legal requirements - and then enforce them network >wide. >The collusive aspect of this is downright scary, especially when coupled >with threats of depeering, active denial of service attacks, etc. >I happen to be an "anti-spammer", but when you get to the point that you >start telling people what they have to put in their contracts as an industry, >such that if Person #1 commits an act on a *completely unrelated* system >they get their contract voided you're treading on very, very thin ice. >That looks an awful lot like an industry-wide blacklist, and those are >dangerously close to being per-se illegal. Let's put two scenarios forwards. Scenario 1: Company A has a web site hosted at ISP Z, and a bunch of throwaway dialup accounts on ISPs P, Q, R, and S. A spams ads for the web site on ISP Z via those throwaway dialups. P, Q, R, and S kill the dialup accounts used; people also complain to Z. If Z fails to close the web site that was spam advertised, someone complains to RBL who blackhole the web site server. Scenario 2: Company B has a set of web sites for various subsidiaries, hosted at ISPs T, U, and V. The marketing department for the group hosted at T spams via a bunch of dialups. People complain and dialups get nuked; people also complain to T, U and V asking that B be nuked. It isn't, so it gets reported to RBL and MAPS do thier thing on the website servers at T, and also on U and V which were not involved in the initial spam but are related to the company. In the first case, there is clearly a connection between the spamming and the website that gets RBLed; it was directly advertised by the spams. That direct link is sufficient under current RBL rules and meets my definition of terminatable customer. In the second case, one of the sites meets the above definition, but the sites at U and V (which may be for completely unrelated subsidiaries or groups within B) don't necessarily. This might begin to approach an illegal blacklist. The question is, are any cases similar to scenario 2 actually happening? As far as I know, no. Companies that have many websites that are having all their ISPs pressed to nuke them generally are spamming to advertise most or all of them, not just one or a few. -george william herbert gherbert(a)crl.com I speak for myself only, I am not a CRL employee

2 1

Re: Black Hole Vixie/RBL
by Bob Allisat 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

Nathan Stratton writes: > ...I signed NetRail up to the RBL because I felt like it. It was > my network and I could block all the spam I wanted. This is not US > mail, spam cost me money to transport. I have every right to > blackhole it. Sure I had a few dedicated customers that were not > happy with it, but they also had the right to find a new ISP if > they wanted. If I am a backbone provider or a ISP I have every > right to do whatever I want with my network. You have the same > thing with porn, I had users who tried to sue me for blocking it, > but they did not win. I have a right to not let my customers reach > spam, porn, or whatever. > > I was not infringing with my customers human rights or freedoms. > If they did not like it they could go find another provider. If > customers were forced to use a provider or the provider was > receiving money from USF or something then you MAY be able to > argue your point, but as long as the customer has a choice then I > can offer or not offer whatever I want. Mr. Stratton is describing the exact reason we all require a Digital Bill of Rights. In his universe we have no freedoms outside of his alleged Property Rights. Our mail, WWW viewing, Internet Telephony, etc, are at his mercy and according to his whim. To view the Digital Bill of Rights please visit: <http://fcn.net> Bob Allisat Free Community Network _ bob(a)fcn.net . http://fcn.net http://fcn.net/allisat _ http://fcn.net/draft

1 0

Re: luser of the day award!
by John Fraizer 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

"Thanks to the RBL, email from some idiot known as Alan Bechtold (alanbechtold(a)sysop.com) was bounced by our servers. It is estimated that this raised his blood-pressure only a fraction. However while trying to send email to every RBL site, and having them bounce in chorus, his head exploded from the strain. Thus, we have succeeded in ridding the population of some low-life whose only purpose in life was to suck up oxygen from those of us who actually have a contribution to make to society!" -- Anonymous, yet proud RBL user. ------- John Fraizer | __ _ The System Administrator | / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | The choice mailto:John.Fraizer@EnterZone.Net | / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | of a GNU http://www.EnterZone.Net/ | /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | Generation A 486 is a terrible thing to waste...

1 0

RE: Lawsuit threat against RBL users
by Chris Mauritz 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

Uh huh. Kindly show how I'm abusing your rights if you sign an Acceptable Use Policy, break that policy, and then I cut your connectivity. Also, kindly show how I'd be abusing your rights by deciding that I didn't want to route your traffic over my private link. Don't be bashful. Chris Chris Mauritz Director, Systems Administration Rare Medium, Inc. chrism(a)raremedium.com -----Original Message----- From: Bob Allisat [mailto:bob@fcn.net] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2036 2:13 AM To: Chris Mauritz Cc: 'Karl Denninger'; 'Sheryl Chapin'; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: Lawsuit threat against RBL users Chris Mauritz writes: > If I am an ISP, I'm free to have whatever AUP I want. IF clients > don't like the AUP, they are free to shop elsewhere. I don't have > the ability to force other ISPs to use my AUP or even a close > facsimile...nor is there is a method to enforce your 1984 vision > anyway. The net is a loose connection of public and private > links. If I own a private link and I decide that I'm going to > route you into /dev/null...that's what I'll do. There isn't a > thing you can do about it. I can lobby government to pass laws protecting my Rights from being abused by commercial interests. Those rights can be included in constitutions and Bills of Rights thereafter extending protections I expect everywhere else to new media and emmerging technologies. Don't Tread on Me... Great motto from the great American Revolution. You remember... the one that secured the rights and freedoms of millions of people and has served as an example to the world, eh? Bob Allisat Free Community Network _ bob(a)fcn.net . http://fcn.net http://fcn.net/allisat _ http://fcn.net/draft

1 0

Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users
by Paul Vixie 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

scottm(a)ulfus.cs.ucla.edu (Scott Michel) writes: > From reading this list, it doesn't sound like RBL is being used as a > tool to squelch the disenfranchised. I can't say I know Paul Vixie > all that well, but I think he'd be the first to raise a red flag if > RBL was being used as a tool to censor people. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary says of "censor": | 2 : one who supervises conduct and morals: as (a) : an official who | examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter; (b) | : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and | deletes material considered sensitive or harmful So technically I *am* a censor. As to the disenfranchised, well, I'm more interested in the tragedy of the commons than I am in the welfare of the sysop.com guy. But we did suggest that if he was unable or unwilling to disconnect his spammers, he ought to put his spammers on separate web an mail servers (even if only virtually different, i.e., different interface alias addresses) from his non-spammers. We only want to blackhole his spammers, not him personally nor his entire business. He refused on the grounds that we ought not be allowed to dictate his business practices. > Paul only provides a mechanism, so you can't sue him. It's like the > City of Chicago trying to sue the gun makers for aiding and abetting > murder after the fact -- plainly guns don't kill people, people kill > people. Take this analogy a step further: RBL black-holes spam, but > people implement RBL to deal with people sending spam. At the moment there appear to be no grounds for a civil suit, which is too bad -- I'd really like to create some case law since congress is being gutless. The RICO or Sherman stuff is more applicable, and if this sysop.com guy contacts his local DA then he might be able to cause us (MAPS, that is) some trouble. -- Paul Vixie <paul(a)vix.com>

1 0

Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users
by Paul Vixie 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

keric(a)cyberiron.com (Eric Anderson) writes: > Not to mention being the ultimate DoS: sending out loads of useless > SPAM that appears to come from a competitor, getting them kicked off > their Net. The RBL team has occasionally received and followed up on some spam, traced it back through multiple providers, only to discover that it was forged by a somebody's competitor. We blackholed the real source in those cases, not the forged source. The telephone is a marvelous tool for figuring out what really happened, and our use of the phone is one of the things that makes the RBL so difficult to maintain. -- Paul Vixie <paul(a)vix.com>

1 0

Re: Black Hole Vixie/RBL
by Adam D. McKenna 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

Bob, the RBL is a completely voluntary service, and everyone who uses it uses it by choice. If you don't like it, don't use it. Leave the rest of us alone. --Adam -----Original Message----- From: Bob Allisat <bob(a)fcn.net> To: nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: Thursday, November 19, 1998 11:42 AM Subject: Black Hole Vixie/RBL Paul A Vixie <paul(a)vix.com> writes + The RBL team and I are kind of wondering what to do about some spam + we got. Because blackholing NSI would be of operational concern to a + lot of you, I've decided to ponder this question out loud: + + >Technically, this is an opt-out customer-relationship spam. + > + > I think it is a special case, because _there is no where else to go_. + > + > 208.226.58.70 should be RBL'ed, IMHO. Help me. Mr. Vixie and his cohorts increasingly imagine themselves to be the final and ultimate arbiters in matters of Network integrity. Having them sit in judgement over the Black Holing of successive and alleged perpetrators violates numerous protections and freedoms all citizens It is my opinion that these activities have reached their zenith and something should be done to finally Black Hole Vixie/RBL should they continue on their renegade mission of uncontrolled and arbitrary censorship. Maybe it is time to pull the plug on the ultimate plug pullers, black hole the black holers! Bob Allisat Free Community Network _ bob(a)fcn.net . http://fcn.net http://fcn.net/allisat _ http://fcn.net/draft

1 0

Re: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited
by Dean Anderson 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

At 11:20 AM 11/17/1998 -0600, Phil Howard wrote: >Dean Anderson wrote: > >> their customers. Not potential future customers. Existing customers. They >> didn't buy this list from somewhere. They asked for, and required customers >> to give this information, and to give them permission to send email. > >That's not asking for it. That's demanding it. No e-mail ... no domain. >Until NSI does not have an actual monopoly on TLDs, then it is a form of >legalized extortion. You can prove to me otherwise by registering a domain >in a gTLD either w/o giving any addresses. I guess you can register your domains under .US from now on... I hear they have a better policy. By your logic, all business is legalized extortion: "Cisco is the only vendor that has this product I need. But they won't give it to me unless I pay..." I suppose the operative word is LEGALIZED. I've criticized NSI when they deserve criticism. This time, they aren't being unreasonable. Once again, the anti-spammers are going on an extreme, trying to tell NSI that it can't contact its domain registrants to sell them additional domain related services. NSI isn't trying to sell pizza or computers, or toner. They are trying to sell services that are probably of interest to domain registrants, who registered domains with NSI. I don't see what's wrong with that. I've got to wonder if _some_ of the people complaining here are just worried about NSI competing against their own domain/nameservice/bind consulting services. Or perhaps have some other ax to grind. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 1

NANOG 14 Registration
by Pam Ciesla 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

If you registered and sent in some form of payment for NANOG 14 and want a refund please contact me by December 4, 1998. If you need a copy of receipts include your fax number or mailing address. Note that there is a $35 late cancellation fee. Thanks Pam Pam Ciesla Merit Network,Inc. 734-936-0172 - phone 4251 Plymouth Road 734-647-3185 Bldg.I, Suite C pam(a)merit.edu Ann Arbor, MI 48107

1 0