Dean Anderson wrote:

I can't live with a powerful instrument like the RBL which is applied capriciously at Pauls apparent whim. I think others agree with this.

H'mmmm As far as I understand it, Paul created the RBL for himself, so he didn't have to deal with all the crap that was sent to him. Then some of us asked if we could use his list of sources of spam, so we could stop the crap without having to duplicate his efforts (if we went through the same effort, we wouldn't need to take his feed, now would we?). He grudgingly agreed, as long as we acknowledged that this was precisely what he was doing. Taking care of his mailbox, and grudgingly allowing us to share his own personal data. At no charge. As a special favor. Where do you end up talking about a tool to beat people over the head being in the hands of someone who has wild mood swings. All Paul is doing is making use of his right to make personal decisions. The fact that a third of the Internet (or whatever the number) happens to want to use Paul's data, provided as a favor, has nothing to do with anyone else in the world getting involved in his process. It's his. I doubt Paul asked you to use it. So don't. Anyone else who has a problem should do the same. The byproducts of his list are not a requirement of his. Merely a byproduct. Cause and effect. A bonus. But definitely not a requirement. /rlj

First off, this doesn't belong here, it belongs on the rbl-discussion mailing list, created specifically for this purpose, but...

Thats an operational problem. I think we either need to take the hammer away from Paul and give it to someone more even handed and fair about the application of the rules, or stop using the hammer altogether. The latter alternative is unlikely.

You can have fun trying to take the hammer from Paul's hands. Just make sure you give me some notice so I can pack up some beer and chips and get ready to watch the show. The RBL is Paul's. Not yours, not mine, not the net's in general, and certainly not the government's. If he wants to make a list of mail-servers he doesn't like, that's his business. It's my business if I choose to use it. If I'm on it? Too bad. He doesn't like me, and he has every right to make a list of people he doesn't like. Luckily, Paul uses more logical methods of determining membership in the RBL Club. :) ====================================================================== Derek J. Balling | "Bill Gates is a monocle and a white dredd@megacity.org | fluffy cat from being a villain in the http://www.megacity.org/ | next Bond film." - Dennis Miller ======================================================================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Take it to the rbl-discussion list, Dean. - - James D. Wilson "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem" William of Ockham (1285-1347/49) - -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Dean Anderson Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 1998 11:01 AM To: Jay R. Ashworth Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: ** Forged spamming going on At 12:59 AM 12/22/1998 -0500, you wrote:

I begin to think you're being _wilfully perverse_ in your misunderstandings of things people state clearly.

Let me clarify things then. First he said he RBL'ed them "in the first 6 months of the RBL". Now they are RBL supporters. Then read the "makes no effort" The so-called "effort" here is really just "cooperation" with Paul Vixie. I'm not the only one concerned about coercion by the RBL. I know I'm not the only one concerned that the use of this coercion is capricious and unpredictable, and changes depending on Paul's moods and own interests. This was demonstrated quite clearly with the abandonment of rules to essentially blackmail NetSol into cooperation. The bottom line is that the RBL is a powerful hammer, and the person in control is inclined to act capriciously without concern for anyone else or even follow his own rules about their "permitted activities" as he originally defined them in the pages on qualification for the RBL. Thats an operational problem. I think we either need to take the hammer away from Paul and give it to someone more even handed and fair about the application of the rules, or stop using the hammer altogether. The latter alternative is unlikely. I have argued in the past that the RBL will not acheive its desired goals. And I don't think it will, or has. But I don't deny it certainly does have effective power to coerce and influence the industry. It can clearly move big players like earthlink and others. I can live by whatever rules as long as they are evenly applied to everyone else. I can't live with a powerful instrument like the RBL which is applied capriciously at Pauls apparent whim. I think others agree with this. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean@av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.0.2 Comment: Spammers are NetAbusers - Jail Them With The Other Criminals iQA/AwUBNoCAnDAufbtGOmgdEQI1vwCfQe1nRyAHwp0iOkl+EXix5dX1YS0Anj8o /GIL1Hh8yT46Rsb1ZWvuSnBb =Dn/Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----