On January 25, 2000 at 15:06 noise@cow.org (Christopher Neill) wrote:

Not everyone who runs an RBL is a "spam nazi" like (as some would have it) Alan Brown and myself :)

[since this was addressed to me I'll respond briefly] I'm not terribly amused by the "spam nazi" term particularly in the context of supposed humorous self-congratulation involving someone who has acted unethically. It really does smack, to me, of little egos running around so self-consumed they're going to laugh off any criticism, rather than some acknowledgement of a need to deal with the complaints which have been echoed by several here and elsewhere. It's not just me, every time I list the complaints there's a flood of assent (ok, maybe not a flood, but quite a bit.) Which of course leads to complaint number 1: If one of these lists does go rogue, as we've seen one do already and is what your remark is referring to, and starts listing jews or gypsies or me or you or whatever then there's no review other than waiting for everyone to figure it out. Since these "spam nazis" don't tend to advertise their little vendettas (or even errors), and, as I've seen first-hand, pointing out that you've been the target of one doesn't seem to get through to the community (apparently the usual "when I feel the bullet go thru my head I'll pay attention") I consider these efforts to be a hazard. They're like those property associations which can go mad, they get started on the promise of keeping up property values and before you know it they're threatening you over irrelevant things like what kind of car you buy or how your kids dress if you don't get with the program. No thank you. If I can't get the "spam nazis" replaced if they get out of line, and I don't mean cast my fate to popular assent because to be honest as attractive as that sounds it doesn't work worth shit and anyone who think otherwise is naive, then I say it's too damned dangerous to allow to flourish. So, they're free to do what they want for the time being, and I'm free to warn people off them. Complaint number two is: They don't work, they're just a distraction. Anyhow, the issue is not with Paul Vixie whom I know personally and certainly trust. It's with the general concept: Its lack of reviewability, its lack of funding (so if you're unfairly or accidentally blocked there's no front desk per se or staff, you have to accept that it's all a haphazard volunteer effort), and most of all that I really, really believe that the cost/benefit is negative. For the few spams it may block it causes far more trouble and distraction than it's worth. I guess what it comes down to is that volunteer firemen are one thing, but you don't often see volunteer police depts, certainly not anywhere there's anything to police. And there's a very good reason for that. You don't want cops you can't fire or control, or only do the job when it interests them, no matter how well-intentioned they claim to be.

MAPS RBL, run by (I use this term very loosely, since I don't see how anyone could see Paul Vixie as being any kind of "nazi") spam-nazi Paul Vixie is a very reputable service that I think has been getting alot of good press lately and making strides in improving the somewhat maligned image that RBLs have acquired.

The object of Paul's service is to assist operators of mail servers in being good netizens by not having mail servers that become a nuisance. I've never known Paul to advoccate "strong-arming" or blacklisting for the sake of vendetta. If there is any question about this in anyone's mind, see www.maps.org and read his policy and mission statements for yourselves.

RBLs attack a small part of the spam problem, and in a cooperative way, which should be in good faith always. I agree that when an RBL is not operated in good faith the object is lost.

-- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | http://www.world.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*