scottm@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@vix.com>