Derek writes:

There are plenty of people, who are HAPPY to have Paul's RBL (I recently subscribed last night finally, thank you Paul!) around to lighten the workloads of our servers, and to lessen the mailspools of our customers.

The simple point is you or any other technician has no ability or right to imagine themselves representing or in any way inter- fering with their customers mail. You are acting as if you have any right to intercept any private e-mail. You have no such right. In manipulating the free flow of electronic mail you are infringing with fundamentaly human rigts and freedoms. Bob Allisat Free Community Network _ bob@fcn.net . http://fcn.net http://fcn.net/allisat _ http://fcn.net/draft

On Thu, 7 Feb 2036, Bob Allisat wrote:

The simple point is you or any other technician has no ability or right to imagine themselves representing or in any way inter- fering with their customers mail. You are acting as if you have any right to intercept any private e-mail. You have no such right. In manipulating the free flow of electronic mail you are infringing with fundamentaly human rigts and freedoms.

Bullshit. Provided you notify your customers of your intent to block known spam-houses and they concur in your decision, there is no usurpation of individual rights. If they don't agree with your policies they can simply choose another ISP. End of problem. David Leonard

Bob Allisat wrote: <Various drivel snipped>

Bob Allisat

Free Community Network _ bob@fcn.net . http://fcn.net http://fcn.net/allisat _ http://fcn.net/draft

You'd be far better served if you'd clean up your own act, and shut down the open relay you're running at scriba.org. Then talk about net citizenship. Talk about living in the future (2036). Doh!!! /rlj (RBL subscriber if anyone wants to sue me)

On 11/19/98, "Edward S. Marshall" <emarshal@logic.net> wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2036, Bob Allisat wrote:

...

Mr. Vixie and his cohorts increasingly imagine themselves to be the final and ultimate arbiters in matters of Network integrity.

Actually, I think they imagine themselves as the folks who maintain a list of people who spam.

Not even that. They maintain a list of IP addresses that they, due to a published set of criteria, do not wish to accept mail from. Many others agree with their criteria. However...Bob Allisat will never agree, so it's not worth your time to argue with him. -- J.D. Falk <jdfalk@cp.net> "Nathan says hi." Special Agent In Charge (Abuse Issues) Critical Path, Inc.

I have avoided getting into this debate, but this has really gone too far. Bob Allisat's contention is that any ISP that attempts to filter content is violating "inalienable rights and freedoms" is way off the mark. Ok, Mr. Allisat, I'll bite -- explain to me what "right" is being violated when I stop a spammer that is trying to advertise "Hot Pussy Sites" to eleven year old children? Or how about get rich quick schemes that forge their addresses to hide their identities so you can not trace them after they rip you off? Or chain letters that clog mail spools while susceptible people worry about their outcomes if they don't comply with the letter? You scream "inalienable rights and freedoms", but your motive is to promote and encourage those that would prey on the most susceptable of our society. Freedom that robs our children of their innocence, promotes con artists, and feeds on the vulnerable is not freedom, Mr. Allisat! But I think you have another axe to grind as well. Your letter to Karl Denninger contains the following exerpts: * "Whatever rights, freedoms and liberties we have are eliminated in favour of Kangaroo courts like Vixie's network or RBL finks, Customer Services flunkies and over-bearing capitalists ..." * "They hide behind arguments that their systems are private property and their alleged "property rights" are more important than our inalienable rights and freedoms." * "Our rights to security over our data and communications, to privacy and access to commercial and personal e-mail, etc are all *SUPERIOR* to any tertiary rights these business organizations may claim." * "We have universal, inalienable rights and freedoms. These precious things extend to private property and internationally." Based on these statements, I can only conlude you have a huge problem with the capitalistic system, and that you favor the elimination of private property in order to foster your "freedom". That is the same argument Fidel Casto uses on the people he suppresses, and was the common theme among communist countries before the fall of the Berlin wall. Joseph Stalin shared your views on private property. I don't. As a capitalist, I find your ideas offensive and misguided. Wake up Mr. Allisat -- you already have a feee system. One that can choose whether to filter spam or not. One that can choose whether to give his private property away or not. Your concept of "inalienable rights and freedoms" is one that would force all ISPs to do things YOUR way, instead of the current free choice system we currently have. And one other point -- calling the people that help customers configure their systems to connect to the Internet "Customer Services flunkies" is insensitive and unfair. I know the employees that work for my company go out of their way to make sure every customer is helped and treated with respect, regardless of the customers experience with computers or the Internet. That is one of the advantages of paying for Internet service -- you get real customer service from people who actually care whether or not your experience is a positive one. That is capitalism. Paul Vixie and his team of "RBL finks" are to be commended on the excellent job they have done in stopping the poisonous assult of pornographic filth, fraud, and manipulation that spam brings to people everyday. And for people that want to take the RBL even further, we provide a list via autoresponder at spamlist@us.net that blocks even more of this crud. And here is the best part -- its up to the FREEDOM of the individuals that use these resources to determine if and how they want to use them. There are no "inalienable rights and freedoms" that give spammers unrestricted access to the Internet. Even the courts have upheld the right of ISPs to block and filter spam -- see the URL http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/updates/nov13clu.html#cyberpromo If you want to use your time and resources to foster and promote the activites of people that prey upon society at large, go right ahead -- that's "freedom", and it is your "right" to do so. I have always found it interesting that the people the scream the loudest about their rights do it in the context of denying others their rights. As an ISP, I have the right to choose. And I choose not to do business with spammers. Dave Stoddard US Net Incorporated 301-361-6000 dgs@us.net Bob Allisat writes:

Karl Denninger writes:

...

That looks an awful lot like an industry-wide blacklist, and those are dangerously close to being per-se illegal.

There's nothing wrong with a single provider putting whatever provisions in their agreements they see fit - you're always free to shop for a new provider. However, when industry actions conspire to basically *force* certain provisions to be included in *everyone's* contracts, and those provisions go beyond "don't do illegal things", then IMHO you're exerting force that needs to be very carefully thought out.

When every Service Provider writes a carte blanche paragraph into their alleged Acceptable Use Policies allowing such practices as "Black Holing", content deletion, account termination etc. we become hostages to commercial entities. Whatever rights, freedoms and liberties we have are eliminated in favour of Kangaroo courts like Vixie's network or RBL finks, Customer Services flunkies and over-bearing capitalists like Mr. Denniger here. They hide behind arguments that their systems are private property and their alleged "property rights" are more important than our inalienable rights and freedoms.

It is not our right merely to choose among companies and corporate entities. Our rights to security over our data and communications, to privacy and access to commercial and personal e-mail, etc are all *SUPERIOR* to any tertiary rights these business organizations may claim. While Denniger shrieks in uncharachteristic defense of our liberties he is the first one to claim dominion over every machine and anything anyone does using those machines, telling them to basically get lost if they don't like it.

We have universal, inalienable rights and freedoms. These precious things extend to private property and internationally. If we do not fight to protect these inalienables we will suffer the rough consequences. Please visit <http://fcn.net> for more information.

Respectfully,

Bob Allisat

Free Community Network _ bob@fcn.net . http://fcn.net http://fcn.net/allisat _ http://fcn.net/draft

On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, Bob Allisat wrote:

I hope these little reminder messages of Craig are going to all of the others engaged in this discussion. I regard

<snip> bunch of crap deleted. Are you on a C64, or do you just like 40 char on a line? Why don't you do us all a favor and upgrade. It will not bother me anymore because you made it to MY blackhole list in procmail. I still do not understand how you can say that as a ISP I dont have the right to deny my users whatever I want. If I want to be a ISP and not provide access to UUNet I can do that. I may not keep a lot of customers, but I am not infringing on anyones rights. They can always get a new provider. If your website is associated with spam and you get blackholed then you can deal with the problem or not reach users who chose to stay with ISPs that subscribe to the RBL. -- Check out the new CLEC mailing list at http://www.robotics.net/clec

<> Nathan Stratton Telecom & ISP Consulting www.robotics.net nathan@robotics.net

Warnings: 1) IANAL. 2) This is quote, interspersed with rebuttal. 3) Although it involves no directly technical issues, it is an operational issue none the less. If you doubt it, ask yourself this question: would you rather spend your time fixing network problems, or monitoring content and appearing in court? 4) This post is somewhat lengthy. David Stoddard wrote: <snip>

Based on these statements, I can only conlude you have a huge problem with the capitalistic system, and that you favor the elimination of private property in order to foster your "freedom". That is the same argument Fidel Casto uses on the people he suppresses, and was the common theme among communist countries before the fall of the Berlin wall. Joseph Stalin shared your views on private property. I don't. As a capitalist, I find your ideas offensive and misguided.

As a capitalist, here's something you should find even more offensive and misguided: Since you've volunteered to monitor content, the government is likely to require that you do. Read further.

Paul Vixie and his team of "RBL finks" are to be commended on the excellent job they have done in stopping the poisonous assult of pornographic filth, fraud, and manipulation that spam brings to people everyday. And for people that want to take the RBL even further, we provide a list via autoresponder at spamlist@us.net that blocks even more of this crud. And here is the best part -- its up to the FREEDOM of the individuals that use these resources to determine if and how they want to use them.

There are no "inalienable rights and freedoms" that give spammers unrestricted access to the Internet. Even the courts have upheld the right of ISPs to block and filter spam -- see the URL http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/updates/nov13clu.html#cyberpromo

Of course they did. Think about it. You just volunteered to monitor content for an industry which the government is busy wringing its hands over. The intrinsic difficulty in analyzing packet-switched traffic for violations of the law has stymied law enforcement agencies ever since the Internet became an issue. That doesn't play well on the nightly news, when the blubbering-mother-of-the- week pisses and moans on TV about how her precious little Johnny got kidnapped, buggered, and slaughtered by some cretin "on the Internet" who knows how to use IRC and was able to give her kid a plane ticket while she was busy watching "Jerry Springer" reruns instead of asking what the hell her kid was doing on the computer. "Sorry, it just isn't possible to do anything about it, we don't have the capability to monitor it" isn't what the general public wants to hear, and the LEAs and politicians have been tying themselves up in knots over it. About this time, along comes a Crusade, one which is worthy of legend. On the one side is Spamford Wallace and his crew of misbegotten miscreants, and on the other, Paul Vixie and his band of righteous merry men. (I have chosen Spamford and Paul as the figureheads for their respective movements, actual history notwithstanding...) So Paul decides that, to battle the forces of Spam, he shall create a list of those who sin against the Internet at large, and propagate it to others. Both these points are important. If Paul wants to play God with his little corner of the Internet, no problem. Unfortunately, he's not going to be able to step down from that position on a whim. (Ain't that a bitch - Crusaders can't stop Crusading because their feet get tired or because they're getting shot at. Aww.) What does this mean? The next time something originating from or coming into Paul's network is deemed offensive, a waste of money/bandwidth/time/etc, unethical, or any other negative adjective, it will not be the U.S. Government who is put in the position of regulating it - it will be Paul. You see, Paul has assumed the position of "Being On Top Of It". Even if Paul doesn't feel that way, even if he feels that regulating that particular content will be detrimental to the Internet at large, even if he strenuously objects and says that "it's not his job", he will be put in that position, because _he volunteered for the job_. Precedent will have been set, and although IANAL, I know enough about the law to know that precedent is a bitch to break with. The government and regulatory agencies will simply allow and "encourage", through the promise of jail time, copious fines, and multimillion dollar civil lawsuits, "self-policing" of the Internet by the administrators, all the while wiping the sweat from their brow and congratulating each other on having dodged another bullet. In addition, when the system fails - and as I and all other sysadmins know, all systems fail - it won't be the U.S. Government on the hook for screwing it up. It'll be you, because _you volunteered for the job_. Oh yeah. The other important thing - pick up "Paul" and put down your first name, because everyone who subscribes to the RBL will be doing exactly the same thing. There's a reason that the phone companies are common carriers - it's because it relieves them of a massive amount of liability. The telcos do some things right on occasion, ya know. This is not to say that I believe that spam is a Good Thing, or that the RBL is a Bad Thing. I hate Spamford for what he has wrought, and I believe that the RBL is a natural and necessary response to it. I do, however, suspect that the trouble that Spamford and his ilk have caused, which has long since been dealt with, is nothing compared to the trouble which has now been assumed by the sysadmins and network operators. Congratulations. The Chinese have a saying about being careful what you wished for...

If you want to use your time and resources to foster and promote the activites of people that prey upon society at large, go right ahead -- that's "freedom", and it is your "right" to do so. I have always found it interesting that the people the scream the loudest about their rights do it in the context of denying others their rights. As an ISP, I have the right to choose. And I choose not to do business with spammers.

I wonder if you'll be so cavalier when the blubbering-mother-of-the-week is busy suing your arse off for not protection her little kid from: a) pedophiles b) bomb-making instructions c) satanic song lyrics d) pork (the other white meat) e) Chevrolet f) anything else deemed offensive. Tell me, what would you "choose" to do should one of your customers send back, stapled to their usage contract, a list of content they find objectionable and ask you to filter it? Suppose you can't, don't, or won't? How about if you screw it up and some gets through? Power comes with responsibility. Responsibility carries with it liability. Are you prepared to assume the liability that comes with "choosing" to selectively block content? -- Szechuan Death, AKA Theron Bair, sysadmin, net tech, student, etc. sdeath@ackphft.matsu.alaska.edu

To make a story short Virginia has joined the ranks of NO SPAM and the government DOJ and Whitehouse have made statements to the effect, that we govern ourselves and clean up our messes. That is precisely what is happening on an operational level globally. wonderful threats are great but the users of the internet support this action as a starting point against SPAMMERS. Henry R. Linneweh Szechuan Death wrote:

Warnings: 1) IANAL. 2) This is quote, interspersed with rebuttal. 3) Although it involves no directly technical issues, it is an operational issue none the less. If you doubt it, ask yourself this question: would you rather spend your time fixing network problems, or monitoring content and appearing in court? 4) This post is somewhat lengthy.

David Stoddard wrote: <snip>

...

Based on these statements, I can only conlude you have a huge problem with the capitalistic system, and that you favor the elimination of private property in order to foster your "freedom". That is the same argument Fidel Casto uses on the people he suppresses, and was the common theme among communist countries before the fall of the Berlin wall. Joseph Stalin shared your views on private property. I don't. As a capitalist, I find your ideas offensive and misguided.

As a capitalist, here's something you should find even more offensive and misguided: Since you've volunteered to monitor content, the government is likely to require that you do. Read further.

...

Paul Vixie and his team of "RBL finks" are to be commended on the excellent job they have done in stopping the poisonous assult of pornographic filth, fraud, and manipulation that spam brings to people everyday. And for people that want to take the RBL even further, we provide a list via autoresponder at spamlist@us.net that blocks even more of this crud. And here is the best part -- its up to the FREEDOM of the individuals that use these resources to determine if and how they want to use them.

There are no "inalienable rights and freedoms" that give spammers unrestricted access to the Internet. Even the courts have upheld the right of ISPs to block and filter spam -- see the URL http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/updates/nov13clu.html#cyberpromo

Of course they did. Think about it. You just volunteered to monitor content for an industry which the government is busy wringing its hands over. The intrinsic difficulty in analyzing packet-switched traffic for violations of the law has stymied law enforcement agencies ever since the Internet became an issue. That doesn't play well on the nightly news, when the blubbering-mother-of-the- week pisses and moans on TV about how her precious little Johnny got kidnapped, buggered, and slaughtered by some cretin "on the Internet" who knows how to use IRC and was able to give her kid a plane ticket while she was busy watching "Jerry Springer" reruns instead of asking what the hell her kid was doing on the computer. "Sorry, it just isn't possible to do anything about it, we don't have the capability to monitor it" isn't what the general public wants to hear, and the LEAs and politicians have been tying themselves up in knots over it.

About this time, along comes a Crusade, one which is worthy of legend. On the one side is Spamford Wallace and his crew of misbegotten miscreants, and on the other, Paul Vixie and his band of righteous merry men. (I have chosen Spamford and Paul as the figureheads for their respective movements, actual history notwithstanding...)

So Paul decides that, to battle the forces of Spam, he shall create a list of those who sin against the Internet at large, and propagate it to others. Both these points are important. If Paul wants to play God with his little corner of the Internet, no problem. Unfortunately, he's not going to be able to step down from that position on a whim. (Ain't that a bitch - Crusaders can't stop Crusading because their feet get tired or because they're getting shot at. Aww.)

What does this mean? The next time something originating from or coming into Paul's network is deemed offensive, a waste of money/bandwidth/time/etc, unethical, or any other negative adjective, it will not be the U.S. Government who is put in the position of regulating it - it will be Paul. You see, Paul has assumed the position of "Being On Top Of It". Even if Paul doesn't feel that way, even if he feels that regulating that particular content will be detrimental to the Internet at large, even if he strenuously objects and says that "it's not his job", he will be put in that position, because _he volunteered for the job_. Precedent will have been set, and although IANAL, I know enough about the law to know that precedent is a bitch to break with. The government and regulatory agencies will simply allow and "encourage", through the promise of jail time, copious fines, and multimillion dollar civil lawsuits, "self-policing" of the Internet by the administrators, all the while wiping the sweat from their brow and congratulating each other on having dodged another bullet.

In addition, when the system fails - and as I and all other sysadmins know, all systems fail - it won't be the U.S. Government on the hook for screwing it up. It'll be you, because _you volunteered for the job_.

Oh yeah. The other important thing - pick up "Paul" and put down your first name, because everyone who subscribes to the RBL will be doing exactly the same thing. There's a reason that the phone companies are common carriers - it's because it relieves them of a massive amount of liability. The telcos do some things right on occasion, ya know.

This is not to say that I believe that spam is a Good Thing, or that the RBL is a Bad Thing. I hate Spamford for what he has wrought, and I believe that the RBL is a natural and necessary response to it. I do, however, suspect that the trouble that Spamford and his ilk have caused, which has long since been dealt with, is nothing compared to the trouble which has now been assumed by the sysadmins and network operators.

Congratulations. The Chinese have a saying about being careful what you wished for...

...

If you want to use your time and resources to foster and promote the activites of people that prey upon society at large, go right ahead -- that's "freedom", and it is your "right" to do so. I have always found it interesting that the people the scream the loudest about their rights do it in the context of denying others their rights. As an ISP, I have the right to choose. And I choose not to do business with spammers.

I wonder if you'll be so cavalier when the blubbering-mother-of-the-week is busy suing your arse off for not protection her little kid from: a) pedophiles b) bomb-making instructions c) satanic song lyrics d) pork (the other white meat) e) Chevrolet f) anything else deemed offensive.

Tell me, what would you "choose" to do should one of your customers send back, stapled to their usage contract, a list of content they find objectionable and ask you to filter it? Suppose you can't, don't, or won't? How about if you screw it up and some gets through?

Power comes with responsibility. Responsibility carries with it liability. Are you prepared to assume the liability that comes with "choosing" to selectively block content?

-- Szechuan Death, AKA Theron Bair, sysadmin, net tech, student, etc. sdeath@ackphft.matsu.alaska.edu

-- ™
¢4i1å

On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 05:58:18PM -0800, John Leong wrote:

There is a different between traffic that is objectionable because it abuses the network infrastructure (e.g. Smurf DOS attacks) and traffic that is objectionable because of the nature of the content (libel, 'porno', copyright violation etc.).

I believe common carrier such as the phone companies have every right and do take actions against abusers of network (e.g. people using the blue boxes in the old days to get free long distance calls) but decline to act as censors for the content.

I don't know about where you live but here in BellSouth land you can call the phone company and block outgoing 900 number calls from your line. I can also block any incoming phone calls that attempt to hide their calling number. As well if someone repeated calls you with "crank" calls you can also have the number traced and have action taken by the phone company on your behalf. Does this count as censorship? I believe this is analogous to what the RBL does.

I believe the RBL list falls into the abuse prevention category. Now, if the RBL selectively filters Spam based on the content type of the Spam, that will be censorship.

I'm all for the RBL. I fail to see how anyone can make a valid argument that one should be forced to receive any mail sent to ones mailbox. Or that anyone can force a private company to accept unsolicited advertising directed at its customer base from another company or person(s). Companies like magazine publishers get money for selling their customer lists. If spammers want to make the argument that they should be able to send whatever they like to customers of ISP's or other networks, then I propose that they pay (through the nose) for the privelege. ;) -Scott -- +-----------------------+--------------------------------+ | Scott Lampert | Systems Administrator | | scott@ioa.com | Internet of Asheville | |(828) 687-8848 Ext 310 | http://www.ioa.com | +-----------------------+--------------------------------+

Karl Denninger wrote:

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.

Anyone who is told by someone else what they must put in their contracts in order to peer or just communication with that someone else, can simply ignore that someone else. The way it will really end up working will be that the vast majority of network businesses will make a decision based on the dollar/euro/whatever.

That looks an awful lot like an industry-wide blacklist, and those are dangerously close to being per-se illegal.

It looks to me like a separate block of network users. People don't play the same game unless they are playing by the same rules. But what those rules are will be the results of the negotiations, which result from what the parties assert that they want. Sure, one or the other party may put forth terms/rules which they insist must be agreed on, or not game.

There's nothing wrong with a single provider putting whatever provisions in their agreements they see fit - you're always free to shop for a new provider. However, when industry actions conspire to basically *force* certain provisions to be included in *everyone's* contracts, and those provisions go beyond "don't do illegal things", then IMHO you're exerting force that needs to be very carefully thought out.

What force? I don't see any force. For example, Microsoft is not forcing me to use NT.

There IS a means to solve the problem otherwise - that is, for the industry to make "throw away, instant registration" accounts disappear. The problem with what is being done now is that the entire industry is being forced to provide a "safe haven" for a PARTICULAR marketing tactic.

Throw away, instant registration, is a money maker. The vast majority do not spam. Instead, they eventually start paying. It may not be break even today, but it is raising the revenues, and with the huge price:earnings ratios that internet businesses are being valuated on today, this practice is indeed making money on paper right now. It simply will not stop until some other choice makes more money, or looses less money. So how do you propose to stop it without some kind of coalition tactic that could be labeled "force"? The football players and the basketball players are negotiating playing a game together. But what game shall they play? It may end up being golf. -- -- *-----------------------------* Phil Howard KA9WGN * -- -- | Inturnet, Inc. | Director of Internet Services | -- -- | Business Internet Solutions | eng at intur.net | -- -- *-----------------------------* philh at intur.net * --