mike at mtcc.com
Fri Apr 6 11:35:12 CDT 2012
On 04/06/2012 09:17 AM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
> On 4/6/12 10:02 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> I wonder how long a popularish blacklist operator would last if they,
>> oh say, blacklisted all of google or microsoft before they got some
>> very threatening letters from their legal staff. An hour? A day? A week?
>> You may have the right to list them and change your mind in your own
>> good time, but they also have the right to defend their reputation civilly
>> too. With great power comes great responsibility and all that.
> Slippery slope.
> For large providers who depend alot on spam filters, thats one huge door to open that could get very ugly very quick in the reverse path. Imagine every ISP suing hotmail and google for blocking messages for arbitrary reasons with no apparent justification.
> What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
> There's also USC 47,230 to contend with.
It's more of an arms race than a slippery slope, but my point is that a
big enough company would absolutely respond if they felt a big enough
blacklist was being capricious in a way that was affecting their making
I sympathize with "my blacklist, my donated time, my rules", but when
you're affecting their business, you better get it right and better respond
reasonably when the inevitable screwups happen. The one absolute right you
have is to not be in the blacklist business (paid or not) at all. Beyond that,
you have responsibilities too, and it would be best for everybody to not
take them lightly causing the entire thing to get escalated to the legal
domain where everybody most likely loses.
More information about the NANOG