RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl)

Tue Jun 16 22:23:29 UTC 1998

At 01:53 6/16/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Seriously Paul, I would like to have some kind of announcement made on
>Nanog before you do that again, so that people can tell you not to do it.
>Breaking a large service provider is definitely an operational issue.  How
>much do you suppose such a service interuption cost the companies who
>couldn't communictate? Spam actually costs next to nothing, but being on a
>trip and losing email contact with your company can be quite expensive.   I
>can't help but wonder if the "blockers" were only blocking email to which
>they are a party under 18 USC 2511.

I support and applaud Mr. Vixie's actions, MSN was having major mail relay
and spamming problems.  The RBL apparently forced them to finally move on
their long-planned (according to MS sources), oft-delayed implementations.
Bravo.

And Mr. Vixie should not have to post his attentions here for any spam
apologists to decry.  It's his RBL, his rules and he can do as he wishes.
He doesn't need anyone's permission.

The stance noted above is akin to blaming the police for criminals
running...saying "if the police don't pursue, the bad guys won't run and
hurt innocents".  Kinda has cause and effect reversed, doesn't it?  If the
crooks don't run, the cops don't have to chase.  Likewise, if MSN  (or
anyone else) plays by the RFCs, is a nice net neighbor, then there is no
need for a listing in the RBL.

18 USC 2511 is the US Code regarding wiretapping and intercepting of
communications.  Inapplicable to this matter as the communications were not
intercepted, but blocked. No attempt was made to discover or disclose the
contents of the communications, thus not meeting the definition for
"intercept".
Specious and fallacious argument.  Recommend actually reading the code
before citing it:  http://law2.house.gov/uscode-cgi/
fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+1002+40++18%20USC%202511

>
>Of course, many know the opposing view, that RBL causes third party
>relaying, and that usenet canceling causes multiple reposts of the same
>message, resulting in drug-addict like behavior: More cancels result in
>more reposts. Pull the cancel drug, and it hurts when one is inundated with
>multiple reposts, but the anti-spam drug is the source and cause of the
>problem.  This sort of anti-spam activity is destructive and harmful for
>the rest of us, who must put up with ever increasing volume of usenet posts
>and cancels, and more creative relaying/anonymizing(new word?) techniques
>by spammers.  It illustrates why anti-spam is a bad idea.

Again the argument that law enforcement causes crime.  Specious and silly.

>I think we can and should stop the cancelers: Get rid of that addiction
>now. It will not be painless, but it will only get worse. Canceling other
>people's posts is abusive behavior by any definition.

Most ISPs now ignore third-party cancels and filter on their own servers.
If usnet posters don't spam, then cancellers have nothing cancel.

>
>What Vix is doing probably isn't illegal by itself, though it might
>possibly violate trademark or the new copyright law when domain names are
>used. I don't think he is likely to get sued. However, using the RBL could
>be illegal if one isn't a party to the  email being blocked.  The
>legislative history of 18 USC 2511 indicates it was specifically meant to
>apply to email.  I wish I knew that last year.

STRONGLY recommend readers view the actual code and it's legislative
history at the above URL.  18 USC 2511 introduced to US Code in Public Law
90-351, June 19, 1968.  "Electronic Communications" added to section 2511
by Public Law 100-690, Nov. 18, 1988.  Assertion that 18 USC 2511 "was
specifically meant to apply to email" is incorrect...as initially written
only oral and wire communications were covered.

>
>For example, if Above.net blocked mail betweeen company X and an MSN
>customer, and they are not an agent of company X or the MSN customer, they
>are probably in  trouble by 2511.  Of course, one of the parties to the
>email has to figure out where the mail was blocked, and notice that the
>blocker isn't a party to the email.  Then they have to know that there is a
>federal law that prohibits that.  And finally, they have to seek
>enforcement.

Invalid argument caused by not knowing anything about the law cited.
Entire argument is a smelly pile of dung.

What do spammers and nails have in common?  They're both intended for
hammering.

Dean Robb
PC-Easy 
On-site computer services
(757) 495-EASY [3279]