Lawsuit threat against RBL users

Thu Nov 19 04:32:26 UTC 1998

On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Chris Williams wrote:

> phraseology of the "Best Practices for Being Permanently Added to the
> RBL", that web hosting services are being treated unfairly in the
> following circumstance:

First, nobody gets "permenantly added" to the RBL.  There are well
documented methods for getting off the RBL once added to it.  

Besides, the RBL is a service the users of which have asked for.  i.e. it
is totally opt-in.  If I choose to not communicate with networks/hosts
that the RBL maintainers deem unfavorable, that's my decision.  At least
that's what we're assuming.  I haven't seen any law saying I have to make
my network talk to any other network that happens to be connected to the
internet.  If the RBL is found to be ilegal, what's next?  Sprint's prefix
filters?  If I'm connected to the net, and advertise a /32 via BGP, they
better see the advertisement and talk to me, or they're cutting their
entire network and their customers off from part of the net. 

> Company S(pam) has a web site, hosted on the servers of
> web-presence-provider Company P(rovider). Company S uses the services of
> Company X to send out massive loads of SPAM, with referencing the web
> site and even e-mail addresses hosted by Company H. Now, if I'm hearing
> what's being said on this list correctly, Company H is being expected to
> pull the website they host for Company S (or else be blackholed), _even
> though no illegal or spam-generating activity is being generated on
> their network_.
> Am I understanding this correctly?!?

Yes...but I think you messed up the lettering above and Company P =
Company H.  Am I right?  The reasoning for this is that in such cases, the
spammer is likely to use disposable spam accounts with numerous dialup
providers, and there is no effective way to go after them.  Each provider
just closes the account when they get burried with complaints.  Shutting
down the web site is akin to steaking out the home of a burgler.  You
don't know where he'll strike next, so your odds of catching him in the
act are poor, so you nail him at home.

> By this philosophy, it would seem that if I were to host the web pages
> of a company which engaged in unwelcome telemarketing (which I
> personally find much more offensive than SPAM, and which is no more or
> less illegal in most states), I would be under an obligation to cease
> providing service to that company!

Many providers against spam have things like the following in their AUP:

   _3.7a_ The account holder agrees to not, under any circumstances, send
   unsolicited mass emailings from any Internet account (at FDT or
   elsewhere), nor to use FDT services for the collection or distribution
   of address lists to be used for such purposes. The account holder
   agrees to not, under any circumstances, associate FDT with any such
   mass mailings.

This basically says, you can't spam period.  If you do, from here or
anywhere else, we can terminate you.

> believe that either A) This guy was actually treated unfairly, and has a
> valid complaint, or B) Nobody cares enough to say "hey, wait a minute,
> there's been a failure in communication, let's see if we can work this
> out."

C)  This guy is hosting the web site for a spammer, and doesn't care that
the company is spamming to advertise their site, so he's made to feel the
pain of others.

----don't waste your cpu, crack rc5...www.distributed.net team enzo---
 Jon Lewis <jlewis at fdt.net>  |  Spammers will be winnuked or 
 Network Administrator       |  nestea'd...whatever it takes
 Florida Digital Turnpike    |  to get the job done.
______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key________