[YA] Fwd: Class B Purchase

Tue Oct 6 16:51:17 UTC 1998

On Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 12:44:18PM -0400, Phillip Vandry wrote:
> > > Same basic principle - a group of network providers who categorically deny
> > > access and through traffic to address space(s) which don't conform to
> > > arbitrary standards of the list-maker.
> > > 
> > > Not that I disagree with the RBL at all, but I'm curious as to how you
> > > think the two similar issues differ.
> > 
> > They are massively different both in scope and intent.  Among other things:
> > 
> > 1.	"Address registries" levy fees and impose effective monopoly control 
> > 	over address space.  The RBL does not impose any effective monopoly
> > 	control, it is not a fee-paid-service, and in fact neither is SMTP
> > 	traffic exchange in the norm.
> 
> Fees are irrelevant. A monopoly is not a monopoly if they don't charge
> people money?
> 
> > 2.	You can always go somewhere else to relay (or send) your email if
> > 	you find yourself RBLd.  You can't go somewhere else to get address
> > 	space (back to central control again).
> 
> That is only a difference in scope of deployment. It is still, as Derek
> argued, the "Same basic principle". What if the same number of people had
> confidence in the RBL as in ARIN's authority to delegate addresses?
> 
> > 3.	RBL-free access is not an essential facility.  IP address space is.
> > 	This is an incredibly important distinction, in that it triggers all
> > 	kinds of special treatment from the US Government when it comes to
> > 	non-discriminatory access to that facility.
> 
> You cannot send mail if the whole world has RBL'ed you. That's arguably
> essential.
> > 
> > 4.	Historically speaking, nobody "owns" lists of acceptable SMTP
> > 	relaying conduct (or lack thereof).  Historically speaking, people
> 
> I "own" (RFC2008 sense) ARIN approved IP addresses. I also "own" RBL
> approved domain names (that is, they are not on the RBL). If domain
> names were as limited a resource as IP addresses are, my domain names
> would be as precious as my IP addresses, and an RBL domain name would
> have the same value as a rogue block of IP addresses.
> 
> > 5.	Collusive conduct which is designed to and/or acts to restrain trade 
> > 	and limit competition is frequently unlawful in the United States.  
> > 	Keeping your speech off my computer is not unlawful - in fact, it is 
> > 	my private property right to do so.  However, were I to *COLLUDE 
> > 	WITH OTHERS* to put you out of business (or increase your cost
> > 	of doing business) by refusing to accept your traffic, you'd have 
> > 	every right to sue my ass off - regardless of whether or not I am 
> > 	doing it via SMTP or at the packet level.  
> 
> Then you have to decide whether the action is being done with the
> intent of restraining trade and limiting competition. That would depend
> on the case. Cooperation to use the RBL might just as likely be found
> by a court to be illegally collusive as cooperation to ignore somebody's
> route announcement.
> 
> Really, it is the "same basic principle".
> 
> -Phil

You're right.  BTW, I wasn't arguing for the RBL :-)

*Privately maintained and non-published* (to other than customers) lists
used only by you are one thing.  Public blacklists are another, and can 
under certain circumstances get you in serious trouble.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger (karl at denninger.net) http://www.mcs.net/~karl
I ain't even *authorized* to speak for anyone other than myself, so give
up now on trying to associate my words with any particular organization.