Stealth Blocking

Jeremiah Kristal jeremiah.kristal at
Wed May 23 17:45:19 UTC 2001

I would suggest that folks read how MAPS RBL works before they spew innuendo
and half-truths.  MAPS may not be perfect, but it certainly isn't 'a single
person/organization' with this power.  MAPS only acts on third-party
nominations, has an exceedingly drawn-out confirmation process, and only
publishes a BGP feed that *providers* must configure their routers to
accept.  MAPS RBL does nothing beyond publish a list of known, confirmed,
unrepentant spam sites in the format of a BGP4 advertisement.  Private
networks can and will block what they want, MAPS just publishes a list of
sites that they block from their network.  I (and every other network
operator) can and will block whatever I want, unless my contract with my
customers prevents it.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog at [mailto:owner-nanog at]On Behalf Of
Robert Sharp
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 12:57 PM
To: Mitch Halmu
Cc: John Payne; nanog at
Subject: Re: Stealth Blocking

I like how MAPS is allowed to black hole your machines and their traffic.
But if
you deny them access to your network resource as they are you are
assumed a spammer.  Wait you don't believe the same things we do, well you
be the enemy.

I think we can all agree spam isn't a good thing, but where we drawn the
line is
something we can't agree on.  When you start black holing traffic to hosts
making that choice for other people.  MAPS does this with their blacking of
traffic.  This type of power in the hands of a single person/organization is
wrong.  I would propose a system whereas there are multiple representatives
many viewpoints to make VERY SERIOUS decisions like this.  I don't care how
disclaimers you have in your contracts, it's not the right way to deal with


Rob Sharp

Mitch Halmu wrote:

> On Wed, 23 May 2001, John Payne wrote:
> > Umm... yes.  You run an open, abused mail relay, got listed in RSS and
> > whine about it rather than fix it.
> I have posted two URLs, one was to a slashdot article describing a stealth
> assault on Macromedia. So as to clarify the provenance of the URL
> previously given by others in full context. Don't see your comments
> there. Why? Perhaps the ACLU and those other do-good  organizations
> command more respect than an ISP? But they're talking about the same
> thing!
> The latter was to explain our position. Let's make several things clear.
> First, what is the difference between an open relay and a free email
> account somewhere? None, absolutely none. You could subscribe as Michael
> Mouse today, and the emperor of China tomorrow. Yet such service, with no
> credit card or implant chip to validate your true identity, giving away
> free resources to the world, is perfectly legit in your judgement.
> NetSide maintains its own access control list. If a particular ip or ip
> range didn't abuse our servers, we feel no need to lock them out. And
> certainly not because you say so. Not to mention that all instances of
> abuse can be traced from logs to someone's ip, and there is a venue of
> complaint with the abuser's provider. We have a valid reason for doing
> so: locking our servers would prevent our customers from roaming, and we
> would also lose a good part of our non-local client base, some of them
> subscribed since 1995, who couldn't make full use of their accounts
> anymore.
> Second, open relays were the norm until Paul Vixie decided you should do
> otherwise. And in many cases, he convinced thy by brute force that his
> way is the right way is the only way. But it wasn't the legal way. Most
> providers bent over and silently took the punishment. We won't. Do I seem
> to whine here?
> Third, the new 'rule' MAPS just came up with now is that you must keep
> server open to their 'testing', or they'll blackhole you. See for
> That is the reason given for blocking us the second time around. No new
> 'evidence', just open wide for inspection and say ahhh...
> > Could you be more clueless?
> That's just about what I was going to ask you. This is not about the
> merits of some technological implementation over another. It is about
> basic rights and freedoms shamelessly trampled upon by those that can
> thump their chests the loudest and have Daddy Warbucks bankroll their
> operation. Say you fall out of grace with the 'in' crowd tomorrow, could
> it be your turn?
> > If you want to whine some more, is over
there ->
> > and spam-l is that way <-
> And you, John Payne, are here. And clearly on the side of the network
> operator that's deliberately destroying the connectivity of other
> This problem won't just go away, as much as you want it swept under the
> rug.
> --Mitch
> NetSide

More information about the NANOG mailing list