SORBS Contact

Fri Aug 11 15:48:27 UTC 2006

Steve Sobol wrote:

> Allan Poindexter wrote:
> 
>>  Matthew> so would you consider as it is my network, that I should
>>  Matthew> not be allowed to impose these 'draconian' methods and
>>  Matthew> perhaps I shouldn't be allowed to censor traffic to and
>>  Matthew> from my networks?
>>
>>If you want to run a network off in the corner by yourself this is
>>fine.  If you have agreed to participate in the Internet you have an
>>obligation to deliver your traffic.
> 
> In many cases, that is a gross overgeneralization. Do you think anyone really
> wanted the Slammer worm, or complained when ISP's blocked it?

I suspect he really means that.  The whole game here is maximum dollar 
for minimum service.

I was pretty much chased off of NANOG some years ago because of my 
undiplomatic insistence that the SP's had an obligation to block evil 
traffic (which in those would have been an easier matter than it is 
today).  And yes, I didn't handle the diversionary flame wars and ad 
hominem attacks very well.  Don't bother yourself, anybody, with looking 
them up.
> 
> I work for a company that is contractually obligated to NOT carry certain
> traffic for our clients.
> 
> 
>>the users got it wrong some small percentage amount of the time.  I
>>was stunned at the arrogance and presumption in that comment.  You
>>can't tell from looking at the contents, source, or destination if
>>something is spam because none of these things can tell whether the
>>message was requested or is wanted by the recipient.  The recipient is
>>the only person who can determine these things.
> 
> 
> You're right. But... So what?
> 
> Perhaps it's because you're seeing things from an academic point of view and
> not from a business point of view, but your post mention nothing about
> contracts. People generally use DNSBLs without any formal agreement as to
> what they should expect. Without any formal agreement, you really can't talk
> about "obligations to deliver traffic." In this case, your recourse is to not
> use the DNSBL. If you're mailing someone who has a DNSBL, you (as the sender)
> have *no* recourse other than to complain to the DNSBL user.
> 
> Plus, as I pointed out earlier, some people contract with service providers
> to prevent certain traffic from getting to their networks (not just spam,
> either).
> 
> 
>>There are simple solutions to this.  They do work in spite of the
>>moanings of the hand wringers.  In the meantime my patience with email
>>"lost" silently due to blacklists, etc. is growing thin.
> 
> 
> You're certainly welcome to encourage others not to use blacklists. Just
> understand that you have no right to complain when they decide to continue
> using those blacklists.
> 
> Having said that, do understand that I don't think DNSBL's are a panacea, nor
> are their operators perfect. But in many cases, they can be a useful tool in
> the anti-spam arsenal.
> 
> 

-- 
Requiescas in pace o email

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio

http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/