From reading this list, it doesn't sound like RBL is being used as a
tool to squelch the disenfranchised. I can't say I know Paul Vixie
all that well, but I think he'd be the first to raise a red flag if
RBL was being used as a tool to censor people.
In response to your other point, "Is there grounds for this case?"
Consider provider P's upstream provider, UP. UP, if they are sensible,
has a usage policy which includes abuse. It is definitely within the
bounds of UP's course of action to discontinue service to P because
P's customer's are violating UP's usage policy. Instead of discontinuing
P's service completely, UP black-holes P's mail and shares this
information with other providers who chose to black-hole the abusive
e-mail users.
So, it's P's responsibility to correct the situation.
Paul only provides a mechanism, so you can't sue him. It's like the
City of Chicago trying to sue the gun makers for aiding and abetting
murder after the fact -- plainly guns don't kill people, people kill
people. Take this analogy a step further: RBL black-holes spam, but
people implement RBL to deal with people sending spam.
-scooter
scottm@ulfus.cs.ucla.edu (Scott Michel) writes:
From reading this list, it doesn't sound like RBL is being used as a
tool to squelch the disenfranchised. I can't say I know Paul Vixie
all that well, but I think he'd be the first to raise a red flag if
RBL was being used as a tool to censor people.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary says of "censor":
2 : one who supervises conduct and morals: as (a) : an official who
examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter; (b)
: an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and
deletes material considered sensitive or harmful
So technically I *am* a censor. As to the disenfranchised, well, I'm more
interested in the tragedy of the commons than I am in the welfare of the
sysop.com guy. But we did suggest that if he was unable or unwilling to
disconnect his spammers, he ought to put his spammers on separate web an
mail servers (even if only virtually different, i.e., different interface
alias addresses) from his non-spammers. We only want to blackhole his
spammers, not him personally nor his entire business. He refused on the
grounds that we ought not be allowed to dictate his business practices.
Paul only provides a mechanism, so you can't sue him. It's like the
City of Chicago trying to sue the gun makers for aiding and abetting
murder after the fact -- plainly guns don't kill people, people kill
people. Take this analogy a step further: RBL black-holes spam, but
people implement RBL to deal with people sending spam.
At the moment there appear to be no grounds for a civil suit, which is
too bad -- I'd really like to create some case law since congress is
being gutless. The RICO or Sherman stuff is more applicable, and if
this sysop.com guy contacts his local DA then he might be able to cause us
(MAPS, that is) some trouble.