Wholy jesus 
http://maps.vix.com/cgi-bin/lookup?207.68.152.137
ps.. 207.68.152.137=msn.com's mx host.
You're saying that Paul isn't only _partially_ Jesus?
Good appraisal.
Cheers,
-- jra
paradox@nac.net (Ryan Pavely) writes:
Wholy jesus
http://maps.vix.com/cgi-bin/lookup?207.68.152.137
ps.. 207.68.152.137=msn.com's mx host.
well, ok, so we blackholed microsoft (for the second time now). the
blockade lasted 3.5 days, and they used several interesting tricks:
first they moved their mail relays to different addresses -- hoping,
i suppose, that we would not notice the spam being relayed through
the new set? then they sent out a simply *amazing* bit of direction
to their customers (many of them, it seems, were calling the 1-800-*
number asking why their mail was bouncing). we heard it from one of
their customers who was kind enough to include in their complaint to
us the mail they'd been given by their microsoft network representative:
Greetings--
I am at a loss. I contacted MSN to see what it could do about helping
correct a problem with mail we send to my wife's sister. It says it cannot
help me. What do I have to do in order to send mail to this family member?I am enclosing MSN's response to my query; it includes my message sending
them to the MAPS screens:
----------------------------------------------------------
Hello,Thank you for posting to Ask msn Member Support. I appreciate the
opportunity to assist you.We apologize for the inconvenience of having your mail blocked by this
server. I have visited the website that the message referred you to and
regret to inform you that we can do nothing from MSN as far as
configuration settings to your system to stop them from blocking the mail.
It is their system that set the block, and it will need to be their system
that removes it. According to the website that you were referred to they
are only blocking that particular IP address. If in fact this is true then
you should be able to send E-mail after you log off MSN and log back on.
MSN gives you a new IP address each time you log on. I do not know for
sure, but am more likely to believe that they have in fact blocked all MSN
and MSN.COM domain names from sending mail. If this is true then even
changing IP addresses will not help you send mail to the address you are
attempting to mail. You need to contact the postmaster of the domain you
are attempting to send mail through. In all likelihood this would be
addressed as "postmaster@(domain name.com)" where (domain name) represents
the name of the ending of the address you are attempting to send to. For
example...if you were attempting to send to an MSN address it would be
"postmaster@msn.com" I apologize for the trouble, but if anyone can stop
this domain from blocking users mail transport it is the domain itself.
Hope this helps explain things.In order to ensure a quick response to future concerns; please continue to
utilize the on-line forms at the address provided below. If you reply to
this email, be sure to include the original message.http://memberservices.msn.com/
We hope you are enjoying The Microsoft Network, and we look forward to
meeting all your service needs.Thanks,
msn Member Support
and i have to admit, until i saw the above text, i was worried that maybe
we shouldn't have blackholed MSN. whenever we have to blackhole something
large, we get mail from RBL subscribers asking "are you crazy?" or similar.
i hate to shake the tree too hard all at once -- the wrong things fall out.
but when i saw what microsoft was telling their customers, it became clear
to me that this was a battle we could not avoid. hearts and minds, etc.
i'd like to correct one misimpression, though: i don't do the RBL alone. i
make the decision whenever we have to blackhole somebody, since i'm the one
that gets sued. but there's a team of volunteers working night and day to
research spam sources and relays, answer phones, help people reconfigure
their sendmail (or other mailers), and fill my inbox with just the really
*high*quality* spam rather than the run-of-the-mill stuff that doesn't need
blackholing (or which came from or through a place that was willing to plug
their spam leak.)
any indication you may have seen that i could last even five minutes as the
main and only RBL guy was incorrect, and holding that view in any form would
dishonour the very real and necessary work performed by the whole MAPS RBL
team.
microsoft, btw, finally called in late this morning and said "ok, we give up,
we'll turn off third party relay on our mail gateways." it's not done yet,
but they told us when to expect it to be done, and so we've removed them from
the RBL until at least that time. we're still getting about two complaints
per minute from the backlog of msn.com customers who are only now getting back
and finding bounced mail in their inboxes. hopefully it'll level off soon.
the only other fun thing i'd've said had i made it to NANOG for my usual RBL
status update this last time, is that someone asked us to remove 2.0.0.0/8
from the RBL since the IP address of their mail server ended in ".2" and some
customer had done a manual "nslookup" in the RBL.MAPS.VIX.COM zone for their
address but without reversing it first (remember, we're like IN-ADDR.ARPA)
and had cancelled a leased T1 on the basis that they refused to deal with
spammers. OUCH! i hate it when that happens. i offered to intercede, but
was told that it was just too late.
however, we can't removed 2.0.0.0/8 from the RBL until IANA allocates it, as
we still get periodic complaints from people who get blackholed when they try
to use unallocated address space. we ask where they got their address space
and then we never hear back from them. but note -- the only reason it doesn't
work for them is the RBL; there's not wide-enough-spread ingress route
filtering going on out there, since most of the net, except for RBL
subscribers, is actually reachable from unallocated address space. i know
that jerry and tony and others are working on this, but i thought i'd point
out to those assembled that it's a REAL problem -- try it yourself and note
how far you can get, assuming that your BGP neighbors don't filter ingress,
it's definitely a safe bet that THEIR neighbors won't.
Always a good sport, I will take bets in the MSN vs Vixie battle. 
I
don't think its going to be quite so easy for MSN to turn off mail
relaying, without breaking a lot of corporate customers.
Of course, Vixie didn't say when the date was to expect MSN to stop
relaying. Is it a few days or a few years?
I think its facinating that Vix can take them out of the RBL, and then
claim it was MSN who gave up. "Retreat and declare victory" I guess.
But we'll see I guess, in a few days or a few years.
Seriously Paul, I would like to have some kind of announcement made on
Nanog before you do that again, so that people can tell you not to do it.
Breaking a large service provider is definitely an operational issue. How
much do you suppose such a service interuption cost the companies who
couldn't communictate? Spam actually costs next to nothing, but being on a
trip and losing email contact with your company can be quite expensive. I
can't help but wonder if the "blockers" were only blocking email to which
they are a party under 18 USC 2511.
Of course, many know the opposing view, that RBL causes third party
relaying, and that usenet canceling causes multiple reposts of the same
message, resulting in drug-addict like behavior: More cancels result in
more reposts. Pull the cancel drug, and it hurts when one is inundated with
multiple reposts, but the anti-spam drug is the source and cause of the
problem. This sort of anti-spam activity is destructive and harmful for
the rest of us, who must put up with ever increasing volume of usenet posts
and cancels, and more creative relaying/anonymizing(new word?) techniques
by spammers. It illustrates why anti-spam is a bad idea.
Now that we are completely "addicted" to usenet cancels, how long before
the cancelers start to extort "support" money from ISPs?
I think we can and should stop the cancelers: Get rid of that addiction
now. It will not be painless, but it will only get worse. Canceling other
people's posts is abusive behavior by any definition.
What Vix is doing probably isn't illegal by itself, though it might
possibly violate trademark or the new copyright law when domain names are
used. I don't think he is likely to get sued. However, using the RBL could
be illegal if one isn't a party to the email being blocked. The
legislative history of 18 USC 2511 indicates it was specifically meant to
apply to email. I wish I knew that last year.
For example, if Above.net blocked mail betweeen company X and an MSN
customer, and they are not an agent of company X or the MSN customer, they
are probably in trouble by 2511. Of course, one of the parties to the
email has to figure out where the mail was blocked, and notice that the
blocker isn't a party to the email. Then they have to know that there is a
federal law that prohibits that. And finally, they have to seek
enforcement.
    --Dean
Dean Anderson wrote:
Seriously Paul, I would like to have some kind of announcement made on
Nanog before you do that again, so that people can tell you not to do it.
Breaking a large service provider is definitely an operational issue. How
I'm suprised that people haven't done a better job at building better
SMTP filters.. Unfortunately what I wrote was on company time, so I can't
release it (grrrrrr), but I definately have the flexability to do stuff
like this (indeed, this isn't the first time MSN mail was blocked, and
I was not affected by Vixie's decisions):
+ :rbl:true * * 550 You are on Vixie's list, see ... [macros to generate
http address] or contact postmaster@calweb.com to override the RBL.
+ any:msn.com any:msn.com * 250 Permit MSN's machines to send MSN-originated
email
I'm not sure how easy/hard it would be to maintain *sendmail* that way..
However,
as a seperate process, there isn't that much overhead on what I'm currently
running to make intelligent decisions following a list of rules, that do
things like override MSN-originated email (we still refuse
151251@34581235.com from MSN boxes), to require juno.com email actually come
from juno.com email servers, and other silly tricks. I get 1-2 emails a
week for individuals that get caught by the frontend that are legimate,
which get immediately put into the rulesets. Anyone who can read the bounce
message, is by definition from a valid email address..
What Vix is doing probably isn't illegal by itself, though it might
possibly violate trademark or the new copyright law when domain names are
used. I don't think he is likely to get sued. However, using the RBL could
be illegal if one isn't a party to the email being blocked. The
legislative history of 18 USC 2511 indicates it was specifically meant to
apply to email. I wish I knew that last year.
Not applicable. The people who lose connectivity to the places Vix
blackholes _specifically request_ that behavior -- indeed, they _must_
turn the feed on by hand. Their customers might have cause of action
against _them_; _no one_ has cause for action against Paul.
For example, if Above.net blocked mail betweeen company X and an MSN
customer, and they are not an agent of company X or the MSN customer, they
are probably in trouble by 2511. Of course, one of the parties to the
email has to figure out where the mail was blocked, and notice that the
blocker isn't a party to the email. Then they have to know that there is a
federal law that prohibits that. And finally, they have to seek
enforcement.
I think that logic's faulty, too, Dean. The interim provider certainly
has right of control over it's own equipment; if the provider feels
that spam and such are impeding it's ability to provide such service,
it is certainly within it's rights to fix the problem. If it's
customers don't like this, it's certainly not impossible for it to move
to another provider.
Cheers,
-- jr 'If you need a lawyer, hire one' a
I think that logic's faulty, too, Dean. The interim provider certainly
has right of control over it's own equipment; if the provider feels
that spam and such are impeding it's ability to provide such service,
it is certainly within it's rights to fix the problem. If it's
customers don't like this, it's certainly not impossible for it to move
to another provider.
I would have to agree with this, but I would say that the caveat is that
the ISP should notify the customer (somewhere, anywhere) that they use the
RBL (or at least that the ISP reserves the right to block domains and/or
hosts from connecting/sending to the mail server). It can be in the fine
print of the multi-page AUP that the customer gets shoved under their nose,
but it should be in there.
Derek
Seriously Paul, I would like to have some kind of announcement made on
Nanog before you do that again, so that people can tell you not to do it.
Breaking a large service provider is definitely an operational issue. How
much do you suppose such a service interuption cost the companies who
couldn't communictate? Spam actually costs next to nothing, but being on a
trip and losing email contact with your company can be quite expensive. I
can't help but wonder if the "blockers" were only blocking email to which
they are a party under 18 USC 2511.
I support and applaud Mr. Vixie's actions, MSN was having major mail relay
and spamming problems. The RBL apparently forced them to finally move on
their long-planned (according to MS sources), oft-delayed implementations.
Bravo.
And Mr. Vixie should not have to post his attentions here for any spam
apologists to decry. It's his RBL, his rules and he can do as he wishes.
He doesn't need anyone's permission.
The stance noted above is akin to blaming the police for criminals
running...saying "if the police don't pursue, the bad guys won't run and
hurt innocents". Kinda has cause and effect reversed, doesn't it? If the
crooks don't run, the cops don't have to chase. Likewise, if MSN (or
anyone else) plays by the RFCs, is a nice net neighbor, then there is no
need for a listing in the RBL.
18 USC 2511 is the US Code regarding wiretapping and intercepting of
communications. Inapplicable to this matter as the communications were not
intercepted, but blocked. No attempt was made to discover or disclose the
contents of the communications, thus not meeting the definition for
"intercept".
Specious and fallacious argument. Recommend actually reading the code
before citing it: http://law2.house.gov/uscode-cgi/
fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+1002+40++18%20USC%202511
Of course, many know the opposing view, that RBL causes third party
relaying, and that usenet canceling causes multiple reposts of the same
message, resulting in drug-addict like behavior: More cancels result in
more reposts. Pull the cancel drug, and it hurts when one is inundated with
multiple reposts, but the anti-spam drug is the source and cause of the
problem. This sort of anti-spam activity is destructive and harmful for
the rest of us, who must put up with ever increasing volume of usenet posts
and cancels, and more creative relaying/anonymizing(new word?) techniques
by spammers. It illustrates why anti-spam is a bad idea.
Again the argument that law enforcement causes crime. Specious and silly.
I think we can and should stop the cancelers: Get rid of that addiction
now. It will not be painless, but it will only get worse. Canceling other
people's posts is abusive behavior by any definition.
Most ISPs now ignore third-party cancels and filter on their own servers.
If usnet posters don't spam, then cancellers have nothing cancel.
What Vix is doing probably isn't illegal by itself, though it might
possibly violate trademark or the new copyright law when domain names are
used. I don't think he is likely to get sued. However, using the RBL could
be illegal if one isn't a party to the email being blocked. The
legislative history of 18 USC 2511 indicates it was specifically meant to
apply to email. I wish I knew that last year.
STRONGLY recommend readers view the actual code and it's legislative
history at the above URL. 18 USC 2511 introduced to US Code in Public Law
90-351, June 19, 1968. "Electronic Communications" added to section 2511
by Public Law 100-690, Nov. 18, 1988. Assertion that 18 USC 2511 "was
specifically meant to apply to email" is incorrect...as initially written
only oral and wire communications were covered.
For example, if Above.net blocked mail betweeen company X and an MSN
customer, and they are not an agent of company X or the MSN customer, they
are probably in trouble by 2511. Of course, one of the parties to the
email has to figure out where the mail was blocked, and notice that the
blocker isn't a party to the email. Then they have to know that there is a
federal law that prohibits that. And finally, they have to seek
enforcement.
Invalid argument caused by not knowing anything about the law cited.
Entire argument is a smelly pile of dung.
What do spammers and nails have in common? They're both intended for
hammering.
Dean Robb
PC-Easy
On-site computer services
(757) 495-EASY [3279]
But unfortunately the relevant hearings aren't online.
The amendment with "electronic" language was specifically added to make
these statutes apply to email. That was the purpose of the amendment.
The debate is over.
[you pretty much can't be more wrong on 2511: the amendment and its
hearings completely resolves our debate.]
I guess its an emotional topic for many, but this is the current law.
Maybe you can still get the law changed regarding spam.
But everyone should read it and apply it. And think about whether they are
a party to the communication before they do something bad to it.
MSN just has to change from "You have to take it up with the company you
want to
send mail to", to "you have to take it up with the company you want to send
mail, and if they didn't block it, you should contact the FBI"
    --Dean
Always a good sport, I will take bets in the MSN vs Vixie battle.
don't think its going to be quite so easy for MSN to turn off mail
relaying, without breaking a lot of corporate customers.
I don't know anything about how MSN runs their network, but if their
stuff runs on NT and hasn't broken yet, there ain't much that can
break it. (j/k) <duck>
I think its facinating that Vix can take them out of the RBL, and then
claim it was MSN who gave up. "Retreat and declare victory" I guess.But we'll see I guess, in a few days or a few years.
Yup.
Seriously Paul, I would like to have some kind of announcement made on
Nanog before you do that again, so that people can tell you not to do it.
Breaking a large service provider is definitely an operational issue. How
much do you suppose such a service interuption cost the companies who
couldn't communictate?
I would agree, except that if I remember correctly, companies aren't
RBL'd unless they are unresponsive or intentionally continue to spam...
I would bet that a lot of people gave MSN a chance before it came to this.
can't help but wonder if the "blockers" were only blocking email to which
they are a party under 18 USC 2511.
Dean, you and I and others here on NANOG have done that dance before.
I don't know that it's necessary to waste bandwidth on that particular
argument again.
What Vix is doing probably isn't illegal by itself, though it might
possibly violate trademark or the new copyright law when domain names are
used.
I can't see how.
blocker isn't a party to the email. Then they have to know that there is a
federal law that prohibits that. And finally, they have to seek
enforcement.
We've gone over all this before. PLUS... PROVIDERS SUBSCRIBE TO THE
RBL VOLUNTARILY AND ARE REQUIRED BY THE AGREEMENT THEY SIGN BEFORE THEY
GET HOOKED UP TO IT, THAT THEY WILL MAKE THEIR CUSTOMERS AWARE OF WHAT IS
GOING ON.
           We Make IT Fly!
Unfortunately you are not doing the same for this argument.
[you pretty much can't be more wrong on 2511: the amendment and its
hearings completely resolves our debate.]
This isn't about logic-chopping -- It's about whether it is feasable to stop
people from crapping all over your network.
I guess its an emotional topic for many, but this is the current law.
Maybe you can still get the law changed regarding spam.
If 2511 were relevant to spam, then Wallace Stanford would be a
millionaire today instead of having his ass in a sling.
MSN just has to change from "You have to take it up with the company you
want to
send mail to", to "you have to take it up with the company you want to send
mail, and if they didn't block it, you should contact the FBI"
If any network wants to connect to our network, then it should be done
according to our acceptable-use policy. If MSN or their accounts don't
like our policies, they can go piss up a rope.
Bill
STRONGLY recommend readers view the actual code and it's legislative
history at the above URL. 18 USC 2511 introduced to US Code in Public Law
90-351, June 19, 1968. "Electronic Communications" added to section 2511
by Public Law 100-690, Nov. 18, 1988. Assertion that 18 USC 2511 "was
specifically meant to apply to email" is incorrect...as initially written
only oral and wire communications were covered.But unfortunately the relevant hearings aren't online.
The amendment with "electronic" language was specifically added to make
these statutes apply to email. That was the purpose of the amendment.
Correct. 20 YEARS AFTER section 2511 was introduced into the law. However,
you said "The legislative history of 18 USC 2511 indicates it was
specifically meant to apply to email. I wish I knew that last year." That
was wrong, the '88 amendment was written to apply to email, not the
original section as you asserted.
Your entire argument is still a bogus strawman because this bit of law
applies to the interception of a communication for illegal purposes.
Specific language that destroys your argument:
1. "[1] (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information
relating to the operations of any business or other commercial
establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign
commerce; or..."
2. "[1](d) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any
wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know
that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral,
or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or..."
3. "18 USC 2510. Definitions. As used in this chapter - ...(4)
''intercept'' means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any
wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic,
mechanical, or other device."
So, on three key criteria, your argument is toast. Blocking mail cannot
obtain information relating to the operations of a business (except
possibly the fact that the business uses email...a public fact and not
actionable); blocking mail does not use the contents of an email as the
contents not read; and finally, blocking does not constitute an intercept
as defined by the law.
Now. What specific language do YOU have that attempts to prove your point?
The debate is over.
[you pretty much can't be more wrong on 2511: the amendment and its
hearings completely resolves our debate.]
The hearings that only you seem to have access to? Your right, the debate
IS over. You're wrong. Please keep in mind, too, that hearings on the
language of a bill are pretty irrelevant except as sparingly used by the
Supreme Court to determine the intent of a bill if it's challenged. What
the law SAYS is what matters, not what someone says in a hearing over the
matter.
I guess its an emotional topic for many, but this is the current law.
Maybe you can still get the law changed regarding spam.
Can't imagine anyone getting emotional about limits on wiretapping.
I think the laws limiting wiretapping to are pretty good...why would I want
them changed?
But everyone should read it and apply it. And think about whether they are
a party to the communication before they do something bad to it.
I assure you, I'll apply it. The next time I think I need a wiretap, I'll
go before a Court and get permission. If I ever feel the need to tape a
conversation, I'll get permission from one of the parties first.
You need to think about consulting a lawyer before spouting US Code like
you actually have a clue. Perhaps reading the law without a pre-concieved
notion as to what it says would serve you well in the future.
MSN just has to change from "You have to take it up with the company you
want to
send mail to", to "you have to take it up with the company you want to send
mail, and if they didn't block it, you should contact the FBI"
Whereupon the FBI will laugh at them quite loudly.
The facts speak for themselves. Unless you can quote specific language in
the 18 USC that supports your contention that preventing delivery of email
is illegal (remembering that blocking does not fit the definition of
"interception" in the law), you have no case. Feel free to call the nearest
US Attorney to verify these facts...but don't tape the conversation without
your permission.
What do spammers and nails have in common? They're both intended for
hammering.
Dean Robb
PC-Easy
On-site computer services
(757) 495-EASY [3279]
i missed it the first time this howler went by, and nobody seems to have
pointed this out:
the RBL is entirely an IP address thing. no domain names are harmed in the
operation of the RBL.
cheers,
  richard
So far, the consensus seems to be that an ISP should notify
  their customers of any filtering policies. In fact, I have
  yet to see anybody disagree.
  So why are we continuing this argument?
any mail system i administer is set up to use the RBL, and all my users
know it. i can take it; so can they. anyone who uses the RBL should be
prepared to deal with the potential consequences.
richard
Sigh. There used to be a list of spammers' domain names, such as
cyberpromo.com. There were some companies (PGP) that were considering mail
reader products which would do filtering on domain names. But after the
new copyright law was passed, they dropped their plans for this scheme.
Apparently, since cyberpromo and spam sending has gone underground, people
have forgotten some of this.
I predicted last year, when Cyberpromo was disconnected that "undergound"
would happen, and that it would be harder to track than when they were
directly connected, and that it wouldn't make a difference in the amount of
spam. All have been proven. Sigh. Sigh. Those who were pressuring AGIS,
should send AGIS some money for their lost revenue.
    --Dean
P.S. In private discussion, Chris Liljenstolpe brought up a very good point
about 3rd party relaying, and its causes. It seems that some Web Serving
ISP's won't cancel web accounts according to their AUP if the spam wasn't
accounts using 3rd party relays.
This is total hypocrisy. If you have an anti-spam policy, then you should
enforce it on your customers regardless of where they send the spam from.
[What its hard to tell, and it could be abused to deny services? Well, the
anti-spam RBL/Cancel etc. ideas are pretty much full of such holes. I guess
what you should be doing is more investigation of abuses to make sure it
can't be abused. Too expensive? I thought spam was so ungodly expensive.
Just think of the savings. :-P]
So I amend my statement that RBL causes 3rd party relaying to be that the
RBL and hypocritical ISP's cause 3rd party relaying.
So if you aren't going to do the follow though, then you should just forget
about the anti-spam AUP, too.
Advertising happens. You can't make it illegal. Maybe you could help
spammers avoid totally stupid things like sending out 300K attachments
which just say "look at my web site", but more extreme action is certainly
destined to fail. And screw things up for the rest of us.
If 2511 were relevant to spam, then Wallace Stanford would be a
millionaire today instead of having his ass in a sling.
No, Unfortunately, there isn't much in the way of civil penalties. And his
contract for service was terminated, which is legal. [that has been one of
my points: you have to disconnect *your* customer if you don't like whats
coming out of their pipe. You can't smugly pretend your router doesn't work
and you can't pretend that spam is an DOS attack if its not.].
Anyway, there hasn't been any evidence that Wallace was ever blocked by
anyone who was not a party to his email. AOL, Compuserve, etc are parties
to their users email: their contracts give them permission. Sprint (for a
madeup example) would not be a party to a spam traveling from Wallaces AGIS
connection, over Sprint, to MCI, to AOL. As far as I can tell, Sprint
never blocked him, nor did anyone else in their position.
But the statute of limitations hasn't expired. If someone would like to
admit to blocking him, when they weren't a lawful party to the
communications, please contact me.
Vix and I have been in agreement that we need a test case. I volunteered
to try and find such evidence last year, but I can't. What I've found is
that ***no major NSP's block spammers***, or least none actually admit to
doing so. One that boasted of such filtering on Nanog last winter, backed
down on providing evidence of blocking, and I couldn't find any without
some cooperation from them, from my remote point.
If you are an NSP, and you are blocking a spammer from transiting your
network, where you have no relationship with the parties to the email (the
sender or the recipient), and you and your attorney are completely
convinced of the legality of your actions, then tell me who you are
blocking. And we'll have our test case.
It claimed that 2511
  Only applies to telephone/voice communications
  Doesn't apply to email
  etc.
Each of these has been shown to be wrong. There isn't anything left to debate.
If you are really doing what you claim you can, then someone should provide
some evidence.
    --Dean
>I think that logic's faulty, too, Dean. The interim provider certainly
>has right of control over it's own equipment; if the provider feels
>that spam and such are impeding it's ability to provide such service,
>it is certainly within it's rights to fix the problem. If it's
>customers don't like this, it's certainly not impossible for it to move
>to another provider.I would have to agree with this, but I would say that the caveat is that
the ISP should notify the customer (somewhere, anywhere) that they use the
RBL (or at least that the ISP reserves the right to block domains and/or
hosts from connecting/sending to the mail server). It can be in the fine
print of the multi-page AUP that the customer gets shoved under their nose,
but it should be in there.
The agreement Paul Vixie makes RBL users sign states that EXPLICITLY.
You are not allowed to use the RBL unless you disclose such use fully to
your customers and/or downstreams.
Yup, I maintained that list, painful and thankless job that
  it was. Right now there really aren't any spammers left who
  stay in one place long enough for that to work -- and if they
  do, they get RBL'ed.
  (Trolling igored -- you should know better by now, Dean.)
I predicted last year, when Cyberpromo was disconnected that "undergound"
would happen, and that it would be harder to track than when they were
directly connected, and that it wouldn't make a difference in the amount of
spam. All have been proven. Sigh. Sigh. Those who were pressuring AGIS,
should send AGIS some money for their lost revenue.
Why? AGIS is still hosting a spamhaus or two.
And while many spammers have gone underground, there is one right here
in Northern Ohio that FINALLY got disconnected earlier this week that was
unrepentant about it.
On and on, ad nauseum. Dean, you insist you're right even when others
offer proof that you're not. It's not a terribly professional thing to do.
ISP's won't cancel web accounts according to their AUP if the spam wasn't
sent from those accounts. So spammers are trying to hide their sending
accounts using 3rd party relays.
This is total hypocrisy. If you have an anti-spam policy, then you should
enforce it on your customers regardless of where they send the spam from.
If you host a web site, and someone spams an ad for it, yes, the web site
should be nuked.
[What its hard to tell, and it could be abused to deny services?
No it isn't. Maybe in your mind it is.
So I amend my statement that RBL causes 3rd party relaying to be that the
RBL and hypocritical ISP's cause 3rd party relaying.
Dean, stop while you're behind. You are still wrong.
Advertising happens. You can't make it illegal. Maybe you could help
spammers avoid totally stupid things like sending out 300K attachments
which just say "look at my web site", but more extreme action is certainly
destined to fail. And screw things up for the rest of us.
Yadda, yadda, yadda. You get SO annoyed when people say you're a spammer,
but you spout almost the same BS that the spammers do.
And when you're proven wrong on one point, you try another. And so on,
and so on, ad nauseum.