|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl)
In article <[email protected]> you write: >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 think the operational issue is who uses RBL, not that it exists. When a customer purchases e-mail services from an ISP there should be no blocking unless it was specifically part of the contract. For instance, I believe it would be a bad thing for an "aol" or a "hotmail" to use the RBL to filter mail. Basically it boils down to content filtering being bad for an ISP. On the other hand, businesses and private entities can and should use this service. They have the right to filter content any way they see fit. For instance, I will use RBL on my personal machines as long as it exists, because I trust the RBL people to keep the junk out of my mail box. As far as losing contact goes, that shouldn't (in the isolated case) cost you money. I don't know about the rest of the people on here but I wouldn't bet any business on e-mail getting to it's destination in a timely manor. I've seen too many 5 day delays at CC mail gateways, and incidents where half of the internet disappears for a day at a time to trust my e-mail. Losing access to e-mail temporarily should be annoying, not life threatening. -- Leo Bicknell - [email protected] Network Engineer - Dimension Enterprises 1-703-709-7500, fax, 1-703-709-7699
|