|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: [YA] Fwd: Class B Purchase
On Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 09:55:07AM -0500, Derek Balling wrote: > > >Collusive behavior is a big, big problem Brett. I'd love to see exactly > >this kind of thing take place - it would be hilarious to see some of those > >providers try to defend THAT. > > Is it then collusive behavior for network providers to band together and > use the RBL to deny network and/or mail traffic? > > Same basic principle - a group of network providers who categorically deny > access and through traffic to address space(s) which don't conform to > arbitrary standards of the list-maker. > > Not that I disagree with the RBL at all, but I'm curious as to how you > think the two similar issues differ. They are massively different both in scope and intent. Among other things: 1. "Address registries" levy fees and impose effective monopoly control over address space. The RBL does not impose any effective monopoly control, it is not a fee-paid-service, and in fact neither is SMTP traffic exchange in the norm. 2. You can always go somewhere else to relay (or send) your email if you find yourself RBLd. You can't go somewhere else to get address space (back to central control again). 3. RBL-free access is not an essential facility. IP address space is. This is an incredibly important distinction, in that it triggers all kinds of special treatment from the US Government when it comes to non-discriminatory access to that facility. 4. Historically speaking, nobody "owns" lists of acceptable SMTP relaying conduct (or lack thereof). Historically speaking, people and firms *DO* own address space, as documented in RFC2008 (just try to revoke Apple's Class A, or MIT's, neither of which meets TODAY's "efficient utilization" criteria and see how many seconds it takes for the lawsuits to start flying. You're tampering with private property rights here, and you have no right to do so) 5. Collusive conduct which is designed to and/or acts to restrain trade and limit competition is frequently unlawful in the United States. Keeping your speech off my computer is not unlawful - in fact, it is my private property right to do so. However, were I to *COLLUDE WITH OTHERS* to put you out of business (or increase your cost of doing business) by refusing to accept your traffic, you'd have every right to sue my ass off - regardless of whether or not I am doing it via SMTP or at the packet level. That's for openers. The two concepts you mention as being "similar" have, in fact, almost nothing in common. -- -- Karl Denninger ([email protected]) http://www.mcs.net/~karl I ain't even *authorized* to speak for anyone other than myself, so give up now on trying to associate my words with any particular organization.
|