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 12:44:18PM -0400, Phillip Vandry wrote: > > > 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. > > Fees are irrelevant. A monopoly is not a monopoly if they don't charge > people money? > > > 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). > > That is only a difference in scope of deployment. It is still, as Derek > argued, the "Same basic principle". What if the same number of people had > confidence in the RBL as in ARIN's authority to delegate addresses? > > > 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. > > You cannot send mail if the whole world has RBL'ed you. That's arguably > essential. > > > > 4. Historically speaking, nobody "owns" lists of acceptable SMTP > > relaying conduct (or lack thereof). Historically speaking, people > > I "own" (RFC2008 sense) ARIN approved IP addresses. I also "own" RBL > approved domain names (that is, they are not on the RBL). If domain > names were as limited a resource as IP addresses are, my domain names > would be as precious as my IP addresses, and an RBL domain name would > have the same value as a rogue block of IP addresses. > > > 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. > > Then you have to decide whether the action is being done with the > intent of restraining trade and limiting competition. That would depend > on the case. Cooperation to use the RBL might just as likely be found > by a court to be illegally collusive as cooperation to ignore somebody's > route announcement. > > Really, it is the "same basic principle". > > -Phil You're right. BTW, I wasn't arguing for the RBL :-) *Privately maintained and non-published* (to other than customers) lists used only by you are one thing. Public blacklists are another, and can under certain circumstances get you in serious trouble. -- -- 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.
|