|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users
On Thu, Nov 19, 1998 at 01:58:40PM -0800, George Herbert wrote: > > RBL policy is that they won't block anything more general than > is warranted by particular spam complaints and the subsequent > actions in response to those complaints or to a pattern of complaints. > For example, a bunch of complaints come in reporting that various > dialups spammed ads for www.biteme.com, a masochist oriented porn site, > which is hosted on an IP address which is part of wehost.net . > The proper procedure is that people complaining to RBL have to > have contacted wehost.net and not gotten appropriate responses. > RBL people will (always?) contact wehost.net for a final warning > and status check prior to the block, and will only block > the /32 corresponding to www.biteme.com's actual IP address. > Thus, no wehost.net customer other than biteme will be inconvenienced. That does nothing at all, since the only listener on www.biteme.com's address is a web server. > So yes, under (as I understand them) existing RBL rules, it is possible > for purely innocent parties to get bitten (other non-spam related > customers of wehost.net) if the ISP fails to respond properly > for a significant length of time and number of incidents. > I feel that's fair; if the ISP becomes the problem, then they > should feel some heat. As long as the criteria for the ISp > being RBled as a whole are sufficiently demanding so ISPs that > are merely slow or not-entirely-cooperative don't get unnecessarily > RBLed, that makes sense to me. That's not the scenario that was postulated and led to the latest threat. -- -- 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.
|