From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb(_at_)guppylake(_dot_)com>
...
Mr. Sauve could rent an IP address that is not on dial-up or dynamic
blacklists and run his systems there.
In other words, because some ISP with whom he has NO relationship has
deemed his own ISP spam-friendly, he should abandon his ISP, whether
*he* thinks they are spam-friendly or not. The words that come to mind
to describe this sort of arrangement are "cartel," "blackmail," and
"extortion." It is also a perfect example of an assertion I made
before, which is that blacklists are being used by the large ISP's as a
tool for consolidation in the ISP market. When RoadRunner blocked my
ISP, the *only* thing they were helpful about was offering to help me
get "better" Internet service by changing ISPs.
Exactly the same charges can be made about taxis, pizza delivery
services, and so forth that refuse to deliver to "bad" parts of the
real world. Perhaps in some cases you are right, but in the vast
majority you are wrong. Is a simple, undeniable fact that the sources
of spam are concentrated in a small fraction of the IPv4 address space.
For example, the last numbers I saw about SPEWS had it listing a tiny
fraction of 1% of the IPv4 address space.
There are other problems with your theory. The biggest is the link
between the big ISPs and the blacklisters. Besides the undeniable
spammers (e.g. the ROKSO members), it is the big ISPs that are most
likely to be blacklisted, particularly in "dialup" or "dynamic"
blacklists. According to your theory, Charter Communications is part
of a conspiracy of big outfits to drive away their own customers by
blacklisting their own IP addresses. How sane and honest is that?
If you are saying that blacklists and boycotts are dangerous weapons,
then you're certainly right. That's why contrary to my naive reading
of the U.S. Constitution, there are federal laws that limit or outlaw
boycotts in some circumstances that I don't understand.
See http://www.google.com/search?q=%22secondary+boycott%22
Exactly what do you want?
- a U.S. Federal law against IP address blacklists?
- a test for social responsibility and good sense given prospective
IP address blacklist opererators administrated by the IESG?
- a U.N. regulation prohibiting stupidity and foolishness by users
and ISPs while choosing blacklists?
Pardon me, but it seems you want the IETF to declare that all blacklisting
and spam rejecting by IP address wrong and nasty. As far as I can
tell, you would require me to accept mail from 69.6.0.0/18 because you
fear I might refuse mail from you. Or perhaps you would allow me to
reject Wholesalebandwidth spam provided I not tell anyone.
Blacklists also, quite clearly, don't work to eliminate spam.
No honest person who actually looks at spam agrees with that.
As I've made clear, *I* agree with that. Given the exchanges that
preceded this, it sounds like you are asserting that I -- and all the
other people who have argued against you in good faith on this list --
are dishonest. Is everyone who disagrees with your conclusions
necessarily dishonest? If so, why are you wasting time talking with
us?
You might be ignorant instead of dishonest. If you have not looked
any blacklists except those that have affected your mail, then you
have not, in my words, really looked at spam.
Are you calling me and those who point out that some blacklists
detect 70-90% of spam with false positive rates below 1% liers?
It your words could be read that way.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com