BLOCK: Media3, peacefire.org
Bennett Haselton
[massive delete]
>You can review the spam services currently hosted by Media3 in the
>same block as www.peacefire.org at the following URLs, note that
>www.peacefire.org is at 209.211.253.169, slap-bang in the middle of
>this lot of spamhausen:
[massive delete]
The "evidence file" for Media3 had sites listed for selling mass email
software. When one Peacefire supporter asked MAPS why Media3 was listed,
they said it was for sites that sold mass email software. (The only time
that MAPS accused Media3 of anything else, they had to retract that
accusation later.) It's hard to argue that the "evidence" of spam
discussed on UseNet, would have been sufficient *by itself* to get Media3
on the RBL. I think this is pretty much agreed on.
If individuals want to boycott Media3 for that reason, fine. What I think
is dishonest about the RBL "boycott" is that most individuals whose email
or Web access is blocked, apparently don't even realize it. Since
Peacefire.org started surveying users who connect to our Web site from an
AboveNet-controlled IP address, not a single one of them apparently knew
that AboveNet was blocking their Internet access. AboveNet says that they
"use the RBL to protect customers from spam" -- they don't say that they
block customers from accessing those Web sites, which obviously has no
effect on the amount of spam they get.
And even when users are aware that their incoming email is filtered by the
RBL, most of them seem to believe that the purpose of doing this is to
reduce the amount of spam that they get while letting non-spam emails
through. They aren't aware that sites are on the RBL even when MAPS knows
those sites haven't actually sent spam, but are simply hosted by an ISP
which is the target of an economic boycott.
Since large numbers of people have been co-opted into these "boycotts"
without realizing it, whose fault is that? I think partly MAPS, for
claiming in multiple places on their Web site that the RBL is a list of
"spammers", "people who send spam", "sites that do not follow responsible
emailing practices", etc., and generally giving the impression that the
purpose of using the RBL is to reduce the amount of spam you get, without
mentioning that other sites are on the RBL purely for boycott purposes.
(Even though the criteria for the RBL are given in one place on MAPS's
site, the rest of the site still has less-than-accurate statements about
what is on the RBL.) And partly companies like AboveNet that are not clear
about how they use it (blocking Web access without informing customers is
really pretty low). And if a downstream ISP knows that AboveNet blocks Web
sites, but then re-sells Internet access to the public without telling them
this, then that downstream ISP is partly responsible as well.
There are lots of links in the chain from MAPS to an end user, but if an
end user thinks they're buying uncensored Internet access and they're
blocked from Web sites on the RBL, then someone, somewhere in the chain,
lied to the person on the next link down from them.
God knows I am in favor of fighting spam. For three months last summer I
reported every piece of spam I got, to the ISP hosting the Web site, the
ISP hosting the name server, and (if applicable) the ISP hosting the sender
account. (I lost interest when my attempts to get a spammer's site shut
down failed, for the 50th time in a row.) And I would be all in favor of
an honestly run boycott against sites that support spam.
It is the sad truth that I don't think an honest boycott would work. Most
users are much too apathetic to care. They would never agree voluntarily
to participate in any boycott that would cause them to miss out on
legitimate emails and lose business contacts, without having any effect on
the amount of spam they received.
But that's still no excuse for running a boycott dishonestly. And even
though there are a lot of the links in the chain from MAPS down to an end
user (the backbone, the downstream ISP, and all the salespeople in
between), the simple fact is that if an end user buys "Internet access",
and their email or Web access is blocked without their knowledge, then
somebody in the chain lied to someone at the next link down from them. You
can't have everyone tell the truth and still get the RBL boycott to work on
the scale that it's implemented now.
There is a nuanced debate about whether sites which sell software like List
Sorcerer (not to mention sites like Peacefire which are not doing anything
except being *hosted* on the same ISP) are "responsible" for the spam
problem, but I don't even really think that matters. If individuals want
to boycott Peacefire voluntarily because we're hosted on Media3, that's up
to them. But my own survey of AboveNet users indicated that none of them
knew their Internet access was being blocked without their permission.
The First Amendment does not protect "speech" that consists of false
statements made by a company about a product that they're selling, whether
that product is (1) a list of sites, or (2) Internet access that is
secretly filtered according to that list. It protects the list itself, not
necessarily all uses of it.
-Bennett
ben...@peacefire.org http://www.peacefire.org
(425) 649 9024
--
The Telecom Digest is currently mostly robomoderated. Please mail
messages to edi...@telecom-digest.org.
Steve Sobol
have engaged in discussion about the whole Media3/Peacefire issue via
e-mail. This particular discussion is xposted from comp.dcom.telecom and
I think it raises some interesting issues. ]
From 'Bennett Haselton':
>claiming in multiple places on their Web site that the RBL is a list of
>"spammers", "people who send spam", "sites that do not follow responsible
>emailing practices", etc.,
Included in the 'etc.' is Spam Support Services, which includes selling of
spamware. MAPS is *not* ambiguous about this.
http://mail-abuse.org/rbl/candidacy.html#ByAssociation
>what is on the RBL.) And partly companies like AboveNet that are not clear
>about how they use it (blocking Web access without informing customers is
>really pretty low). And if a downstream ISP knows that AboveNet blocks Web
>sites, but then re-sells Internet access to the public without telling them
>this, then that downstream ISP is partly responsible as well.
I recall seeing somewhere on MAPS's site that they require users of the RBL
to indicate to customers and their downstreams that they *are* using the RBL.
But I can't find any indication of that on their web site, so I'm CC'ing
this post to a couple friends who work there. I could be wrong, and maybe
it's just because I'm still hung over from New Year's Eve -- but I could
swear it's there. :)
>It is the sad truth that I don't think an honest boycott would work. Most
>users are much too apathetic to care. They would never agree voluntarily
>to participate in any boycott that would cause them to miss out on
>legitimate emails and lose business contacts, without having any effect on
>the amount of spam they received.
...which is why MAPS requires documentation of RBL candidacy and will not
act on a whim. There are some people who think they move too slowly, in fact
- I say moving too slowly is much better than the alternative, which will
result in "false positives".
>But that's still no excuse for running a boycott dishonestly.
The question issue here is whether that is actually happening.
>There is a nuanced debate about whether sites which sell software like List
>Sorcerer (not to mention sites like Peacefire which are not doing anything
>except being *hosted* on the same ISP) are "responsible" for the spam
>problem
Bennett, it's been pointed out to you that there are several such sites,
where the company putting up the site exists solely to send spam. Samco is
the one I can think of, and there's one other, both of which were mentioned
yesterday on Spam-L. Extractor Pro is another one, and Extractor Pro has
never been used for any legitimate purpose, AFAIK.
>but I don't even really think that matters.
Of course it matters. It's not a tangential topic. MAPS says the reason for
the RBL listing of the Class C in which your site sits is because there are
several other sites that support spam services. If that's not true, MAPS
shouldn't list the Class C. But I, for one, believe it to be true.
>If individuals want
>to boycott Peacefire voluntarily because we're hosted on Media3, that's up
>to them. But my own survey of AboveNet users indicated that none of them
>knew their Internet access was being blocked without their permission.
You said exactly the same thing to me in one of our discussions in private
e-mail. I pointed out that that may or may not be AboveNet's fault.
I then asked whether said users were direct customers of AboveNet or not.
It's very likely many (most?) of them are users of ISPs downstream, in which
case there is no obligation for AboveNet to tell those particular people
that they're using the RBL. They need to tell the ISPs connecting directly
to them, and the ISPs need to tell the end-users.
While I appreciate your efforts to discuss this topic with me in a rational,
calm manner, and I wish to do the same for you, I do think that you avoided
directly answering this question when I initially posed it to you. Again, as
I mentioned before, this does not imply that I think you're right or wrong,
but the phrase "AboveNet users" is ambiguous and (I think) intentionally
vague.
>The First Amendment does not protect "speech" that consists of false
>statements made by a company about a product that they're selling, whether
>that product is (1) a list of sites, or (2) Internet access that is
>secretly filtered according to that list. It protects the list itself, not
>necessarily all uses of it.
I agree; however, what we are dealing with at this point is not necessarily
a censorship issue, but rather one of contract law.
--
Steve Sobol, BOFH, President 888.480.4NET 866.DSL.EXPRESS 216.619.2NET
North Shore Technologies Corporation http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net
JustTheNet/JustTheNet EXPRESS DSL (ISP Services) http://JustThe.net
mailto:sjs...@NorthShoreTechnologies.net Proud resident of Cleveland, OH
Paul Wallich
sjs...@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steve Sobol) wrote:
>From 'Bennett Haselton':
>
>>claiming in multiple places on their Web site that the RBL is a list of
>>"spammers", "people who send spam", "sites that do not follow responsible
>>emailing practices", etc.,
>
>Included in the 'etc.' is Spam Support Services, which includes selling of
>spamware. MAPS is *not* ambiguous about this.
Media3, however, would seem to have its class C on the list because it
sells space to people who provide spam support services, yet another
level of indirection. You can argue that selling the space is itself a spam
support service, but that starts you into an ugly regress, e.g. is anyone
who makes money by passing packets and doesn't subscribe to the RBL
engaging in spam support services?
Obviously boycotts like this work best when they hit "innocent" people
who might get a provider to make a policy change, but I can see how
Bennett Haselton might draw a nice analogy to censorware companies
who put an entire site or hosting service on their list because of a few
bad pages or an insufficiently-strict AUP. After all, if your cause is just,
a few innocents are a small price to pay...
(In general, I think that the probity of a boycott technique should be
measured by how much you would squawk if it were implemented by
someone who espoused the cause you hate most.)
>http://mail-abuse.org/rbl/candidacy.html#ByAssociation
>
>>what is on the RBL.) And partly companies like AboveNet that are not clear
>>about how they use it (blocking Web access without informing customers is
>>really pretty low). And if a downstream ISP knows that AboveNet blocks Web
>>sites, but then re-sells Internet access to the public without telling them
>>this, then that downstream ISP is partly responsible as well.
>
>I recall seeing somewhere on MAPS's site that they require users of the RBL
>to indicate to customers and their downstreams that they *are* using the RBL.
>But I can't find any indication of that on their web site, so I'm CC'ing
>this post to a couple friends who work there. I could be wrong, and maybe
>it's just because I'm still hung over from New Year's Eve -- but I could
>swear it's there. :)
...
>Of course it matters. It's not a tangential topic. MAPS says the reason for
>the RBL listing of the Class C in which your site sits is because there are
>several other sites that support spam services. If that's not true, MAPS
>shouldn't list the Class C. But I, for one, believe it to be true.
As an outsider I'm rather interested by the choice of Class C network as
the granularity for the black-hole list. Obviously it's slightly more convenient
than doing blocking by IP (and slightly more effective if someone owns the
whole block and can play address games); it also is almost certain to block
people who have only the bad judgement or misfortune to be in the wrong
netblock -- as above, this may be the point, but if so you have to ask whether
it's a good strategy. (And if it truly is a good strategy, why not go whole hog
and block Class B's or Class A's, other than the fact that those folks
could squash
you like a bug?)
>>If individuals want
>>to boycott Peacefire voluntarily because we're hosted on Media3, that's up
>>to them. But my own survey of AboveNet users indicated that none of them
>>knew their Internet access was being blocked without their permission.
>
>You said exactly the same thing to me in one of our discussions in private
>e-mail. I pointed out that that may or may not be AboveNet's fault.
>
>I then asked whether said users were direct customers of AboveNet or not.
>It's very likely many (most?) of them are users of ISPs downstream, in which
>case there is no obligation for AboveNet to tell those particular people
>that they're using the RBL. They need to tell the ISPs connecting directly
>to them, and the ISPs need to tell the end-users.
>
>While I appreciate your efforts to discuss this topic with me in a rational,
>calm manner, and I wish to do the same for you, I do think that you avoided
>directly answering this question when I initially posed it to you. Again, as
>I mentioned before, this does not imply that I think you're right or wrong,
>but the phrase "AboveNet users" is ambiguous and (I think) intentionally
>vague.
As a random end-user, I think that vagueness hits the mark quite well. I don't
get to choose where my packets go after they leave my machine or (at best)
leave my ISP. Everything that's ever been written about the internet describes
the net as a "cloud" where packets magically get shunted to their destinations,
not one where upper-tier and backbone providers pick and choose what to let
through. (Note also that someone like above.net can do this only because they
are a relatively small player -- if sprint, say, decided to toss packets
it didn't
like, DoJ would be all over them.)
One other thing I'm wondering: since above.net also acts as a backbone provider
-- or at least sometimes my traceroutes have claimed that -- insofar as its
routers advertise routes that include blackholed netblocks (and I don't know
that they do) they would be doing a Very Bad Thing for the integrity of the
net as a whole, no matter how noble the RBL's intention.
>>The First Amendment does not protect "speech" that consists of false
>>statements made by a company about a product that they're selling, whether
>>that product is (1) a list of sites, or (2) Internet access that is
>>secretly filtered according to that list. It protects the list itself, not
>>necessarily all uses of it.
>
>I agree; however, what we are dealing with at this point is not necessarily
>a censorship issue, but rather one of contract law.
It's quite possible for it to be both, unless you believe that "censorship"
should only ever be applied to pure government action.
paul
danny burstein
[lots of silly stuff, yes silly stuff, snipped]
>The First Amendment does not protect "speech" that consists of false
>statements made by a company about a product that they're selling, whether
>that product is (1) a list of sites, or (2) Internet access that is
>secretly filtered according to that list. It protects the list itself, not
>necessarily all uses of it.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution has almost NOTHING to do with
commercial organizations. It concerns itself with GOVERNMENT censorship.
Your attempt to bring it into this discussion seems like a blatant last
ditch effort by you to deivert attention away from the real issue here,
which is that your (otherwise laudable) material is now in the midst of a
spam haven.
In this specific situation vis-a-vis Peacefire and Media3, you have placed
your voice in the midst of a group of annoying and loud trouble makers.
COMMERCIAL organizations and PRIVATE individuals have decided that the
volume of car alarms and loudspeakers and bad music and other annoyances
from that neighborhood is so intense that they're putting up sound berms
to block and isolate the noise. All the noise. All the sound. All the
messages. All the time. Without discrimination as to which source *in that
neighborhood* they're coming from.
*You've* made the choice to move into and stay in that neighborhood. *You*
have the option of moving out.
While the groups that put up this berm probably should have done a better
job of advising their users, this is a PRIVATE decision, a BUSINESS
choice, and has little to do with GOV'T. The US Constitution and the Bill
of Rights do NOT apply to this [1].
[1] for the most part. Yes, we can compose Clintonesque scenarios that
would draw it in. Let's not. Thank you.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Steve Linford
sjs...@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steve Sobol) wrote:
> I recall seeing somewhere on MAPS's site that they require users of
> the RBL to indicate to customers and their downstreams that they
> *are* using the RBL.
They advise it but can't require it. However before Bennett yells
"Gotcha!" the reason they can't require it is that an ISP is a private
entity and can't be required to do anything if they don't want to.
MAPS strongly advises ISPs do disclose any filters in use, and most
ISPs do - and certainly nowdays providing email accounts protected
from spam by the MAPS lists is a strong sales feature.
> >There is a nuanced debate about whether sites which sell software
> >like List Sorcerer (not to mention sites like Peacefire which are
> >not doing anything except being *hosted* on the same ISP) are
> >"responsible" for the spam problem
Bennett, why don't you just load one of these sites
http://www.bulk-isp.net (only a few IPs away from you at
209.211.253.248) and see for yourself. Scroll down to the "We mass
mail for you", use your own eyes.
You can even use your ears: Would you like to hear the owner of that
site say that he spams and provides 'bullet-proof' spam hosting? The
following MP3 file is Sam Al (Saied Alzalzalah), a major scumbag who
runs http://www.bulk-isp.net (and quite a few other spam sites in your
block) telling MAPS that he spams, just click this and listen:
http://www.spamhaus.org/images/SamAlC48.mp3
Or how about this from the same spammer, Sam Al, bulkisp.nu (also at
209.211.253.248 in your block), he's semi-illiterate by the way:
From: in...@bulkisp.nu
Subject: We Spam And Nobody Can Stop US
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:03:24 -0500
Reply-To: in...@bulkisp.nu
To: <snip>@att.net
Message-Id: <foqkqutue.xcoi...@mx1.mail.aol.com>
Srew the atispammers, We Beat them all.
Hi My name is Sam were are spammers. We can set u up so u can
spam your heart out. We have bullet proff servers, bullet proff
list, and bulllet proff hosting.
Just call us at 323 874 4647, or fax us at 323 512 4950
or email us at in...@bulkisp.nu
or go to our web page http://www.bulkisp.nu
Nobody can stop us we got it down.
Don't worry about the atispammers there is nothing they can do.
Call me I will give you all the secrets.
Sam
PS Believe we are are protected nothing can hurt us or you.
Still convinced the poor little spammers in your block don't actually
spam, and the 'stealth' spamming software they sell is just harmless?
--
Steve Linford
Steve Sobol
>Media3, however, would seem to have its class C on the list because it
>sells space to people who provide spam support services, yet another
>level of indirection. You can argue that selling the space is itself a spam
>support service, but that starts you into an ugly regress, e.g. is anyone
>who makes money by passing packets and doesn't subscribe to the RBL
>engaging in spam support services?
A good point, that.
I think the URL I gave does a pretty good job of delineating what they will
RBL people for, though.
>Obviously boycotts like this work best when they hit "innocent" people
>who might get a provider to make a policy change, but I can see how
>Bennett Haselton might draw a nice analogy to censorware companies
>who put an entire site or hosting service on their list because of a few
>bad pages or an insufficiently-strict AUP. After all, if your cause is just,
>a few innocents are a small price to pay...
Paul, I suspect you may be coming into this discussion late, so I want to
give you a couple more data points.
1. MAPS, to the best of my knowledge, never starts with a whole Class C.
They start with an IP that is nominated for the RBL, investigate matters,
and attempt to work with the responsible organization to fix the problem
(it's been said that they consider an actual listing "failure"; they would
much rather educate, remove the problem and not have to list).
In Media3's case, there were several IP's in that Class C that were already
on the RBL for spam support services, and Media3 refused to remove them, so
the RBL listing was escalated to the entire class C. And...
2. From what I can tell, from reading Bennett's own posts on SPAM-L, his
site was moved to an RBL'd IP *in* *August*, a good four months after
several IP addresses in that block were already RBL'd. It would seem to be
a move on Media3's part to try to get MAPS to release the listing.
>As an outsider I'm rather interested by the choice of Class C network as
>the granularity for the black-hole list. Obviously it's slightly more convenient
>than doing blocking by IP (and slightly more effective if someone owns the
>whole block and can play address games); it also is almost certain to block
>people who have only the bad judgement or misfortune to be in the wrong
>netblock
Please refer to my reply above. Generally, you (as a provider) only end up
with an entire Class C in the RBL if you already are *on* the RBL for one or
more IP's and you are uncooperative and/or playing games.
k -- as above, this may be the point, but if so you have to ask whether
>it's a good strategy. (And if it truly is a good strategy, why not go whole hog
>and block Class B's or Class A's, other than the fact that those folks
>could squash >you like a bug?)
Lots of collateral damage. That's why the MAPS folks don't do Class C's off
the bat.
>through. (Note also that someone like above.net can do this only because they
>are a relatively small player -- if sprint, say, decided to toss packets
>it didn't like, DoJ would be all over them.)
Well, not necessarily. If they wanted to block a /24 from a provider hosting
scriptkiddies who were initiating DoS attacks from various IP's in that block,
you can bet they'd blackhole the /24, and be completely within their legal
rights to do so.
>>I agree; however, what we are dealing with at this point is not necessarily
>>a censorship issue, but rather one of contract law.
>
>It's quite possible for it to be both, unless you believe that "censorship"
>should only ever be applied to pure government action.
Government or no, I'm not sure censorship of Peacefire is *happening* in
this instance, at least not by MAPS or AboveNet. Media3, not MAPS, not
AboveNet, moved Peacefire into an already-partially-blackholed /24.
--
Steve Sobol, BOFH, President 888.480.4NET 866.DSL.EXPRESS 216.619.2NET
North Shore Technologies Corporation http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net
JustTheNet/JustTheNet EXPRESS DSL (ISP Services) http://JustThe.net
mailto:sjs...@NorthShoreTechnologies.net Proud resident of Cleveland, OH
Steve Linford
Haselton <ben...@peacefire.org> wrote:
> If individuals want to boycott Media3 for that reason, fine. What
> I think is dishonest about the RBL "boycott" is that most
> individuals whose email or Web access is blocked, apparently don't
> even realize it.
You mean like peacefire.org not realizing that Media3 was blocking
incoming email to you? (Emails I sent to peacefire.org were being
blocked by your provider Media3. They disclosed this fact to you?
Nope, they later gave you some BS about it occuring "in error" but
Media3 told me outright they were deliberately blocking me.)
Peacefire.org is posting "MAPS are blocking us" press releases
deliberately distorting facts to suit your own agenda. The prime fact
you ignore is that Media3 could have placed your www.peacefire.org
site in any of their many netblocks, but in August they chose to put
you in the middle of a class C containing notorious spam gangs whose
many IPs were _already_ on the MAPS RBL, and Joe Hayes at Media3 had
been told, by MAPS, in June, _two months_ before they put you in that
block that the whole class C would be blackholed. Do you not even
think Media3 had a duty to tell you that the block they were going to
put you in was about to be placed on the RBL? If they had told you,
would you have agreed or even volunteered to be placed in there
knowing you'd be blackholed by 45% of the Internet?
What the heck are you still doing in that class C? Media3 are not
going to get rid of their spammers to unblock it anytime soon,
they're going to court to try to keep their spammers and force the
RBL to unblock them. Their TRO has already been denied so it's
going to take some time and it's a no-win situation for them: If
Media3 lose the court case the RBL block will stay. If Media3 win the
court case; system and network administrators all over the net will
manually blackhole Media3 which will be infinately worse than being
on the one RBL list. If you follow nanae you'll know that a lot of
network admins are already blocking Media3 at their routers and MTAs,
and ORBS is already blackholing _all_ of Media3.
--
Steve Linford
Paul Wallich
<st...@uxn.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn951og5....@amethyst.nstc.com>,
>sjs...@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steve Sobol) wrote:
>
>> I recall seeing somewhere on MAPS's site that they require users of
>> the RBL to indicate to customers and their downstreams that they
>> *are* using the RBL.
>
>They advise it but can't require it. However before Bennett yells
>"Gotcha!" the reason they can't require it is that an ISP is a private
>entity and can't be required to do anything if they don't want to.
>MAPS strongly advises ISPs do disclose any filters in use, and most
>ISPs do - and certainly nowdays providing email accounts protected
>from spam by the MAPS lists is a strong sales feature.
"An ISP is a private entity and can't be required to do anything" has
to rank as the stupidist single statement (even in context) that's
gone by during this entire discussion, and seriously damages the
credibility of the rest of Linford's argument, imo. An ISP can be
required to do damn-all anything the owner or licensors of the resources
it is using decides to require (within the loose bounds of copyright and
contract law). They can't make a zillion copies of Win2K and give them
away with new accounts, they can't sell GPL'd apps without a path to
source code, they can't frame other ISPs' web sites and put frames around
them etc ad nauseam.
It would be a fairly simple matter for MAPS to say "it is a condition of
subscribing to the RBL that you inform your end-users that you are
blocking certain sites" and to test compliance by setting up a bot that
(suitably anonymized) sent a prospective-customer-style query to the
email address of the subscriber's choosing. (This kind of approach would
be easy to spoof, but the spoofing could be detected, and besides, who
would bother to deceive MAPS, because RBL subscribers' hearts are pure.)
Always be particularly suspicious of shortcuts taken by people whose
motives you agree with.
paul
Heywood Jaiblomi
>What the heck are you still doing in that class C?
That, I believe is the key question.
I also think that Steve Sobol (or someone else) offered free hosting for
peacefire.org if they would like to move.
In the interests of full disclosure, I think the quesitoning should focus
on why peacefire.org is still where they are. Has there been any money or
other valuable consideration exchange hands?
--
It ain't the whistle that moves the train.
John Willkie
It occurs to me that there is a logical reason why bennett has not taken up
Steve Sobol and others on their offer to host his site on their servers for
free.
The logical reason is that he gets a better deal from Media3. This would
explain his lack of a response to several pointed questions, his inability
to "understand" what is happening, etc. By better deal, I mean that he is
PAID to be there.
"Anti-censorship" (self-appointed) activist (clearly without a clue) is
hosted by a company that is one thin step away from hosting spam. And, he
gets put in the middle of a den of thieves and fakirs, only to complain to
the wrong people. Repeatedly.
Then, the illiterate (unable to read and understand the US Constitution)
activist spews out at others (like AboveNet) with which he CHOOSES to have a
beef.
It's all childless whining, and it brings the "value" of peacefire.org to
less than zero.
Time to read contract law, Bennett. You've lost the ability to phone to
someone with a clue. I say, go f**k yourself.
There might be another logical answer. Beats me what it is.
John Willkie
P.S. It will be real interesting to read peacefire.org's IRS form 990's,
assuming he ever gets to the point of becoming a 501(c)(x) organization.
Me, I think it is generous to call his organization a "private charity."
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Heywood Jaiblomi
>It occurs to me that there is a logical reason why bennett has not taken
>up Steve Sobol and others on their offer to host his site on their
>servers for free.
You've successfully applied Ocam's Razor, the principle that says "The
answer which requires the fewest assumptions is the correct one."
Your hypothesis fits that, and I would like to see what Bennett has to say
about it.
--
It ain't the whistle that moves the train.
Steve Linford
() wrote:
> In article <steve-F7BC17....@enews.newsguy.com>, Steve
> Linford <st...@uxn.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <slrn951og5....@amethyst.nstc.com>,
> >sjs...@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steve Sobol) wrote:
> >
> >> I recall seeing somewhere on MAPS's site that they require users
> >> of the RBL to indicate to customers and their downstreams that
> >> they *are* using the RBL.
> >
> >They advise it but can't require it. However before Bennett yells
> >"Gotcha!" the reason they can't require it is that an ISP is a
> >private entity and can't be required to do anything if they don't
> >want to. MAPS strongly advises ISPs do disclose any filters in
> >use, and most ISPs do - and certainly nowdays providing email
> >accounts protected from spam by the MAPS lists is a strong sales
> >feature.
>
> "An ISP is a private entity and can't be required to do anything"
> has to rank as the stupidist single statement (even in context)
> that's gone by during this entire discussion, and seriously damages
> the credibility of the rest of Linford's argument, imo. An ISP can
> be required to do damn-all anything the owner or licensors of the
> resources it is using decides to require
Hmm, according to Mr Wallich my credibility is 'seriously damaged' by
my statement above, which is a bummer as obviously if I respond my
response can not be credible... Guess I'll respond by quoting someone
credible; here's Paul Vixie on ISPs disclosing their use of MAPS lists:
<quote>
Even if it were possible for MAPS to _enforce_ a contract provision
which _required_ that level of disclosure by an ISP to its customers,
MAPS _would_not_do_it_. It's the ISP's own network. They can block
whatever they want, with or without disclosure, with or without
permission. While it's courteous and professional to do it the way
you're describing, we here have got to remember that it's an ISP's
_right_ to be discourteous and unprofessional if that's how they
choose to do business.
</quote>
--
Steve Linford
Steve Sobol
>I have read these threads with some interest from the beginning last month.
>
>It occurs to me that there is a logical reason why bennett has not taken up
>Steve Sobol and others on their offer to host his site on their servers for
>free.
>
>The logical reason is that he gets a better deal from Media3.
I offered him free hosting, completely free, with no requirement to place
NSTC banner ads or links to me on his site.
>to "understand" what is happening, etc. By better deal, I mean that he is
>PAID to be there.
Maybe. I wouldn't rule it out.
>Time to read contract law, Bennett. You've lost the ability to phone to
>someone with a clue. I say, go f**k yourself.
I haven't gotten to the point of saying that yet... I've come close, though.
--
Steve Sobol, BOFH, President 888.480.4NET 866.DSL.EXPRESS 216.619.2NET
North Shore Technologies Corporation http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net
JustTheNet/JustTheNet EXPRESS DSL (ISP Services) http://JustThe.net
mailto:sjs...@NorthShoreTechnologies.net Proud resident of Cleveland, OH
Paul Wallich
<st...@uxn.com> wrote:
In other words, "We choose not to make any affort to see that our
intellectual property is used in a responsible fashion." Vixie seems
to be suggesting in the lines quoted above that he doesn't think
disclosure could be enforced (although he doesn't say whether that's
a legal or a pragmatic opinion) but mostly he's saying that he _chooses_
not to even try to mandate disclosure.
In short, hardly support for the statement "An ISP is a private entity
and can't be required to do anything." But perhaps logic is just another
item of collateral damage...
Btw, AP reports this morning that a couple of spammers were just
sentenced to two years each (for the underlying fraud as well as
the hijacking of resources). The wheels of justice grind slow, but
sometimes indeed exceeding fine.
paul
Garrett Wollman
Paul Wallich <p...@panix.com> wrote:
>In other words, "We choose not to make any affort to see that our
>intellectual property is used in a responsible fashion."
You are assuming that there is intellectual property involved.
Certainly, the way most people use the MAPS lists, there is not: a
mail server sends a DNS request to a MAPS server, which responds with
a one-bit (yes or no) answer. (In the famous ``phone book'' decision,
it was held that the informational content of a database or directory
is not subject to copyright, even though the actual database or
directory, once fixed in physical form, is.)
In order to receive a complete copy of the RBL database, MAPS did
(don't know if they still do) require the recipient to sign an
indemnification agreement. This was true for both those who received
the RBL via DNS zone transfers and those (like AboveNet) who got a BGP
feed from MAPS.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same
wol...@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom
Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick
--