North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl)

  • From: Dean Anderson
  • Date: Thu Jun 18 17:22:05 1998

My apologies. I confused Karl Denninger with Karl Auerbach, who is an

In response to Karl Denninger:

At 2:16 PM -0400 6/18/98, Karl Denninger wrote:
>Dean, you keep changing your tune.
>First you said *any* spamblocking was illegal.

Yes. Any spam blocking when you aren't a party to the email is illegal. Nor
is it a departure from anything I have said, previously.

So, does this mean you agree that *some* spamblocking is illegal?  (I
suspect not, but surprise me.)

This reads like a political attack. (#25: claim your opponent has waffled,
but offer no evidence that anything is different). But I'm not running for
any office.  My credibility has no relevance to the truth of whether or not
2511 can apply to network providers. Its federal law. Network providers and
employees ought to be roughly aware of the laws which apply to them.  And
certainly not misled.

It is obvious now that it can apply. Its also just as clear that there are
some legal limitations on what network providers can do with "their

>Now you're looking for someone who is spamblocking IN TRANSIT (ie: not to
>or from an end customer).

As I have said before, transit providers are clearly not parties to
transiting traffic.  And I was looking for a Network Service (transit)
provider before.

>How would THAT come about, pray tell?  Do you know how modern SMTP based
>email actually *works*?

Yes, but apparently you don't.  This isn't the only way its handled. Some
people "transparently" intercept SMTP.  6 months ago I pointed out UUCP as
well. And there is also route filtering via BGP RBL. If they aren't a party
to the communication, then its illegal. (like I said before)

I'm really disappointed that people keep claiming that 2511 can't possibly
apply to a network provider, in spite of the now overwhelming proof to the
contrary.  But then apparently 2/3s of the democrats think that Clinton
didn't screw Monica. And some people think Nixon didn't break any laws.  I
can't change that sort of blind belief.

6 months ago, I could understand that behavior, since I was offering my
opinion based on my reading the text of the statute.  It was arguable, and
I argued well, I think, but perhaps not well enough.  But given the
revelations of the 1988 amendment and its hearings, which support my
reading of the text, and everything I said 6 months ago and am saying now,
I just can't believe there are still people who argue this.

At this point, there is nothing to be gained by argument on the
applicability of 2511 to network providers.  All the evidence is now
available, make your own decision.  I've brought it to your attention.


           Plain Aviation, Inc                  [email protected]
           We Make IT Fly!                (617)242-3091 x246