[20149] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [YA] Fwd: Class B Purchase
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Tue Oct 6 13:14:53 1998
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:51:17 -0500
From: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net>
To: Phillip Vandry <vandry@Mlink.NET>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199810061644.MAA14510@Iodine.Mlink.NET>; from Phillip Vandry on Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 12:44:18PM -0400
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 (karl@denninger.net) 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.
