nanog mailing list archives
Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users
From: John Leong <leong () inversenet com>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 17:58:18 -0800
There is a different between traffic that is objectionable because it abuses the network infrastructure (e.g. Smurf DOS attacks) and traffic that is objectionable because of the nature of the content (libel, 'porno', copyright violation etc.). I believe common carrier such as the phone companies have every right and do take actions against abusers of network (e.g. people using the blue boxes in the old days to get free long distance calls) but decline to act as censors for the content. I believe the RBL list falls into the abuse prevention category. Now, if the RBL selectively filters Spam based on the content type of the Spam, that will be censorship. Regards, John Leong
Current thread:
- Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users Szechuan Death (Dec 03)
- Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users Owen DeLong (Dec 03)
- Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users Henry Linneweh (Dec 03)
- Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users John Leong (Dec 03)
- Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users Scott Lampert (Dec 03)
- Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users Roeland M.J. Meyer (Dec 03)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users Dean Anderson (Dec 04)
- Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users Stephen Stuart (Dec 04)
- RE: Lawsuit threat against RBL users James D. Wilson (Dec 04)
- Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users Andrew Staples (Dec 07)
- Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users Steven J. Sobol (Dec 08)
- Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users Henry Linneweh (Dec 08)
- Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users Steven J. Sobol (Dec 08)
- RE: Lawsuit threat against RBL users Dean Anderson (Dec 07)