Re: [YA] Fwd: Class B Purchase

[Karl Denninger <karl () mcs net>]

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.