Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 14:44:25 -0700

> On 04/05/04 13:35 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> <snip>
> > The point about 'collateral damage' is not that it serves any
> > strategic purpose, it does not, all it does is to feed the egos
> > of the people who engage in it. It fails in the spam context
> > for the same reason that it failled in the military context.
> > Collateral damage forces parties who are natural allies to treat
> > you as the enemy.

> Collateral damage is a bad choice of terms. DNSBLs are *passive*
> systems. Choosing to block mail from any system based on a random
> criterion is the choice of the administrator of the blocking system.

Paul Vixie used the term, and he used it in the context of using
the MAPS blacklist to coerce others into complying with his idea
of acceptable use policies - ideas that go far beyond what is
currently considered spam.

> Rather than trying to stop the spammer, people using the escalated
> blocks are trying to stop the spam supporting ISP from sending them
> email. Rather than allowing the ISP to keep the spammers money as well
> as that of the legitimate users, the people using escalated 
> listings are
> forcing a choice of what customers the ISP wishes to keep. 

That is an aggressive action, not a passive one.

In international law a blockade is sufficient cause for war.
> > There is a utility in certain very narrowly tailored blacklists.
> > But they should never attempt to list any address for any other 
> > reason than it is a source of spam.

> What happens when the ISP in question refuses to remove the spammer(s)
> and you keep getting hit by their traffic?

If I know the IP address of the spammer and I am successfully blocking 
their messages why should I care?

> Think of it as a trade embargo, and it makes a lot more sense.

Again, trade embargos are the cause of a large number of wars. The
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was retaliation for a blockade.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Seth Breidbart <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 18:08:03 -0400 (EDT)

"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]> wrote:

[blocklists escalating]

> That is an aggressive action, not a passive one.

It's still passive: you don't get an answer unless you ask.

> their messages why should I care?

If you don't want to care, then you shouldn't use a blocklist that
expands listings.

If you want to help others, then you'd want to encourage ISPs to kick
off their spammers, even the spammers who aren't currently hurting
you.

> Again, trade embargos are the cause of a large number of wars.

And blocklists are the "cause" of DDOS attacks.  That doesn't mean the
felonious DDOS attacks are justified, or the blocklists improper.

Seth

---

From: Barry Shein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 19:07:22 -0400

FWIW I never bought the idea that blacklists were passive and
therefore completely the act of the person using them. I think that's
facile and disingenuous.

Consider other reputation systems, such as credit agencies.

Sure, a lender chooses to use information provided by a credit agency
so why blame the credit agency in any case?

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | [email-masked]           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World              | Public Access Internet     | Since 1989     *oo*

---

From: Daniel Feenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 19:26:23 -0400 (EDT)

> so why blame the credit agency in any case?

Law and custom with respect to consumer credit reporting developed during
a long period in which there was only a single such agency. That naturally
colored consumer (and legislative) views on the matter. The operator of an
MTA has enough choice of BL to assume some responsibility.

Daniel Feenberg

---

From: Seth Breidbart <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 21:13:44 -0400 (EDT)

> so why blame the credit agency in any case?

I blame the credit agency if it _lies_.

I blame ISPs who lie, too (such as claiming that the string ".cjb.net"
is such a strong sign of spam that no message containing it can be
delivered; you've lost two customers that I can name (and probably
many more) over that sort of policy).

Seth

---

From: der Mouse <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 00:35:17 -0400 (EDT)

>> What happens when the ISP in question refuses to remove the
>> spammer(s) and you keep getting hit by their traffic?
> If I know the IP address of the spammer and I am successfully
> blocking their messages why should I care?

Because you probably won't continue to block their messages, once they
(for example) start spewing through the zombie armies.

As one simple example, I accept no mail from the great swaths of
address space that have no rDNS - yet I still routinely have occasion
to complain to the providers in question because they are supporting
spammers whose spam I get through other routes.

> Again, trade embargos are the cause of a large number of wars.

I think in this case, a better analogy is that the war has already
started and we are trade-embargoing those friendly to the enemy.  (Of
course, like all analogies, this one is flawed; nevertheless, I think
it is less flawed than the one implicit in the single-quoted comment.)

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       [email-masked]
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B