from the quill of Chris Brenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on scroll
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Howdy all,
Hey.
> Check out:
> http://www.directmag.com/content/newsline/main.html#81
Yeah, ain't it cool? ~huge grin~
> In short, Yesmail.com has received a restraining order from an
> Illinois
> judge to keep MAPS from adding them to the RPL spam database.
Yeah, restraining orders are reportedly easy as sin to get for just
about anything you might want to get one for. It's a safety valve that
is turned on while the real problem is hashed out.
> While I'm not a huge MAPS fan (prefer ORBS myself),
I REFUSE to argue this can of worms. :-)
> I find the prospect
> of the above a bit more than scary.
Yeah? Before you get too scared, go check out
http://www.mail-abuse.org/lawsuit/ but you must've saw that in reading
the article.
I find the whole prospect amusing. I wish I could be in court to hear
the arguments. If they were doing it in RedWood City (or anywhere else
in the Bay Area) I would be there!
> My other concern is that this strikes at the very heart of
> firewalling.
I don't think they are parallel.
> The whole concept of firewalling is that we (the Internet community)
> have the right to pick and choose which traffic we will allow into our
> environment. Firewalls are simply a method of implementing that right.
Correct. A spammer bases his argument on that e-mail boxes are by
nature public and should not be blocked from access. The same cannot be
said of (say) your Kerberos server.
> If Yesmail.com wins their suit, that right becomes threaten as now
> there
> is legal precedence for having to allow certain traffic into your
> environment.
Like I said, I am not sure I would go that far. The anti-spammer folks
have got some pretty good arguments as to why a persons e-mail box not
necessarily be wide open for *every* piece of mail mail thrown it's way.
> IMHO this has the potential to grow much bigger and get really nasty.
IMHO it will be over before it starts. :-)
> For example take the recent report of NASA blocking all of @Home when
> they could not get a response to intrusion attempts.
If they blocked it just because they don't like people who use cable
networks, maybe. It might be discrimination. But if they can
demonstrate that they did it for the safety of their network, then they
have a valid argument.
> So I would advise everyone to keep a close eye on this case. Its a
> slippery slope with far reaching implications.
Oh I will. I am acutely interested in how it turns out. But at this
point I can also say I am not worried. :-)
b.
--
Brian J. Murrell InterLinx Support Services, Inc.
North Vancouver, B.C. 604 983 UNIX
Platform and Brand Independent UNIX Support - R3.2 - R4 - BSD
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
