You do realize that some organizations have such a broken support and contact system that often a legal threat or a formal complaint with a regulator is necessary to get said organizations to even discuss an issue?
I read the original message as "I'm frustrated that we're trying to do the correct things here but I can't get anyone to tell us what we're doing wrong so we can either stop the behavior or get a record corrected". This is a lot different than "we're a spammer and we're going to sue a dnsbl for interfering with our business". If amazon had a well defined process for legitimate ISPs to be able to open a ticket to resolve issues with their netblocks, I doubt anyone in this thread would be discussing having lawyers write letters. And if I'm mistaken and there is a well defined way for a non-AWS-customer ISP to address these types of issues with Amazon, I'd love to hear what it is. On Wed, May 28, 2025, 8:08 PM Andrew Kirch via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote: > Are we really going to repeat the blatant stupidity of spammers 15-20 years > ago who tried to file SLAPP ( > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation > ) > suits against DNSBL ( > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System_blocklist) operators? > Did > we learn nothing from history? > > Please have your lawyers review the Spamhaus lawsuit, and other state and > federal lawsuits filed by spammers against DNSBL operators (like me!) > before you file a SLAPP suit. We always win. We win so much it's getting > boring. > > Our state and federal courts have ruled in every case I am aware of that > publishing lists of hosts who violate or have violated the behavioral norms > of the Internet and society at large is protected under 47 USC 230’s good > samaritan clause (c)(2)(A) and (B). In fact my right to publish a list > that says your IPs, IP blocks, DNS, or any other technical means of > identifying your content or traffic as not reputable EXCEEDS your > constitutional rights to protected speech. During the 2004 and 2008 US > presidential elections we reputation listed both major parties' > presidential campaigns for sending unsolicited bulk email. Their legal > recourse was to go away and deal with it. When a major email provider was > in a very long beta, and it was exploited to send CSAM randomly around the > internet, we reputation listed it. > > Reputation lists are protected speech. Anyone who wishes to use these > lists may do so for any reason they wish, or none at all. Legal threats > with no merit in law are "otherwise objectionable" > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartooney. You are actually quite lucky > that my list isn't still operating. We routinely reputation listed sources > of idiotic legal threats (cartooneys > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartooney). Getting out of that reputation > list required a public apology made in the same forum where the original > cartooney was published. > > It baffles my mind that anyone would stand up and publicly announce that > they wish to be counted with spammers. Obviously none of this is legal > advice, but since this is going to be archived in Google in a day or so, it > should save the attorneys who are going to respond to your cartooney time > in composing their reply. > > In summation don't threaten reputation list providers. You will lose every > time. > > Andrew Kirch > Former owner of the Abusive Hosts Blocking List > > On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 9:25 PM Eric C. Miller via NANOG < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > We're still playing whack a mole with our IP space. I've asked our > > corporate counsel about sending demand letters with an accusation of > > tortious interference. > > > > IP Quality Score seems to be a big nuisance. Check a few of your IPs on > > their website. > > > > No silver bullets though. > > > > Eric > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: paul--- via NANOG <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 10:18:55 AM > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > Subject: Amazon AWS cloudfront WAF block > > > > Hi all > > > > Most if not all of our prefixes are on some sort of AWS WAF deny list, > > that or our ASN is listed. > > > > We are an eyeball network, geo-location websites e.g maxmind are > correctly > > displaying the correct location and services for our prefixes. > > > > We do not have a support contract with amazon aws to create a support > > ticket. Various websites are now blocked, e.g Reddit and many more. It is > > not feasible for us to reach out to each one to adjust their aws waf > > filters. > > > > Upon emailing AWS this is their reply: > > > > "The best course of action would be to contact Neustar and or MaxMind who > > are 3rd party WAF aggregators on this to address any issues with WAF > > blocking." > > > > This is also not fair and frankly a rabbit hole we do not want to go > down. > > These are also paid for services. AWS is almost holding our ASN/Prefixes > as > > hostage to these paid for services with no easy way to check why we are > > being blocked, and getting off "some" list. > > > > Anyone have an idea / contact or what to do? > > _______________________________________________ > > NANOG mailing list > > > > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/NC6Q4WG7MORBQWH5BAPOHR7XK5H56OTU/ > > _______________________________________________ > > NANOG mailing list > > > > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/K7TEXONRYLQWZPUDTOPQ5SI5WFZJ6TAM/ > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/TVB6GRMPRTUHNEDL6VGMEUIMOKDTEUQ7/ - Forrest _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/K7XV2ZZMD55XI6RBXUVYHKPL7UA7AVWL/
