[cobalt-users] RE: OT ** ORBZ **

[baltimoremd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, Charlie Summers wrote:

> At 12:16 PM -0500 3/23/02, baltimoremd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is rumored to have
> typed:
>
> > > Let's see, restraint of trade, maybe even a RICO case, since SPEWS
> > > effectively punishes anyone using an IP in a block...even if they don't
> > > spam.
>
>    You couldn't _be_ more incorrect, since SPEWS doesn't block anything.
>
> > And in no way does that excuse the damage that SPEWS causes to
> > non-spammers.
>
>    SPEWS does no damage whatsoever to anyone.

OK...SPEWS sets up a system where an entire block of IP addresses is
tagged if only one of those addresses is labeled by SPEWS as a spammer.


Using that logic, one should set up port sentry to autoblock an entire
block of IPs if one of them attempts to probe your system.

But, from your post, you'd just write off any collateral damage, right?

>
>    And I have the RIGHT to do so, since I am not required by any law,
> contract, or other legal impliment to connect to ANY specific server, and may
> freely choose to whom I wish to connect. Speaking SMTP to my server is a
> privilage, not a right; spam me, or run an open relay who spams me, and I
> stop talking to your server, possibly your netblock, and occasionally your
> COUNTRY. And you have no legal claim whatsoever to attack that.

And what if you block out someone who:

A. never spammed you
B. doesn't operate and open relay?

Ah well, no sense arguing about the number of angels that can dance upon
the head of a pin.

Thom