[Asrg] Round 2 of the DNSBL BCP - "collateral damage"

[Steve Atkins]

On Apr 1, 2008, at 7:09 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 07:58:18PM -0500, Al Iverson wrote:
>> I dissagree. Some listings knowingly include IP addresses not  
>> directly
>> related to distribution of objectionable mail nor direct support or
>> response gathering of that mail.
>
> Yes, they do.
>
> But this is obviously not damage.

That statement is clearly false.

There are two main things a blacklist listing is intended to do.

One is to block spam from being received.

The other is to cause damage, financial and otherwise, to
the owner of the IP address. That is the stated goal of many
blacklists, for at least some subset of their listings.



> I'm not expressing an opinion (here) for or against such listing  
> policies.
> I'm just pointing out that it is impossible for any DNSBL listing (or
> its use) to cause any damage, because all it does is grant or revoke  
> (or
> modify, if used for scoring) an access privilege.  And access to  
> services
> provided by third parties is never a right: it's always a privilege.
>
> Anyone who thinks they are "damaged" when they are not granted  
> privileges
> is laboring under a badly mistaken concept of what "privilege" means.

Anyone who thinks that blocking email does not cause damage, or
that a blacklist does not block email is... wrong.

Cheers,
   Steve