[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RBL report..

On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 12:42:14PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> A. swbell has frequent problems with their mail-servers, both inbound
> (POP) and outbound (SMTP). I don't know (or care) what OS they run.
> B. When I got my DSL line, swbell was the *only* ISP possibile in
> houston.

That's part of what is (very) darkly humorous about the blacklisting
bigots -- they don't have much of a grasp of realities in the telecom
marketplace at the consumer level.

For instance, when regulations preventing phone companies from providing
both local and long distance service in the same LATA were lifted, part of
the agreement said that those same phone companies had to permit
competition on the local loops if they wanted to peddle long distance to
their local customers.

Needless to say, a great many phone companies can now sell you both local
and long distance service, but local phone service competition is still
almost unheard of.  (Just one example: BellSouth here in Louisville has
been successfully stonewalling competing DSL providers on their wires for
at least a year, and are lobbying the state legislature for exemption from
a bill that would compel public utility companies in general to permit

The cable companies are similarly trying to maintain monopolies over their

The result of this is that there is actually very little competition among
ISP's in any given geographic locality in the United States *except* in the
dialup market.

So when the bigots tell you to exercise your "rights" as a consumer and
change ISP's, they're either ignorant of this reality, or winking at each
other from behind their nailed-up IP's, knowing you'll either be paying a
lot for shitty service, and the privilege of getting off the DUL blacklist
(but you'd better pray they haven't blacklisted your ISP!).

They're like little kids who torture small animals -- as long as they're
not getting hurt themselves, it's just good clean fun to fuck with the
pathetic little creatures.

> C. Even though it's now possible to get other ISPs, it would roughly
> double my current ISP bill.

The blacklisters consider price no object, when it's someone else's money.

> D. DUL is discrimination, pure and simple. If Debian chooses to add a
> warning header based on it (so that those who choose to can filter),
> that's fine. If Debian starts to reject list mail based on DUL, I'd
> strongly consider leaving the project.


> Joseph's arguments, while occasionally strident, are not foolish. I
> find it interesting that his opponents devolve into name calling and
> obscenity.

Well, he could comport himself in such a way as to make his critics look
worse -- and he does have a history of being on the wrong side of some
issues :) -- but he's not in the wrong this time.

I have noticed that after screeching for statistics that would "prove" that
usage of DUL on murphy would all but eliminate spam on the Debian mailing
lists, none of those screechers has bothered to actually reply to the
following fact that Jason offered:

> DUL would seem to effect at most maybe 10 people, but it hasn't actually
> been shown to stop any spam - so this needs more investigation.

No blacklister has offered suggestions for followup on this issue -- they
simply continue to reiterate their faith in the righteousness and universal
applicability of the DUL blacklist (and wander off on tangents about ORBS).
They remind me of Creationists, who will marshal "facts" in defense of
their position, but when those "facts" are discredited, will simply
fallback on repeated blunt assertions of their conclusion, not caring that
their premises have been obliterated.

G. Branden Robinson            |    When I die I want to go peacefully in
Debian GNU/Linux               |    my sleep like my ol' Grand Dad...not
branden@ecn.purdue.edu         |    screaming in terror like his passengers.
roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpxQtkft5CgX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: