Re: Commecial vs fairness (was: spam support)
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:41:43 +0100
In message <p05100304b8928111491d@localhost>, Steve Linford writes:
> At 10:05 pm +0000 (GMT) 14/2/02, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> > variable@localhost said:
> >> RIPE already has terms and conditions that you have to sign up to if you
> >> wish to become a LIR. I'm merely suggesting that it might be worthwhile
> >> bringing them up to date. Obviously, with a tougher set of T's & C's RIP
> >> would need extra resources to enforce them.
> > That's not the point. If the terms are reasonable *for RIPE's monopoly
> > purpose*, then you can enforce them. But a condition that, for example, yo
> > must use Cisco routers would be unreasonable for that purpose, so it's an
> > abuse of their monopoly.
> > Rules beyond those necessary to ensure IP addresses are allocated
> > efficiently are outside their monopoly position.
> However you wouldn't want RIPE to allocate you a batch of IPs that
> were previously used by a Cyberpromo and are consequently completely
> blocked by every DNSBL and local MTA blacklist on the net. If they
> did, and you gave those IPs out to customers there'd be a mess as
> your customers would want to burn an effigy of you ;) So it may make
> sense for RIPE to guard themselves against a future Cyberpromo
> destroying the usability and hence value of those IPs, by stipulating
> something in the TOS that forbids the use of the IPs for spam service
Where does RIPE claim that the IP space you get will be usable for
a specific purpose? The only claim made, is that it should be a unique
There is a waiting period before returned IP space is put back in the
pool of available IP space.
Using a blacklist to force compliance with some perception of normality
is a double edged sword. It may work, but if the blacklist is not cleaned
up in time it will collect innocent parties. Once enough innocent parties
have been collected people will stop using the blacklist.
Don't try to fix this in the wrong place.