Comcast and SORBS

[lug at the-leveys.us (Don Levey)]

discuss-bounces at blu.org wrote:
> Bob George wrote:
>
>>  From what you've written, nobody is preventing from running your
>> private email server. However, others running their own servers have
>> elected not to accept email from servers running off of dynamic IP
>> ranges. Lamentable as that is, *dealing with it* is definitely
>> on-topic.
>
> Although Rich is dealing with a dynamic IP situation, it's not limited
> to that. AOL won't accept email from my static Speakeasy.net address,
> which has forced me (reluctantly) to reconfigure my server to relay
> through Speakeasy. My address has not been singled out in any way;
> they apparently block ALL blocks of addresses known to belong to home
> users, dynamic or not.
>
That's their choice - though I disagree with it.  In most of these
situations, ISPs will make known their *dynamic* netblocks so that the lists
like SORBS can list them.  Normally, though, they'll withhold the static
blocks.  AOL may have gotten that on their own; I imagine you've already
discussed with AOL the possibility of removing the static blocks?

> And yes, the Speakeasy TOS does allow me to run servers. But the
> actions of a company that I don't even do business with has
> effectively deprived me of that right in this case.
>
No, they haven't - because sending email onto their system is not your
right.  They have exercised THEIR right, to block whoever they want.  I
don't think they made the right choice, but it's theirs to make.  You have
the right to say what you want, and to do what you want with your own
equipment, bnut you do not have the right to compel them to carry your
traffic.  They are not a common carrier.

> My concern about the situation is less about privacy, and more about
> control of the medium. Changing the nature of email so that everyone
> has to work through one of a handful of big players lets those big
> players control what the medium can be used for. The historical
> record has shown that concentration of power in that way will be bad
> for many of us.

One of the many ways in which AOL is not good for the internet.  MS handling
mail is another not-good situation.  So is the US gov't.  Co-operative
agreements between private parties is a way to keep that in check.

 -Don