That's not actually a big surprise is it? All these religious people preaching the love of their deity are all scared, really, really scared. That's the problem. They can't listen to other arguments and risk going to incarnation of a less pleasant afterlife, hell, or whatever other things they might believe in.

Religion is about instilling fear and shame in it's followers and this is just another example of what effects it has.

look here the 'cyberbunker.com' guys are not the actual guys who own and operate the actual physical building that they have named the cyberbunker. Cyberbunker.com just rents some space from cb3rob which actually owns the building (and has it's own hosting company/network business)

It is confusing, I agree and perhaps it was done on purpose but I know for a fact that the guys running cyberbunker.com are actually different people.

let's not forget their abuse policy

Abuse:
  This includes but is not limited to:
          * Any criminal activities, as defined by the law of:
                      o Customer's country of residence (natural persons) or company registration,
          * Mass sending of unsollicted e-mail (SPAM).
          * Sending floods of any kind to any other computer system or network which inhibits the correct behaviour of said computer system or network.
          * Harrassment of individuals.
          * Endangering the quality of service or network stability for other internet users in any way.

They will keep customers online unless the law tells them to take them offline.

Weren't we all outraged when the 'three strikes and your out' laws basically meant that three COMPLAINTS means someone could lose their Internet access without appeal, and without a trial?

But if spamhaus does it it's fine? Really?

Read spamhaus's own writeup on the matter.

When A2B refused to remove cyberbunker from the Internet entirely they indeed added just the one /21 on the SBL. This was not a network that was routed to the cyberbunker and just 'one of their networks' a range that had nothing to do with the case at all... I think the sentiment was quite clear.

The 'blackmail' in this case is 'We will keep all of A2B on the SBL unless you disconnect one of your paying customers from the Internet entirely'

They don't care that A2B doesn't send SPAM they just really dislike the cyberbunker and are abusing the power of their SBL to try and remove entities that they don't like from the Internet entirely.

Note that the cyberbunker will remove spammers, their ToS:

  This includes but is not limited to:
          * Any criminal activities, as defined by the law of:
                      o Customer's country of residence (natural persons) or company registration,
          * Mass sending of unsollicted e-mail (SPAM).
          * Sending floods of any kind to any other computer system or network which inhibits the correct behaviour of said computer system or network.
          * Harrassment of individuals.
          * Endangering the quality of service or network stability for other internet users in any way.

It's just that if spamhaus says that someone is doing 'something illegal' without specifying what it is, the cyberbunker isn't just going to disconnect them. Spamhaus *really* dislikes it when an ISP doesn't blindly follow their 'opinions' and most ISPs do because if they don't they get blackmailed like Cyberbunker was before and A2B is now.

But if this opinion is automatically taken as fact by 2/3rds of the Internet's email servers and you go to an ISP and say: "We want you to remove this and this customer from the Internet or we will be of the opinion that all your outgoing email is unwanted SPAM." the this kind of changes the picture.

This isn't about some SBL, Spamhaus is not taking anything less than Complete removal from the Internet for CB3ROB I think that this goes slightly further than an 'opinion'

Where are the spam lawsuits against the Cyberbunker, A2B or the spammer in question?

There aren't any, this is spamhaus acting as judge, jury and executioner. This isn't merely about a spam blocklist anymore, this is spamhaus trying to make all of the cyberbunker's IP space unroutable by using blackmail tactics against A2B.

"That's SMTP of all your paying customers, would be a shame if something were to happen to it..."

That is all nice and good, until they start pressuring upstream providers to STOP ROUTING, this is not about being on some spamlist but about removing a datacenter/ISP from the internet entirely.

They use the pull they have by being used by 2/3rds of the internet's email servers to blackmail ISPs to comply.

I do not send spam emails, I never have once in my life. Yet I cannot get my netblock removed from spamhaus RBL because they don't like my ISP.

Also, I *know* that spamhaus has taken money from other parties, ISPs, to make sure that this type of 'escalation' would never happen to them. This will be presented during the court case in Holland.

I rent a server and a /29 in the cyberbunker, as far as I'm concerned spamhaus is trying to strongarm my my upstream providers upstream provider. I had nothing to do with any of this, but I stand to lose my ip range and services THAT I PAID FOR.

It's NOT reasonable from spamhaus to expect an entire ISP to be blackholed for ONE spam complaint 2 levels below.

Maybe but in my case it was never resolved, as you can see spamhaus is now trying to cut *ME* off of the internet entirely.

They are trying to get upstream to cut off the cyberbunker entirely, that is blackmail. And by cutting off the cyberbunker my IP range becomes entirely unroutabe, this leaves me in a rather precarious situation.

Thanks for that!

I rent a server at cyberbunker and I have had long email discussions with spamhaus as well, with them going so far as suggesting that I go an find a new ISP.

Especially since the IP space I got from them is just a regular PA, and the ranges whois informations has a record with my personal name, address and telephone number in it. Spamhaus doesn't understand how the Internet works and is trying to basically nuke the cyberbunker from orbit by going one provider up the chain until they can find someone that will turn off every route...

Whereas the original spam report for the range was just ONE /29 that has the correct whois information...

"Just pure spam and crime" that is rather offensive considering that I just run my personal email, xmpp and some other services there. You're just as bad as spamhaus.

At the time I made a /. submission about it, I'll reproduce it below since the submission was rejected at the time:
---------
"I run a small server for some minor projects of mine, a mailserver for my family and several friends at a hosting provider. A couple of weeks ago my father started to complain that some of his mails were no longer being received. Upon further inspection it turned out that my entire ISP's IP range (the entire /19) was put in the Spamhaus Blocklist (SBL). After sending a request to de-list the IP range I control (a /29 in their /19), I got the following response: "Due to the hosting policies of the owner of this IP address block, our users do not wish to accept traffic from these IPs. We suggest you look for other arrangements as to your hosting."

The "Hosting policies" of my ISP do not appear to differ greatly from other ISPs, they name spamming as a breach of their TOS and do disconnect spammers. The only major difference I can see is that they do not give out personal information or kick (non spamming) clients off of the web without being legally forced to, which is a requirement in the EU country they are based in to qualify as a telco (and be not responsible for the content of their customers' websites) This stance towards net neutrality is why I chose them in the first place. Vote with your wallet, right?

According to the Spamhaus website The SBL's primary objective is to avoid 'false positives' while blocking as much spam as possible. To me blocking an entire ISP's netblock for, according to the listing, a grand total of three consecutive /29's that were originally reported (and likely from the same customer) and an entire /24 that's labeled entirely as "trademark fraud replicas" does not seem to me to be "avoiding false positives".

The end result is that without sending a single spam or hosting any malicious content, Spamhaus labels me a spammer and even 'cybercriminal' according to the SBL listing all because they apparently don't like my ISP . My questions being: Did any one of you ever find yourself between this particular rock and hard place? Did you manage to get the issue resolved without switching ISPs? And perhaps: Is it really Spamhaus' place to decide what ISP I use considering I'm a good netizen?"
-----

May you be remembered and celebrated for all that you brought to computing. I hope your name will not be forgotten from history. The fact that your death is announced as 'another great one' in the same breath as... someone else makes me scared for your rightful place in it.

I am truly sad that you are gone.