Since the RBL is used against those who write or distribute programs designed to send mass e-mail, I should fully expect places like PacketStorm (a fine archive of security-related tools and scripts) to be placed on the RBL. They knowingly host code that sends mass mail: http://packetstorm.securify.com/Exploit_Code_Archi ve/mailbomb.c Why then is PacketStorm not on the RBL? Or any of the other hosts that have similar tools?

I use the RBL hooks in Postfix, and I find them very useful. This is a bit much, though. While I have enormous respect for Vix & co., I think this is way over the line.

How is software that is designed to send bulk email any "worse" than software that is designed explictly for the purpose of, say sniffing user passwords or performing denial-of-service attacks? Indeed, why aren't we, as the Internet community, tracking down those people arrogant enough to write these tools -- tools that are clearly used to commit all manner of subversion havoc -- and blackholing them?

It's because (most) technical people understand that tools are just tools. Somebody who writes a password grinder is "just" a programmer. The Unix admin who downloads it and runs it against her password file is just doing her job. The peeved help-desk guy who uses the password grinder to get the VP of Finance's Unix password and then uses it to access the nifty Oracle financial system is acting-- in the words of AUPs everywhere-- in excess of his authority, and if caught, will be squashed by the Law.

It's not valid to want it both ways, to want software that you think is "bad for the net" blackholed out of existence, yet allow other software -- arguably more damaging -- to exist unchallenged. If this was, say, WIPO vs. nmap, would those of you in favour of MAPS' stance take offense? Software is speech. Censor it and contribute to the decline of your freedom to write it. I'm sure the brains behind WIPO are very interested in seeing how this plays out; if an .org which essentially controls access to and from the large nationwide ISPs can succesfully censor software without question, then certainly WIPO can.

And finally: simply because MAPS says "These are our guidelines, and we are following them" doesn't mean the guidelines have merit.