Re: UK blacklist (Re: Concerns about Singapore and other places)

Tim Chown <> Wed, 13 April 2016 09:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1ED412DBFD for <>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.517
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YG45sLD0JuKc for <>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C8A412D813 for <>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3D9nE4H020342; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:49:14 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 u3D9nE4H020342
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple;; s=201304; t=1460540954; bh=WMCgiPOBysbob5CaRrSaEQtS+Xs=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=4/0D7ydMeq0YbFfBcbDU+v+MNCL/Wl5Akgf0T5vRUAfaYBeF0e9ZKTH+ej3S7Xr5L fI0eY55pw/Ph7FgiRr8kIxcQ3lw16ly/INUrtEEZPi1ixM9B8GJqgE8g1NtMpBy7HP nUNiqe6nIPxDvl8bEz09+zoXeRnfKBTRkHTLRjD8=
Received: from ([2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:401]) by ( [2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:68da]) envelope-from <> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id s3CAnE17396026281g ret-id none; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:49:14 +0100
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:a88:d510:1101:a93e:5914:9e35:ffe3] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3D9n4FN024345 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:49:05 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Subject: Re: UK blacklist (Re: Concerns about Singapore and other places)
From: Tim Chown <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:49:04 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|e2a57eeabaa4f6086ac8a48cd4b4e53ds3CAnE03tjc||>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.01.1604100736080.45987@rabdullah.local> <20160410181958.58762.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <> <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=s3CAnE173960262800; tid=s3CAnE17396026281g; client=relay,forged,no_ptr,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=2:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: u3D9nE4H020342
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:49:22 -0000

> On 12 Apr 2016, at 22:09, Harald Alvestrand <> wrote:
> Den 12. april 2016 18:52, skrev Ted Lemon:
>> The UK filter is an "opt out" filter, and I assume that we (the IETF)
>> opted out.   Even the "opt out" blocking is voluntary at present--an ISP
>> is not required by law to have a filter, but in practice the big ones do.
> The particular case that made the blacklist famous in at least some
> fora, and exposed quite a bit on how it worked:
> "the action also had some indirect effects on Wikipedia, namely
> temporarily preventing all editors using said ISPs in the UK from
> contributing to any page of the encyclopaedia, and preventing anonymous
> edits from these ISPs while the URL remained on the blacklist. This was
> described by the IWF as unintended "collateral damage".[7] This was due
> to the proxies used to access Wikipedia, as Wikipedia implements a
> blocking policy whereby contributors can be blocked if they vandalise
> the encyclopaedia. Therefore, all vandalism coming from one ISP would be
> directed through one proxy—hence one IP—and all of the ISP's customers
> using that proxy would be barred from editing.”

The broader context is here (with all the usual caveats over Wikipedia accuracy):

See the section on the Introduction of Cleanfeed.

The other controversy, as mentioned in the link above, is that in 2011 a judge ordered Cleanfeed be used to block access to a p2p filesharing system called Newzbin2, hence concern over creeping and unaccountable scope of filtering (because the filter list is not viewable due to the primary use of the system), see