Pot Calls Kettle Censor 206
Here's an actual quote from SafeSurf's legislative proposal, I just love this:
"Negligence [failure to label] in the absence of damages may be a civil violation of the rights of the receivers of that data, but it shall not be a criminal offense unless the data is deemed to be harmful to minors. ... Publishers may be sued in civil court by any parent who feels their children were harmed by the data negligently published. The parents shall be given presumption in all cases and do not have to prove that the content actually produced harm to their child..."
Note: since SafeSurf's press release, their site has been taken off the RBL. But for some reason TeleGlobe is still blocking them (click "trace", type "safesurf.com", and wait several minutes for the blocked pings to time out inside TeleGlobe's network). I thought this was supposed to be the realtime blackhole list. Anyway, TeleGlobe is the same ISP that promises it will not "review, censor, or edit the material that is accessible through Teleglobe's network," and adds:
Q. Does Teleglobe support blocking access to ISPs and their non-spamming customers as a method of curtailing spam?
A. No. Teleglobe believes that advocates seeking to punish unwitting collateral ISPs and users who may be tenuously linked to a spam source are acting against the best interests of the Internet community as a whole.
TeleGlobe is one of the few backbones or major ISPs that still uses the RBL to censor websites, since I think AboveNet quit doing it. Anyone know of any others?
What is it with these people? (Score:2, Insightful)
As for the 'intended' consequences of MAPS -- I was one of the ones hoping that the 'unintended victims' would bring pressure to bear on the hosts to kick the spammers or the spammer software corporations off -- too bad none seem to be doing so.
Re:What is it with these people? (Score:2)
Suppose there's only two or three ISPs where you live. Imagine if they all subscribe to MAPS. What's your fucking solution now?
Move? Just pick up and leave? Suppose you've got a family, suppose you've got a good job that you'd be an idiot to leave? Suppose you're taking care of an elderly relative who's spent his or her entire life there? Suppose you just can't afford to leave?
Re:What is it with these people? (Score:1)
Re:What is it with these people? (Score:2)
Your solution is to DEAL with it. Email is not a freaking right - it is a privledge. SO you either ask your ISP to handle it in a different manner or just deal with it like other things in your life you can't control. Tired of paying $0.20 a KW for electricity? What are you gonna do then? Burn candles?
The world is not custom made to your liking - you take the best compromise you can get. If no ISP fits your needs - you either move or accept it and move on. Don't try to shut down a service many of us LIKE just because you're in a crappy situation.
Re:What is it with these people? (Score:2)
That's OK if you think that (I disagree) but I just want to be clear -- TeleGlobe is using MAPS to block websites, and in fact all internet traffic. Not just email.
I probably should have made that more clear in the story itself, but anti-spammers keep assuring me that everybody already knows that MAPS blocks websites... apparently not...
Re:What is it with these people? (Score:2)
Re:What is it with these people? (Score:2)
Re:What is it with these people? (Score:2)
Email is a service. In most cases, for most people, email is a part of the service you get when you contract with an ISP. The contract is, I give money, they give me internet access, a small bit of hosting, an email address and a mailbox on their server. As long as I fulfill my end of the contract (payment) they must fulfill theirs (service.)
There is no other way to describe it, it's a business agreement. Any intrusion upon that agreement is a breach.
Re:What is it with these people? (Score:2)
In other words, if you don't get the mail, tough.
Re:What is it with these people? (Score:2)
Did you read that when you signed up, or did you just dig it up now?
Is everyone's written the same? Granted, if all you've got is one provider that it's reasonable to get service from (remote locations) then you're sort of screwed into either accepting the terms as presented or not buying the service...
Do you remember the article on Salon a while back? where the author's boyfriend was accused by T-W of trafficking in copyrighted material, and they closed his account over a weekend, and wouldn't reactivate it, or reimburse for the outage?
The only time I've ever had a complete service outage has been when someone digs without calling in first, and clips the wires underground. When this happens, and the outage is more than a day, I have been reimbursed.
But my email and website has been blocked by MAPS- and refused by other ISPs. For no good reason, the site is about chemical and plastics for flexible packaging manufacture. It's near impossible to solve- MAPS says they're trying to tick people off into fixing the problems at the ISP they claim is responsible, the other ISPs shrug and say they're doing as they please-
so much for the notion of a world wide communications system that routes around damage.
Re:What is it with these people? (Score:2)
anyhow- I didn't contend that email is a right. It's a service you buy. It's not a privelige, it's not a right, it's a service you contract for.
I also never claimed that I was a lawyer. Did you read your service agreement, or are you tagging on the other person who chose to respond to me? Your comments weren't that original, but thanks for presenting them anyway.
MAPS is a democratic process. (Score:2)
This is democracy at work, like it or not.
Suppose there's only two or three ISPs where you live. Imagine if they all subscribe to MAPS. What's your fucking solution now?
Here's a hypothetical for YOU: Say I'm Jeffrey Dahmer. I like to kill people, drill holes in their heads so as to have sex with their corpses, and then eat their bodies. But for some strange reason, society is against this and exerts pressure upon me to try to prevent me from carrying out my desired course of action. They threaten imprisonment, disenfranchisement, and execution for the things I think are my right to do. So what's my solution?
The only "solutions" are to go with society or against it. If you go against society like Dahmer did, you'll be sent to jail for life. If you go against society like spammers do, you'll be blackholed. You do not have a constitutional right to email.
-Kasreyn
Re:What is it with these people? (Score:2)
Use an ISP that isn't where you live.
Re:What is it with these people? (Score:2)
Quit your whining and use the marketplace (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's an idea: instead of wasting their time whining about how awful MAPS is, why doesn't SafeSurf simply take their business elsewhere? Quit using TeleGlobe's service, tell them why you are leaving their service, and set up shop elsewhere. If using the RBL is so evil and dangerous, ISPs will quit using it when enough customers leave because of it.
Finally, raise your hand if you've ever been in a life-threatening emergency and chose to dial-up and check a disaster relief site as opposed to getting somewhere safe and calling 911. SafeSurf's use of that analogy (Think of the children! Think of the children's lives!) to further their point is sickening.
Re:Quit your whining and use the marketplace (Score:3, Informative)
You missed the point. TeleGlobe is a backbone provider, they deliver the primary or in many cases the only internet access for millions of users (mostly in Europe I believe).
SafeSurf has nothing to do with TeleGlobe, does not pay them, isn't a customer of theirs, they just have a website that TeleGlobe censors. There's no "business" to take elsewhere.
Re:Quit your whining and use the marketplace (Score:1)
Re:Quit your whining and use the marketplace (Score:1)
Assuming the facts presented above are true though, Teleglobs would appear to be culpable of claiming to follow a different policy to the one they have actually implemented. If so then their customers do have something legitimate to complain about. If the policy were clearly disclosed though there would be no issue, and I don't see how simply not transmitting someone else's message can be viewed as censorship.
Re:Quit your whining and use the marketplace (Score:2)
Right! Their customers have something legitimate to complain about. Safesurf is not one of their customers.
People who subcribe to an ISP certainly have a right to complain and take their business elsewhere if the ISP is not giving them full access to the Internet. But content providers do not have an automatic right to have their web content carried by all ISPs all over the world.
It is really ironic (which I think was the point of the original post) that Safesurf, of all people, would seem to assert that it is!
Jamie misses the point (Score:2)
SafeSurf doesn't use TeleGlobe (Score:1)
Contrived Example (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine trying to connect to a crisis assistance site after a devastating earthquake, only to find its among a vast IP group being blocked by RBL
Do people really use the internet for such a purpose? I would think a cellphone would be the best means to contact help after a major accident.
Re:Contrived Example (Score:1)
I dunno, I'm just as puzzled as you are. Maybe they mean if the phone lines were out, and you had wireless connectivity?
Not that contrived (Score:2)
Heh heh heh (Score:1)
Imagine trying to connect to a crisis assistance site after a devastating earthquake, only to find it's down for routine maintenance. People can die as the result of their innocent actions. They MUST be regulated
Re:Heh heh heh (Score:2)
Imagine trying to connect to a crisis assistance site after a devastating earthquake, only to find it's down for routine maintenance. People can die as the result of their innocent actions. They MUST be regulated
Imagine trying to connect to a crisis assistance site after a devastating earthquake, only to find it's being used by a gay, asian-Italian midget murderer with a surly additude and a switchbalde made out of uranium inload with gerbil bones who not only won't let you use the computer, but will also KILL you and your family! Can you imagine the lives that could be lost in such situations as this?!? SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!
At least .. (Score:3, Funny)
Jurassic Park similarities? (Score:1)
What am I missing? (Score:2)
I'm tired of everyone blasting the MAPs service and similar services. SPAM sucks - MAPs helps. Its not perfect. But I'm tired of all these people acting like email is a God given right - its not. If your ISP choses to utilize MAPS or any other blacklist that is THEIR right as the company providing you teh service. Should they notify you? Sure, but if not - too bad.
The bottom line is MAPs is not frocing things down peoples throats. If your ISP choses to use it - well that may be a good thing or bad thing to you just like other stuff such as port blocking, etc. You take that into accont. Remember folks - internet service is provided to you by a provider that sets the rules - don't like it? Go elsewhere or if no alternative exists, deal with it.
It seems more and more groups are trying to shut down MAPs - which personally would piss me off big time. Its a good service. Plus it allows me to utilize it in any manner I choose. I cna have sendmail block emails or use it to add headers, etc. But in teh end - its up to the ISP (I'm my own ISP for services - yay!) to determine how they will handle SPAM. procmail may work for you, but its not for everyone!
As for SafeSurf - that legislation is hilarious. Rating every web page on teh Internet - as if. The scary part is knowing our esteemed leaders - they'll think its a great thing. If it got passed? Well, instead of spending the time rating all my pages I'd form a LLC for my web sites with no assets :) They want to sue? Fine - sue the shell and I'll start another one or move overseas (my servers anyway) :)
Re:What am I missing? (Score:5, Informative)
Nope, it doesn't make sense. There are a lot of readers who, like you, are confused about this whenever we post a MAPS story.
MAPS's blacklist is ostensibly a list of IPs from which spam originates. But more and more, it is a list of websites and Class C's from which no spam comes, but which are either considered "spam-friendly" or are owned by companies which are considered "spam-friendly."
These IPs are put on the list because MAPS knows that there are still ISPs like TeleGlobe which will censor whatever MAPS tells them to censor. TeleGlobe uses the RBL to block not just mail being sent on port 25, but all traffic. And TeleGlobe is a backbone so this has a huge effect. Essentially this means MAPS can point at any website they want and wipe it off the internet for millions of people. And the purpose of putting SafeSurf (and other websites) on the RBL was to get them censored so that MAPS could throw its weight around to further its goals.
Sounds like you agree with those goals -- but I'm hoping, like me, you disagree with the means used to achieve them.
Millions of people are having their internet access censored, by a backbone provider which promises that it does not censor. Many of them have no options for alternative providers, so their only recourse is, as you say, to "deal with it."
Re:What am I missing? (Score:2)
Even if the MAPS RBL listed a single IP address here, there would certainly be innocent victims that happen to share that IP address. This is impossible to avoid if an ISP chooses to go the cheapie IP-less route when hosting web sites.
Re:What am I missing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Go look at the documentation for a listing. It'll be there, and by the time netblocks are listed, it'll be pretty impressive.
Re:What am I missing? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish that in answering someone's request for factual information you would include the appropriate context. Seen in that context, MAPS's actions appear more reasonable.
Re:What am I missing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, Jaime, sites are put onto the RBL for three reasons:
- Spam originates from them and they have failed to do anything about it despite repeated complaints over the course of months.
- They host web sites belonging to proven spammers.
- They sell programs and materials whose only purpose is to enable spammers to spam.
Those criteria are well-known by anyone who knows about MAPS at all. And yes, this blacklisting catches anyone associated with the spammers or the ISPs who support them in these ways. That's the point: to force those ISPs to choose between the spammers and the non-spammers. Complaints from the rest of us about the spammers don't have any effect because it doesn't hurt the ISP to ignore them. We aren't their customers, after all. It's only when their customers begin to complain and take their business elsewhere that the ISPs do anything.It's the Internet equivalent of going into a shoe shop and telling the owner "I don't like Nike's child-labor practices. So, not only am I not going to buy Nike shoes, I'm not going to do business with you, at all, as long as you continue to carry Nike shoes on your shelves. And neither is half the rest of the area.". If you just stopped buying Nike shoes but kept patronizing him, he'd have no reason to stop carrying Nikes. He still gets your money for other brands, plus money from people buying Nike. But when he's got to choose between carrying Nike and losing half his customers, it's a slightly different story. And that's what every single one of us who want our ISPs using the MAPS RBL are doing to the ISPs who continue to host spammers.
Re:What am I missing? (Score:2, Interesting)
While that may be the effect, that is not the fact. MAPS is not blocking anyone. All MAPS is doing is publishing information about spam. They are providing a service. How other people use that information is not MAPS's responsibility. More importantly, if MAPS misbehaves it will be ignored.
And the purpose of putting SafeSurf (and other websites) on the RBL was to get them censored so that MAPS could throw its weight around to further its goals.
In this case SafeSurf shared an exact IP address with a spammer. There was no way to to block just one. In most cases it is nessasary to list an entire block of addresses because of dynamic IP's and/or the ISP will allow spammers onto any of it's addresses. And MAPS will have no weight to throw around if it misbehaves.
I'm hoping, like me, you disagree with the means used to achieve them.
While the means may not be perfect, it's the best I know of. If you'd like to suggest an alternative I'm all ears. I only know of two other options. End user filtering or laws. End user filtering would consume almost as much time as the spam itself, and would be futile. Spammers would always work to get around filtering. Laws are futile because it would require a law in every nation, and spammers would break the laws anyway. The worst part of spam laws is that we do NOT want to encourage internet laws. Lawmakers have no clue, and have done too much damage already.
We're better off letting the internet police itself.
I hate to say it, but Just say NO to spam laws.
Re:What am I missing? (Score:2)
Huh? They've agreed to provide me with a service, for a fee I'm paying. It's their duty to fulfill the contract. Companies have to obey the law, just like people do.
Re:What am I missing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Right and are you 100% sure that contract forbids them from doing this? Are you sure it doesn't have a clause stating they can do just about anything or that the contract terms can change at any time? Most do.
IP-less virtual hosting victim? (Score:5, Interesting)
$ host www.safesurf.com
www.safesurf.com. is an alias for safesurf.com.
safesurf.com. has address 63.107.146.25
$ host 63.107.146.25
25.146.107.63.in-addr.arpa. domain name pointer ustoyou.com.
25.146.107.63.in-addr.arpa. domain name pointer safesurf.com.
25.146.107.63.in-addr.arpa. domain name pointer us2you.com.
WARNING: Browse the 'us2you.com' sites at your own risk. Porn pop-ups abound.
Their analogy of MAPS blocking an entire telephone prefix isn't very sound. It's more like safesurf.com using a party line, and MAPS blocks access to their very specific phone number. It's not their fault you chose to get your site connectivity with a shared IP address.
*shrug* I personally think this is pretty amusing. I would definitely be asking my provider for a new IP address, though, one that wasn't being used by the types of people the MAPS RBL targets.
(Note: Assumption being made) (Score:2)
In either case, I would be interested in knowing WHY my subnet was blacklisted. If my ISP is indeed involved in some shady, spam-friendly business practices, this kind of fall-out is hardly unexpected. I'd take my business elsewhere.
Re:(Note: Assumption being made) (Score:2)
Re:IP-less virtual hosting victim? (Score:2)
You mean ustoyou.com, us2you.com seems to be a domain registry service (they do have a cool mouse-over-controlled spinning cube, though it doesn't seem to have any real purpose other than being cool), and has some link to some interesting (at first glance) space/scifi sites.
ustoyou.com is just porn pop-ups (including one really annoying one I had to Ctrl-Alt-Del to get rid of), there doesn't seem to be any actual content.
Re:IP-less virtual hosting victim? (Score:2)
NOT IP-less virtual hosting victim (Score:2)
Read this whole thread about the spammish sites at safesurf.com's ISP [google.com]
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Solution (Score:2)
Simple solution is for safe surf to explain to their customers how they can access their site by going through one of the anonymous proxy servers...
Re:IP-less virtual hosting victim? (Score:3, Insightful)
What, you mean like the vast majority of small ISPs and their webhosting customers do because A) it can be expensive or impossible to acquire scads of IP addresses from your upstream provider, B) the HTTP 1.1 standard explicitly encourages this, and C) the current IPv4 address space is running increasingly short of free addresses and IPv6 has been coming Real Soon Now for eons?
Why should innocent parties have to go hunting for new ISPs because the vigilantes who run MAPS can't be bothered to worry about collateral damage? Unless the legal tradition has vastly changed in the last ten minutes, that's negligence on their part, and yes, they can and should be sued for it.
Please don't think I have any sympathy for either censorware or spam, but I have even less for a self-appointed judicial and enforcement agency with no legal authority and no accountability to the electorate. I might feel differently if they actually did a good job, but MAPS has a long, long history of heavy-handed tactics, incompetence, and a refusal to deal fairly with those site admins who DO fix open relays and ban customers who spam. We need actual laws to regulate spam, not arrogant nerds who neither know what they're doing nor do it in good faith.
Re:IP-less virtual hosting victim? (Score:2)
Um, no.
A few years ago, AOL started dropping all of the mail incoming from Cyberpromo. Cyberpromo sued. The court (a Federal District courd in PA) found that AOL was entirely within their right to drop any packets they wanted, and for any reason they wanted, including Cyberpromo's spam.
A few other cases have gone through various courts in the US with similar results. No case has ever found in favor of the spammer and no spam-specific[1] case has ever been heard at the appellate level.
[1] There was Rowan v. US Postal Service, back in the 60's or so. The final result was that the USPS was not obligated to force people to receive pmail that they didn't want. As this was from the US Supreme Court, and the postage-due nature of spam creates an even stronger legal argument against a "right to spam," it's pretty solid precedent.
Re:IP-less virtual hosting victim? (Score:2)
If an ISP is using MAPS to block traffic to sites MAPS considers spammers or spam-friendly, it's up to the ISP to make a business case for or against selectively offering that filtering to their clients. If an ISP were inclined to do as AOL did, they'd set up different network subnets or e-mail filtering zones, one filtered by MAPS and the other wide-open.
However, the challenges an ISP faces with constructing their network and mail system like this, as well as the mechanism for allowing their customers to choose which mode of operation they want to be under, is probably somewhat costly.
In any event, it's the ISP that's made this business decision, and if a customer doesn't like it, they're perfectly within their rights to take their business elsewhere. Unfortunately, many users aren't aware that their ISP is blocking traffic and/or e-mail based on the MAPS list until they get something blocked. It might be nice if ISP's were more vocal about their filtering policies.
Re:IP-less virtual hosting victim? (Score:2)
Remember that MAPS started as a home-grown effort to do (b). Individually, blackholing each individual netblock that spammed you and wouldn't go away was a significant effort. People got together and decided to centralize this effort and distribute the master list back to the community for the purposes of filtering. Is this really so bad? Sure, it's bigger now, but the concept and spirit is still the same, in my opinion.
MAPS is bothered about collatoral damage. Do you think I want connectivity to innocent sites blocked when I use their RBL to block traffic to my network? Of course I don't, but there's only so much MAPS can do. Either they list the IP address(es) anyways, and I lose some connectivity with some customers of a spam-friendly ISP (99.99% odds I'd never notice this), or they don't list the IP address(es), and I get spammed.
You may prefer MAPS not list them at all, but then you're not a customer or user of a MAPS list, are you? I am, and I would rather they add them to the RBL.
It's not my fault that your ISP may choose to use the RBL, and that ends up blocking you from an unrelated site. Why reduce the effectiveness of a tool I want to use because you disagree with your ISP's decision to use the same tool?
Until we have effective laws on the books and effective enforcement of those laws to see spam curbed (which I don't think will ever happen now that spam is so firmly entrenched overseas), we need ways of identifying spamming and spam-friendly networks. If you put MAPS out of business, there will be many more unofficial, grass-roots efforts that will spring up to take its place.
Re:IP-less virtual hosting victim? (Score:2)
Organizationally, I know they're not connected, but they use a common ISP, and that's how that ISP arranged things.
I was just noting that in cases like this, even if MAPS targeted a spam-related site as specifically as they possibly could, there would still be some collatoral damage in the form of other domains being hosted on that same IP address being inadvertantly blocked.
As such, it's not fair to immediately jump to the conclusion that MAPS was censoring safesurf.com or even had any knowledge whatsoever that they were blocking safesurf.com in the process of issuing that RBL entry.
Now, I'm not saying that MAPS isn't behaving in this fashion, but I wanted to point out that there's no factual data to support this, and it goes against common sense.
Let's try to be a little more objective about this.
Blind Blocking, Anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
I looked all over the SafeSurf web site and didn't see their block list anywhere.
Re:Blind Blocking, Anyone? (Score:1)
If websites causing damage get sued ... (Score:1, Funny)
let's start with cnn.com ... they are at least partly responsible for the average united states IQ and that is responsible for ... well ....
precision bombing [yahoo.com] (AGAIN)
[yahoo.com]
terror laws (well, one cannot argue that the name isn't accurate)
[yahoo.com]
they're firing on our invasion force !!! THE BASTARDS (ok you didn't do it, but you provided the invasion force)
America's online losers [aol.com]
Microsoft Stupidity Network [msn.com] (this is slashdot, and there was no mention of microsoft in this post, I'm no karma whore, but I'm not stupid
Stop trying to legislate a safer world (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't want your kids to see things you don't like on the internet then SUPERVISE your kids. Educate your kids. Teach your kids to respect themselves. Trust your children to use their own good judgement when they are old enough. (If you don't trust your kids you screwed up as a parent) BUT don't try to legislate away a problem that is only a problem for the lazy, apathetic, and those willing to force their narrow views on everyone.
New Rating system (Score:1)
Everyone is required to run the client software. When any site is accessed the client will ask the reviewer (person) what they think of it... Good / Bad, Adult, Hatred,... These responces will then be logged so the next time someone accesses the site and the say... Adult thresshold is not low enough they will be blocked.
Then the communtiy at large will be the raters. Allowes for new site (unrated) to come on line and soon to be blocked for what ever or if a search in like google starts to use the info - be placed at the top of lists for being the BEST.
You could even register as a Jew, Christian, Afro-American,
This could even work for TV and dump those stupid VChips.
Most people can't just "deal with it" (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately the end user will often simply not be able to access a particular web site, and when that happens simply assume that it's the fault of the web site.
I'm not sure that it is possible or practical to educate the masses about this stuff. That's where I think that a good Internet watchdog organization or activist group can do a real service.
Re:Most people can't just "deal with it" (Score:2)
I'd put you in that 90%, because in fact, MAPS RBL does not work. Perhaps 2-3 messages per week were blocked by the RBL at our site (before the ransom on the info WE GAVE TO MAPS was demanded), while thousands were blocked by the RSS (another list built on the efforts of the people who are now being asked to pay for access to the information they supplied to MAPS).
Ignoring the collateral damage for a moment, RBL is clearly the inferior BL, of all the BL that MAPS offers. Why then, is it the most expensive to subscribe to?
Odd... (Score:1)
I can't decide on a metaphor for MAPS... (Score:2)
So hard to decide...
-Kasreyn
The USENET Cabal! (Score:2)
Hmm. I suppose if you don't know all about MAPS, you're unlikely to remember the Cabal, either.
the legislative proposal is laughable (Score:1)
What happens when a webmaster simpy hosts in say.. Russia?
What then? do they block all countries without similar laws?
SS redux (Score:1)
http://www.theonion.com/onion3534/missing_the_p
Am I the only one... (Score:3, Interesting)
"... Publishers may be sued
but
"...The parents
So the publishers can be sued by any parent, and they will AUTOMATICALLY LOSE the case because the parent's don't have to prove any wrongdoing?
Where's my passport? If this shit gets passed, I'm outa here.
Re:Am I the only one... (Score:5, Funny)
Naw, you want it passed. When it passes, you immediately sue SafeSurf for publishing information (their blocked-site list) that you feel harmed your child (by preventing them from finding information on various topics that could save their life). Then watch SafeSurf try to worm out of their own legal language.
Libertarian Parent (Score:4, Insightful)
There is one case where I think the government should come down hard, fast, and without mercy. I want to hurt those scumbags who use urls that are common variations of sites kids might go to, but are really porn sites, e.g. whitehouse.com and disny.com.
Finally, I can justify shutting down spammers even though I am a libertarian. I pay for my internet access. The spammers do not. Your freedom stops at my front door. You can go to a park and spout your beliefs all you want. You can not demand entry into my home using the argument of "free speech". If you insist on forcing entry, I'll introduce you to another one of my rights. My right to own a gun.
Re:Libertarian Parent (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, what are you teaching her about how to deal with the sort of material you have chosen to censor? How is she going to know how to react to it when she encounters it when you're not there to censor it? She will eventually encounter it without you there, even if she has to wait until she's 18 to do it. You would really rather prevent her from seeing it now and prevent her from having the benefit of your wisdom on the topic?
I talked to my aunt about it once. She's a conservative Christian, and I figured she'd be as conservative as possible about her children's use of the net, and I was concerned about it. I was surprised: she lets all three kids use the net uncensored... but not unsupervised. She'll let them look at whatever they want to, but they have to do it when and where an adult family member can see them to provide guidance about what they're looking at. She told me she knows her children will all have to face the world without her someday, and she wants them to have the knowledge, ability, and background to help them deal with it well.
Consequently if one of her kids accidentally encounters adult material (which is a far less common thing than people make it out to be, but it can happen) they're merely uninterested and just find another page to look at.
There is one case where I think the government should come down hard, fast, and without mercy. I want to hurt those scumbags who use urls that are common variations of sites kids might go to, but are really porn sites, e.g. whitehouse.com and disny.com.
Thank God we have the constitution to stop people like you.
The net is like the world: not designed for small children, but capable of being useful to them. If you want your children to be able to use the net, you have to supervise their use of it yourself, just as you supervise your child living in the world. If you can't take the time to fulfill your parental responsibilities regarding the net, you shouldn't let your child on the net. It's not everybody else's responsibility to make sure your child is safe and/or not exposed to what you don't want your child exposed to by changing the net, just as it's not our responsibility to ensure that your child is always safe everywhere on earth by eliminating all sharp objects.
And I'll remind you of something else: it is not only your responsibility as a parent to protect your child and see to their well being, but also to see that they aren't a nuisance to everyone around them and that they are socialized properly. So, even if you could get perfect censorware software (which we know can't exist, but let's pretend), it would still be your obligation to monitor your child's internet usage to ensure that they don't annoy everybody else on the net. So, why should we go changing the net to accomodate your tastes given that it's your responsibility to be there anyway?
If disny.com is a porn site, though, you might contact the Disney company about it, which might take perfectly legitimate (and constitutional) legal action of their own about the matter, such as for trademark violation.
Re:Libertarian Parent (Score:2)
Did you even read what I wrote? I do exactly that. I spend time with her to supervise her net activities. When she is a few years older, I will stop standing guard over her net usage. At the moment, however, she is only eleven years old. In a few years she will hit those rebellious teen years. I am not so naive to think I can be successful in sheltering her from the real world. Also, my daughter grew up in Europe where the t.v. shows are quite a bit looser in what they allow on public channels. She's not growing up inside a box. I'm sure she has a much more wordly view of things than her classmates.
Re:Libertarian Parent (Score:2, Interesting)
I am a fairly young teenager. I've been using the Internet since I was 5, when all we had was a link through Compuserve as a gateway.
Back when we first got the WWW (1995) my Dad used to sit with me while I used the Internet, although he never really paid attention. I wasn't allowed to go into WWW chat rooms, and that was it. There was a similar policy for books I read. Occasionally he would leaf through a book I was reading, but almost always just to see what I was reading at the time.
I must say that the lack of censorship enriched my life immeasurably. I highly doubt that I would have been allowed to read Heinlein if my Dad had actually censured my reading material, yet from many of them I learned important principles and read great literature. Same on the WWW. I doubt I'd be reading Slashdot right now if my family had had a policy of censureship. I sincerely doubt that I'd be typing this now on a computer I built had I been censured; my elementary teachers had a thing about me reading at an appropriate grade level (a.k.a. lower than what I could). My father did not. And when I finally came across what I decided was improper, I decided not to because of ideas I'd learned from Socrates, not out of a fear of Big Brother. As far as I can tell, I have not been traumatized.
So do what you want. I suppose you are a parent, and your decisions take precedence over mine (at least for now). But I can only say that you are detracting from your daughter's life. Enrich it. Let her run free.
Re:Libertarian Parent (Score:2)
Re:Censure? (Score:2)
Ok, I screwed up. I should have paid more attention to my spelling.
WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, isn't SafeSurf among the guys responsible for not letting me do research on breast cancer, transsexualism, gay rights, the second amendment, and drug abuse, among other things not suited for the children? Here are a few points:
Substantially false... (Score:2)
I know everyone likes to stick up for the little guy, but when the little guy would rather work with companies that host spammers than companies that don't, I guess I don't have a lot of sympathy left for him.
Important info - spammers in safesurf netblock (Score:4, Informative)
safesurf.com is IP address 63.107.146.25 There were a bunch of spammish sites at OTHER places in the 63.107.146.* netblock. And MAPS will blacklist every single address within a netblock when it "escalates" their dispute.
See this long list of spammish sites once in the 63.107.146.* netblock (June 22 2001) [google.com]
Note many if not all of these sites have changed address by now.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
How do I mod the article up? (Score:3, Funny)
Mod Article: +1 Funny
Re:How do I mod the article up? (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a hackerish "funny" that goes like C|N>K which stands for "Coke piped through the Nose and redirected onto the Keyboard".
I'm assuming that's what the parent poster meant. Laughing while drinking and spraying it onto the keyboard.
Why block web sites? (Score:2)
Why is MAPS blocking web sites? I want SPAM to be blocked, not web sites. I don't get SPAM from web sites, I get SPAM from mail servers. So I want mail servers to be blocked when they send SPAM. And if a network of mail servers is sending it (determined by SPAM having come from 2 or more in the same netblock), then block all the mail servers from sending SPAM. The ISP need not even be blocked, unless the ISP makes the blocking difficult by either not properly identifying the spammer network assignment, or changing the spammer network address range (unless actually required to enlarge their network, or the ISP has to renumber everything). This would be for "spamhaus" type operations. Open relays and direct spam from dynamic IP customers is another matter (but can be dealt with).
MAPS is misleading people by blocking more than SPAM. They are using those who subscribe to their black hole to push their agenda on others (even though I personally agree with some of it, I don't agree with their methods).
MAPS is also mismanaged, but I don't really care about that anymore. The fact that they are mismanaged helped keep me from inadvertently being one of their pawns.
Spam Sources (Score:2)
Spamming is not an accepted activity and thus, spammers must resort to great measures to continue their trade. Lucky for them, one doesn't have to maintain a presence to spam. Its a very hit-and-run activity. Spammers therefore use a variety of resources - incorrectly configured mail relays, throw-away accounts, and stolen accounts [freewebsites.com].
Blocking email servers helps limit the damage from questionable business contracts and misconfigured relays. It might even put pressure on those who provide easy access to throw-away accounts... though usually the damage is already done. It does very little to prevent the damage done with stolen accounts using otherwise valid resources.
So if you can't go after the source of the spam, the only thing left to target is the spam's goal. The item being advertised (and likely the real source of the spam since most activities are being conducted by, or for-hire by, those being advertised). If that involves a web site (or another spammer resource), you point that site out and allow the community that uses the MAPS service to block it - essentially shunning it from the shared network. And by doing so, attempt to remove (or at least limit) the incentive to spam (and in some cases, some of the tools that help spammers).
So that might explain the reason that anti-spam efforts would extend beyond email servers. But this activity also brings forward a whole slew of other questions; power-plays, censorship, etc.
Re:Spam Sources (Score:2)
You are referring to a different category of spamming, the kind we see pyramid schemes and ponzi schemes and other get rich schemes from the low life. It is a very important category to deal with, but it's not the matter I was addressing. I am addressing the "spamhaus" type operation where a spammer sets up servers of their own. These vary from sending equally disgusting scams, to simply being sources of marketing mailings from people who didn't actually opt-in.
Yes, these servers need to be blocked to prevent getting the garbage. Open relays should be blocked, and stay blocked until they are closed, and perhaps confirmed closed. If the network the open relay exists on hosts other mail servers, they may also be misconfigured, and potentially subject to being blocked ... certainly so if spam comes from them as well.
Another mode of spam is getting more popular and that is direct broadband spam. Spam from direct dialups did happen, but the bandwidth limited its effect. These need to be blocked. Many dialups have been listed in blacklists, and broadband dynamic pools are also getting listed. Open relays also exist within these.
Why can't you go after the source of the spam? Do you have an example case?
This does not remove the incentive to spam. The perception that comes across when this is done is that a few people are trying to block the spam from the masses. They still believe they are providing "valuable product/market/service information" to the masses, and will just seek some way to avoid the "problem" of MAPS. They change addresses, change ISPs, invoke legal maneuvers. Few cease spamming and those that do only do so because funds run out. None have a change of heart. If they are spending money to set up spam operations, they are not some "innocent" individual who didn't realize what he was really doing.
How do you block spamming tools? Many of those tools are also useful for legitimate (confirmed opt-in) mass mailings and even mailing lists that many open source developers use.
That is indeed a problem. And I also believe the current anti-spam methods mask and obscure the reality that the vast majority of people truly do not want spam. By having a few self-appointed anti-spam-masters doing this, the real election of not wanting spam by everyone else is not really seen. By going beyond simply providing tools and information to help people block just spam, they are not only alienating some people like me (I no longer want to use MAPS, but that does not mean I was to start accepting spam), but also confusing the whole big picture.
Re:Spam Sources (Score:2)
This anti-spam feeling that's been generally favored on the net since CyberPromotions first attempted to "legitimize" the spam industry is the same attitude that makes it hard for later attempts to flourish. Once a "spamhaus" is identified, it begins to find itself slowly cut off from the rest of the Internet.
Spammers will attempt to use other methods. These outfits seem to be just as organized as a "spamhaus" who pays for and uses its own resources. I would suspect the information displayed on the Behind Enemy Lines [freewebsites.com] site is fairly representative of the players in the spam game.
In short, it doesn't really matter who is spamming and how they're getting it out. The fact is, they ARE getting it out. And they will continue to find additional ways to spam unless they loose the incentive to do it. And that incentive isn't just pure joy. They're after money.
I'm not saying don't go after the (apparent) source at all. Certainly, this needs to be done. But we can't expect this to continue to be effective. Because spammers are trying harder and harder to mask themselves, or otherwise use hit-and-run tactics, we're not always going find the source in a spam's headers. I should have used more detail on this point. "Spam tools" raises some interesting issues. First, my actual meaning wasn't just spam mailer applications (although they did come to mind). My main thought was towards services such as dynamic DNS and web hosting set up with the intent to provide resources for spammers.Mass mailer tools are a different matter. Some of these are being sold as spam tools. These are the most damaging. Not because of the spam being sent with them - after all, there are a lot of tools that can be used to spam. But because the sites selling these tools are often full of misleading statements that attempt to add an air of legitimacy to the practice. This only encourages the uninitiated to invest in this "business", convincing them that they're just a step away from easy financial freedom. But because of the issues with censorship, etc I worry that blocking a site that advertising the "Spaminator 2000" software suite does more damage than good (unless that site has been advertised via a spam campaign).
I've kept this point to the end since I've been pondering over it a bit. I both agree and (I think) disagree with you.If I understand your point correctly, you're stating that while a smaller selection of admins and anti-spammers take action, spammers believe they're simply being targeted by a vocal minority. In fact, we need a larger percentage of end users to take action and prove that spammers are not welcomed and their messages are not wanted. That would curb the desire to spam. Until that time, spammers will simply circumvent the latest attempts to stop them.
I agree that spammers will continue to find new avenues and methods to practice their trade. And in a previous post [slashdot.org] I mused over what kind of statistics would be generated if all ISPs offered their customers a choice between filtered and non-filtered email service.
However, I disagree that spammers would discontinue their ways if presented with this evidence. If you look at the portraits of Rodona Garst in the Behind Enemy Lines [freewebsites.com] site, you'll notice a slew of those inspirational posters. Spammers are success-oriented. They have convinced themselves that spamming will in itself, or in part, provide them with that success. In some cases, spammers even go to great length to defend their activities as acceptable, even welcomed. This is despite the ample evidence to the contrary in the form of ISP AUP's, spam-free service commercials, legislative activity, anti-spam activities and tools, and a wealth of internet history that dates back to 1994's first usenet spamming by lawyers Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel.
Spammers have either convince themselves that their actions are accptable, or they simply do not care. I suspect the later.
In any case, spamming is business. Whether spamming works or not, its attraction is its perceived cost vs return. Until spamming becomes cost prohibitive (running out of money was mentioned and I agree there) people will continue to spam.
Re:Spam Sources (Score:2)
Indeed they will. But my position is that this cut off should be "grassroots" in nature, that is, by the end recipients via the servers that host them (be that an office mail server or an ISP).
This also shows the futility of having ISPs cancel spammer's accounts. There's more where that one came from, and even more from other places.
In short, spamming will continue forever. Only a locked down internet will prevent it. We're not giving up all of our freedoms (well, some for now) just because a band of digusting people taking Allah's name in vain try to hurt innocent people. These are people (back to spammers) already practiced in the art of evading and moving on to send bulk mail. They'll just do the same for the web sites.
We're probably using different terms here. By source I mean where the spam comes from as it is reaching my server. That would be the open relay (it will get blocked), or the spamhaus network (it will get blocked).
And how would you craft this so it does not end up hurting other dynamic DNS users? Would you just be focusing only on service providers who specifically do this only for spammers?
Tools like "1st Class Mail" as shown in Behind Enemy Lines [freewebsites.com] are certainly valid targets. The misleading messages on the sites offering those does perhaps needs to be the focus. Is there fraud? Probably. Go after that.
Not exactly. It is not focused on convincing spammers, per se. It is focused on convincing those who have an effect on anti-spamming operations. It should encourage more ISPs to use anti-spam tools. And I'd like to see legislation that provides for civil liability protection for those who choose to use anti-spamming tools (but I oppose legislation against spamming for the most part)
And I am currently studying how I might make a mail server that offers the ability to let the customer specify exactly the categories of blocking they want to use. These would include:
- Businesses using only opt-out techniques to gather addresses at the time the address is gathered
- Businesses using only opt-out techniques but no opt-out option at the time the address is gathered
- Businesses using opt-in without confirming the address at the time it is gathered
- Businesses using opt-in without cleaning their list of rejected addresses
- Businesses not offering any obvious way to opt-out
- Businesses running a clean, verified and confirmed, opt-in only address gathering
- Open relays known to actually have relayed spam (excluding known multi-hop output)
- Other untested mail servers on the same network as Open relays
- The whole known network where an open relay is present
- The whole ISP hosting or connecting a known open relay
- Connection from any mail server without reverse DNS
- Connection from any mail server with reverse DNS for an invalid name
- Connection from any mail server with reverse DNS that does not forward resolve back correctly
- Multi-hop output servers
- Entire network/ISP of mult-hop output servers
- All mail servers at ISP known to host web servers offering spamming tools or services
- All mail servers at ISP known to host web servers of spamvertized sites (excluding cases known to be not sanction)
- All mail servers known to be running SMTP protocol (this to catch the sleepy)
- Businesses conducting mail surveys of consumers
- Businesses conducting mail surveys of businesses
By giving the customer a choice, not only does that put me (or whoever offers it) in a better legal position, it also makes it more obvious what end recipients really want, or not. The better legal position is that a mailing operation is accurately described, and is not lumped in with another. It can be argued that some recipient may want to receive mail from some of the categories and not others. If someone wants to actually get mail from Harris Interactive, for example, let them. Harris Interactive should not be lumped in with Rodona Garst, regardless of your feeling, or mine, regarding either.Spammers won't discontinue regardless. I'm not proposing that it be done to cause them to want to discontinue. Some will stop, but many will keep on going. I think my method is correct for obtaining the end result of a large scale acceptance of the anti-spam measures, and to convince those who neither spam, nor worry about fighting spamming, to at least accept the notion that measures against spam are good things and won't harm other aspects of business. Rodona Garst is not going to stop just because her web sites get cut off, or no one wants her garbage, or her bare breasts get shown online.
and BTW ... (Score:2)
and BTW ... you and I do not seem to be that far apart on quite a lot of things. I was going to send you private email, but your address is not in revealed /. user info. But I bet you can track mine down pretty easily.
Re:Why block web sites? (Score:2)
No. It is MAPS that is making itself unusable by ISPs that don't wish to carry on MAPS' agenda. I don't want to be blocking the mail from sites just because they happen to host the web sites of companies that are accused of doing things like not using confirmed-by-mail opt-in. Sure, I want to block the specific mail servers of such a company, but those may be on a different ISP entirely, and unless that ISP hosting their mail server makes it hard to do, I want to only block the specific spamming mail servers.
Spammers won't give up as long as they believe some people want their junk. As long as groups like MAPS are trying to shut them down by cutting them off, the perception will be that the spam isn't getting there because of MAPS, not because people don't want it. If MAPS was very exacting in blocking spam and only spam, and limited collateral damage to only that which is unavoidable (e.g. an ISP that moves the spamming customer around from one address range to another to evade the blocking), then I believe more people would subscribe. Then we'd have a more legitimate measure of how many places do not want spam, rather than a measure of how many places can't get it because MAPS is pushing the agenda too hard, and in the wrong way.
And MAPS might get more subscribers if the staff would actually answer their mail. They probably are using their own email addresses as the honey pots, and getting overloaded and can't respond to potential subscribers. But then, as long as MAPS isn't worth using, I guess this doesn't matter.
Hyperbole (Score:2, Funny)
That's pretty good, but what they really needed to do here was say that it put children's lives at risk. Orphan children. Orphan children who have been raising money for their local church community center. And who own puppies.
You don't want to see church fund raising, puppy owning, orphan children be put at risk, do you?
Well, not quite... (Score:2)
"Its like shutting off phone service to thousands of people simply because they have the same prefix as an obscene caller," explained Soular."
Well, it's more like shutting off phone service to a house that's got more than one jack. You can only really be as granular as one IP address, and if that hosts 1000 sites...
When all is said and done it's funny to see militant anti-spammers fighting militant censors. Although at least the anti-spammers are improving quality of life...
Re:Well, not quite... (Score:2)
They've improved quality of life for a long time
Blinktags were missing (Score:2)
I mean, who was writing that statement for SafeSurf? A six year old who cries about someone breaking their toys? Maybe they should've used this (warning, popupbanner) [tripod.de] little toy to make their text look even better. But form follows content, and the content is even worse. They even dare to suggest someone might die because of MAPS' actions and proceed to construct a, however unlikely, scenario for this.
SafeSurf very obviously have it on their agenda to impose their will on anyone running a website all over the world, and their drivel about not wanting to censor, but only to enforce "correct labeling" of websites is just a heap of steaming bullshit, because after everything is labelled someone will start sorting out the 'bad' stuff, after all the effect is very obviously censoring, and all that nicely worded (in fact quite nauseating) writeup of theirs doesn't change that fact a bit.
So someone put the label 'spammer' over their block of ip addresses and as a consequence noone can hear them. Maybe that should give them a bit to think about. But no, when you're the only one, who knows what's best fore everyone else, you better don't think too much or you'll never get the job done.
SafeSurf trademark on SS~~ ? (Score:2)
Has anyone noticed their (claimed) trademark on "SS~~"? Are these guys going to try to extract royalties from sites that want to be voluntarily self-rated? If I have to pay these guys even a penny to be allowed to use their trademark to be rated, it won't ever happen. If they want a law to require it (bad idea, anyway) they better not ask that the law require using their trademark.
Their tech contacts is on AOL... (Score:2)
Something tells me they don't know very much about the technology they're trying to control....
Registrant:
SafeSurf (SAFESURF-DOM)
1304 Newbury Road Unit E
Newbury Park, CA 91320
US
Domain Name: SAFESURF.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Billing Contact:
Soular, Ray (RS588) superfixer@AOL.COM
Dazzle.net
16209 Victory Blvd. PMB 256
Van Nuys, CA 91406
(310) 572-6560 (FAX) (209) 821-7132
Record last updated on 21-Sep-2001.
Record expires on 17-May-2002.
Record created on 16-May-1995.
Database last updated on 27-Oct-2001 09:29:00 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
PRIMARY.CBPOL.NET 63.107.147.5
SECONDARY.CBPOL.NET 63.107.147.6
An "open letter". (Score:2, Interesting)
As opposed to blocking sites that use one word you don't like. EG: 2600.com has nothing but news reports and an online store, but using the word "hacking" got them banned by this and similar systems. Several history sites were also banned because "nazi", "hitler" and "kill jews" were all used...so now 'the children' can't even do their homework. Guess they'll go play Diablo instead, since their computers are useless for that homework thing.
MAPS may claim that their actions are in the interest of good, but in reality they would easily trade in the good of children to achieve their goal.
...and you claim you actions are in the interest of good, but in reality you easily trade in the good of people as a whole to achieve your goal.
Censorship is a broad brush that drips paint on the pure, as well as the tainted.
Imagine trying to connect to a crisis assistance site after a devastating earthquake, only to find its among a vast IP group being blocked by
You? Imagine being in an internet cafe and trying to check emergency sites or news sites after the WTC attack, only to find that cafe uses your product, thus banning sites with words like "terrorist/ism" "bombs" "kill americans" and "fuck america". Sound too weird to be true? Sorry...it happened!! But since you love analogies so much here's one: Just like I complained to the owner of that internet cafe who uses your software, maybe you should be complaining to the ISP's who chose to use MAPS.
People sicken me more by the minute.
Blocking WEBSITES? Doubt it. (Score:2)
Re:Blocking WEBSITES? Doubt it. (Score:2)
If you remember, just over a year ago Macromedia's network got listed on the RBL and subscribers to a number of ISPs were unable to download Flash plugins, etc.
MAPS promotes this type of behavious behind a thin screen of "don't blame us if it blows up in your face". I agree with some of what they do, but RBL on BGP is bad and so is the DUL.
Re:Blocking WEBSITES? Doubt it. (Score:2)
Oops. Yes, it does. I didn't see this last time I was there, but I guess I didn't scroll down far enough in their doc.
Still seems like overkill, especially since there is no apparent notification to any enduser as to why this happening, (whereas with sendmail, you can choose for the sender to get back some sort of more-or-less informative message), but it definitely would block outbound access to websites.
Impossible contradiction (Score:2)
This is on it's face, a pair of completely contradictory statements. The two goals cannot be reconciled.
The labelling is based on the content, and the regulation is based on the labelling. Therefore, the regulation IS based on the content, contrary to what is asserted in the first statement. One degree of indirection cannot hide the fact that this is censorship, if the government is mandating the labelling.
Re:Yet another Jamie Doesn't Like MAPS story (Score:2)
Re:Yet another Jamie Doesn't Like MAPS story (Score:2)
Maps is somewhere close to that meeting that test - IE respected by a significant number of the relevant, informed people. while also being reviled by significant number of the same group.
Most of the time MAPS "gets away with it". But MAPS has problems, makes mistakes, their techniques are not perfect - and they admit it too! Also they have made some decisions which must objectively be described as being controversial (if it creates controversey, especially amongst MAPS supporters, - then, by definition, it is controversial).
Spammers are cunning. They hide themselves, they are devious, they will deliberately calculate and seek-out services, connections and locations to maximise the practical problems, dificulties, confusion and embarrasment for MAPS et al. The spammers also enjoy the continuing possession of the initiative whereas the ISPs and Webhosts are limited to the realms of the practical and the possible when fighting back.
Ultimately I don't think it is possible for web hosting companies to offer economically viable "user" services which are also completely incapable of being exploited by spammers.
The big problem MAPs et al must face is that the futility of demanding anything beyond the possible from ISPs, Web hosting companies and the like, and such attempts to demand the impossible will severely damage the credibility and usage of MAPS or any similar service.
So anything harder-line than Maps will fail in the market place. The collateral damage will be too great, the perceived and actual damage to the integrity of the internet will be too severe - whilst the justification for when customers start asking awkward questions will be too thin. ISPs which don't use the service will be seen by customers as having a meaningful advantage - and that will mean lost customers for the ISPs that do filter.
So while it is theoretically possible for "hard line" "underground services" to replace the likes of MAPs, they will never amount to more than a bit of swaggering by a few hard-line techies who want to apear macho in the War Against Spam.
Re:Yet another Jamie Doesn't Like MAPS story (Score:2)
I don't think MAPS is expecting this. Rather, they ask that ISPs react to spam complaints in a reasonable timeframe and shut down the offending sites if appropriate. MAPS focuses on educating and establishing rapport with ISPs. It only uses RBL listing as a last resort. In fact, MAPS goes so far in giving ISPs the benefit of the doubt that their utility is substantially reduced. Spam ISPs will do a ton of damage before MAPS gets around to listing them. That is stroke one against MAPS.
Stroke two is that they appear to have backed down in the face of wealthy spammers like Experian and Harris. Unfortunately, there is no grassroots solution to that problem. These companies are rich enough to get the ear of decision-makers.
SPEWS solves problem #1 by abandoning all attempts at education. SPEWS does not meet any of your proposed criteria for a spam-block list: they are neither fair nor accountable. However PacBell appears to be using them, and I'm sure other organizations are. When it comes to problem #2, SPEWS appears to avoid listing the big "mainsleazers" like Harris. Therefore, your idea that hard-line lists would not be adopted by large organizations is not necessarily correct. As long as those lists never offend big corporations, they are probably quite palatable to large organizations as cost-savers, which they are.
Unfortunately, MAPS was the only organization that could communicate to the corporate world and convince them not to spam. I think it's become clear that anyone with deep pockets can sue MAPS and get taken off the RBL.
Re:Yet another Jamie Doesn't Like MAPS story (Score:2)
One problem that exists, as in the Experian case, is that all spammers are lumped together, whether they are blasting ponzi schemes, or just sending quarterly marketing info to people who didn't know they could opt-out. If there were separate blacklists, then the information could be described more accurately, and the legal cases would be stronger to defend. For example instead of saying "Experian is a spammer", it would be said "Experian conducts a practice of sending email to people who sign up on their web site without them taking the action to opt-in to the mailings". The latter is simply so truthful, the case becomes one of free speech (if it has changed recently, I'm not aware of it).
Re:Yet another Jamie Doesn't Like MAPS story (Score:2)
I don't know what an actual reasonable time frame is. But it looks like spammers are increasingly drawn to "bulletproof" hosting - the kind that gets listed on MAPS RBL. That must mean that normal hosting reacts too quickly for their liking.
First of all, most ISPs do not discuss specifics of spam blocking. Generally, large ISPs do not even tell their tech support. So I don't know how you propose to find out what lists or techniques an ISP is using before becoming their customer. Second, this is pretty far down on the list of things to care about. You are far more likely to suffer an outage because your ISP replaced its networking folks with trained monkeys than to lose money because you can't communicate with a listed IP address. Also, I don't know if PacBell is implementing the list on mailservers or on routers. I would guess the former, because I haven't seen a BGP feed for spews. In that case, as a business running your own mail server, you wouldn't be affected.
I disagree. I think that all large ISP's maintain private blocklists. To whom do they need to make a case? To executives - they are cutting network traffic substantially, thus saving money. To users? Users generally don't know or care.
Far from it. I don't get much spam, but occasionally I will run the originating IP of a spam past MAPS, spews, and the other DNS lists. Spews is the most accurate. MAPS almost never flags an IP as spamming. I have never gotten spam from a "mainsleazer". I think this is an entirely separate problem from "chickenboner" spam, which is what spews addresses. If you think spews is irrelevant you should read some of the pleas for delisting on nanae. They seem to have got the message across to some ISPs that were quite deaf to complaints.
You point out why a perfect blocklist is impossible. You're right. But meanwhile, people continue to improve these imperfect blocklists.
Re:Yet another Jamie Doesn't Like MAPS story (Score:2)
SPEWS is not any better than MAPS (Score:2)
SPEWS is not any better than MAPS. I won't use it because I don't like their mode of collertal impact, either. What SPEWS apparently is trying to do is just make it hard for ISPs to respond, perhaps out of fear of being sued (this is not a fear that should be allowed to exist, but creating a screwed up system is not the answer, either).
I just wish I had the resources to build a better system. I know what to do to make it; I just don't have the cash to put it together.
Re:errrr...... cockroaches and nuclear weapons? (Score:2)
Cockroaches as a species may survive a muclear war, but a single cockroach perched at ground zero of a nuclear strike is a dead bug.