Dutch ISP Files Police Complaint Against Spamhaus 218
judgecorp writes "Dutch ISP A2B has filed police complaints against anti-spam project Spamhaus, calling its CEO 'nuts' and accusing him of blackmail. Spamhaus added all A2B's addresses to a spam blacklist, when A2B did not obey the letter of its demands in blocking a spammer."
Incorrect summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The district attorney is a lawyer, the correct one when dealing with criminal actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't criminal, this is civil. At least by US law, now how it flies in Holland may be completely different.
If I had a bricks and mortar store, and someone came and dumped a ton of shit on my doorstep or sprayed offensive graffiti over my front windows, I'd call the police before my lawyer. Except (apparently) in the US, not everyone's immediate reaction to a problem is "who can I sue".
Wrong blame (Score:2)
You're blaming the wrong entity. If you're concerned with this, you should be complaining to your ISP _whom_you_pay_ that they use Spamhaus. You have control of your service, go buy it from someone who doesn't use Spamhaus. Spamhaus isn't screwing with your Inbox, your ISP _whom_you_pay_ is screwing with your Inbox by their choice to use Spamhaus.
Don't get me wrong, I think Spamhaus is one of the best things since sliced bread. Why does your ISP _choose_ to use Spamhaus? Because the extra cost and reso
Re: (Score:3)
You don't realize how SMTP or the Internet works, my friend. A2B is about to suffer from a death by a good number of admins simply adding their network addresses to private firewall and routers settings. You see, what I do at the border of my network is my business. I consult Spamhaus for their opinion regarding the reputation of email traffic. My mail sever is set to query the Spamhaus DNS servers whenever another mail server connects to deliver mail. It's not by default that my server is set that way; I t
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, pretty much. Spamhaus is simply a service that admins may use for advice on what to block.
It's up to the admins to agree with what they do and not use them if they get out of line.
That said, any admin that does use Spamhaus is a complete idiot. But, it's quite within their rights to be a complete idiot about administering their own mail servers.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a consultant if your server is set to blindly follow whatever they say. And if you've ever tried to remove yourself from Spamhaus without spending lots of money, then you wouldn't understand how unreasonable they can be.
Re: (Score:2)
Spammer? No. I remember them wanting me to do this or that that was fairly expensive for a small hosting service. Not paying money to them, but it costing us more money than we could reasonably spend. In the end, we updated our server and then got a new static IP. The only emails we ever sent out were opt-in to a subscriber list of 3,000 or less.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow...so I forgot a little bit of what they wanted done. I'm really bad about picking out trolls here, but what do you have against me and why are you assuming I'm lying?
Computer power has nothing to do with sending out email. And you actually misquoted me. I didn't have to upgrade my hardware. I think I had a backscatter problem (trying to stay RFC-compliant) that once fixed via a software update/upgrade, they wouldn't take us off the list without going through something like senderscore or som
Re: (Score:2)
Then don't use spamhaus. It's a voluntary service after all.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Forcing someone to cooperate "or else" can be construed as blackmail and can then be cause for a criminal suit - the fact that you can mitigate the attack does not remove the threat (just as buying a fire extinguisher doesn't mean being threatened by someone with arson is no longer a case for the police).
Re: (Score:2)
Blackmail [wikipedia.org]...
"Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
How does Spamhaus "demands or receives any money or other valuable thing"? The only benefit they would see is that there is less spam on the internet. Which does not really benefit Spamhaus as much as society as a whole. And
Re: (Score:2)
They have an agenda that has value to them, and they're forcing it on you "or else." So they're not receiving money. That doesn't mean it's not blackmail. This case isn't about spam. They blocked the spammer.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that according to that definition they are probably not going to be convicted. It has a different definition in The Netherlands however, the Wikipedia definition is closer to that of the Dutch laws on extortion.
So yeah they probably won't get convicted. Still, they could try something with the computer crime laws, they're much less evolved and have much more leeway for formulating complaints than the blackmail and extortion claims.
Re: (Score:2)
How does US law apply here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They ARE incorrectly classifying them.
I did not say they were not incorrectly classifying them. I am not intimate enough with the situation to make that conclusion. But, I am pretty sure that, whether right or wrong, they are not performing a criminal act (so A2B should talk to a lawyer, not the police).
They ARE blackmailing them.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Generally (at least in the US, I am not as familiar with the Netherlands), for it to be blackmail you have to benefit from your demands. "Stop stealing or I will tell the police" is not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The conspiracy theory argument in your first post is, surprisingly, much more valid than your second. Spamhaus could, in (conspiracy) theory, be benefiting if someone were paying them to take down TPB. So if that were happening then it could be defined as blackmail (but might just be extortion). But, just because they are denying A2B valuable items as you enumerated above, does not mean that they benefit from it. So... not blackmail.
It is also possible that Spamhaus has had previous problems with CyberB
Re: (Score:2)
Spamhaus does not block anything.
Spamhaus can block A2B all day long - and I will STILL get any email from that Netblock.
Care to guess why?
Spamhaus is a list, and *** I *** choose how to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Incorrect summary (Score:5, Insightful)
If spamhaus starts blacklisting entities that do not spam, people will stop trusting and using spamhaus. Police or no, Spamhaus is harming itself when it oversteps its natural bounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like ORBS [wikipedia.org] all over again..
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Incorrect summary (Score:5, Interesting)
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: /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."
---------
"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
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?"
-----
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Spamhaus has a policy of escalation. If the first blacklist doesn't work, widen the blacklist. Repeat until somebody notices. It worked for a while, it got customers like you to call your ISP to tell them to clean up their act.
I was blacklisted that way. I had a /29, and another /29 near me was blacklisted. I found out when the /24 was blacklisted, and my customers called to complain. I was lucky, I had a business relationship with the other /29, and we were able to get it de-listed in a couple of day
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That's exactly SpamHaus' intent. You're collateral damage, to make the 'net a better place.
I used to agree with the policy (before I actually seen it in action). Now, I think it's pretty irrelevant. Just blacklist the offending blocks, and move on.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you've listed the spamming block, then your job is done. UNLESS the ISP moves them to another block (evades the listing), you have no reason to escalate. Just because the ISP doesn't do what you want them to isn't a reason to start listing more and more of their customers -- who are not spammers. This isn't helping the anti-spam cause; it is, in fact, undermining the cause.
Things have certainly gone down hill there. They never choked BTI and we were Jeremy Jayne's ISP; every one of his netblocks we
Re: (Score:2)
Know what finally saved my ass from the SPEWS database? It certainly wasn't the hoops I jumped through to try to get removed. It was my datacenter's IP subnets that were on the list, not my server... I hate spam of any kind and have never sent so much as a chain email to anyone in my life. It was like a nightmare. We moved our forum site to a new hosting provider and suddenly we found out we couldn't send mail to almost everyone. People couldn't register, or get forum notifications. The SPEWS list seemed to
Moral outrage fight! (Score:2)
GO!
Seriously, anti-spam organizations tend to be as self righteous as born-again and on the wagon alcoholic evangelists.
Isn't it time to kill email?
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like email, don't use it.
If you don't like spamhaus, don't use their blocklist. How hard is that?
Spamhaus lists IP addresses that send spam. If the ISP ignores complaints or moves the spammers to a different IP, then it will list the netblock or the whole ISP. Those of us who use their list appreciate it. It reduces the load on my email servers by thousands per day. Don't blame the messenger.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, when entities upstream from users (both senders and receivers) are deluded into using Spamhaus, and that in turn screws up those user's email -- the users themselves have zero recourse. So it isn't a matter of simply "deciding not to use a list." Spamhaus and every operation like them are exercising power over people who are defenseless, and who never authorized any such interference.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a static IP and control over your DNS you can run your own mail server and do whatever you want. If you are on a cable modem and your ISP controls your domain, then you aren't really on the internet, are you? Just drink the kool-aid. Personally, I've never used my ISP's email service.
In any case, spamhaus lists are mostly automated. The data they use to list you might be supplied by your own ISP who are running the spamtraps and supplying the lists of dynamic addresses that aren't supposed t
Re: (Score:2)
I've also had customers end up on the blacklist incorrectly for reasons as innocuous as some 3rd party contracted inexpe
Re: (Score:2)
I've also had customers end up on the blacklist incorrectly for reasons as innocuous as some 3rd party contracted inexperienced low-level techie ticked the wrong box on their Exchange management interface when trying to fix an unrelated problem.
Good. People who leave open relays are exactly the people I don't want to get mail from.
It's all about the Opinion (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's all about the Opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, except that many people just configure their mail servers to take that opinion as gospel, and spamhaus certainly makes it easy to do so and encourages it.
So legally, you are indeed right. However, the end result is that their opinion carries a lot of weight, mostly because many many people just blindly apply it.
So, in effect, they become judge jury and executioner, in that, once their opnion is that you have transgressed, you will instantly be blackballed all over the internet. They have become little more than a bully, which is too bad because, I mostly like them and mostly agree that this is the right way to operate.
Of course.... I JUST posted my experience with them (or I should say, the experience that I came back from vacation to find one of my co-admins had):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2474882&cid=37703752 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Right, except that many people just configure their mail servers to take that opinion as gospel, and spamhaus certainly makes it easy to do so and encourages it.
What other people do is not Spamhaus's responsibility. If I were to post here to Slashdot for everybody to take all of their money and throw it into the ocean to support world peace, I'm not responsible that somebody actually did that. Put the blame where it actually lies, and it doesn't lie with Spamhaus.
Re: (Score:2)
Um right, so we pretty much agree then, except that you refuse to accept the use of the "judge jury and executioner" analogy except in the most strict sense. Ok Fine.
Is the problem that their opinions suck? Or is that that people listen to them? Actually, the problem is that their opinions suck AND people listen to them.
If their opinions sucked and people ignored them, we would have no issue and nothing to talk about.
If their opinions were good and people listened, we would have no issue (other than a philo
Re: (Score:2)
If you know that people listen to your opinion and do what you say, and you say things that can harm someone else, you can be held accountable. See any cult or mob leader who knows his followers hang on his words. They just say "it would be a shame if something happened to that ISP" and suddenly its servers are underwater wearing concrete shoes.
Plenty of leaders have been convicted for crimes based on this chain of events.
Re: (Score:2)
What other people do is not Spamhaus's responsibility.
So it's okay for me to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, since I'm not responsible for others' reactions to what I say? Thanks!
Re:It's all about the Opinion (Score:4, Insightful)
the end result is that [Spamhaus'] opinion carries a lot of weight, mostly because many many people just blindly apply it.
Mostly because Spamhaus rarely lists address ranges that aren't involved in spamming and network abuse, and even more rarely for long. Spamhaus EARNED its reputation for cautious listing at the same time others like SORBS earned reputations for over-zealousness.
That's why I'm surprised to see Slashdot folks taking these accusations seriously without any posted evidence. When Spamhaus lists an IP block, they document it publicly including their reasons. Sometimes it's because an organization has been caught moving spammers around inside their IP block. Sometimes there are other reasons. Usually they're pretty good reasons.
Where's the copy of that posting?
I know back when I ran an ISP, Spamhaus was the one I -didn't- have problems with.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm I must admit, I came back from a vacation to find all this out.... do they keep a historical record of all this after a block is removed?
I have been meaning to investigate more, but, since it was a solved issue by the time I got back, and I have been busy with other projects, I only spent an hour or so looking for more information and finding little to nothing. If there is a "right place" to go look, I would love to know. Apparently we were on the "SBL" list.
My co-admin sent me a URL reference but, whe
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to recall it being a little tricky to get to the data after it's delisted. I'll grant you that Spamhaus should do better there.
Re: (Score:2)
Compare Spamhaus with your local reporter who focuses mainly on restaurant reviews. Every week, he visits a new restaurant and writes a review. Some restaurants may end up with a good review and get lots of traffic as a result. Some may end up with a bad review, causing lots of people to avoid their restaurant, thus losing business. Same principles apply here. It's like saying, "We tried to talk to the owner to get things fixed, but we couldn't. We're now leaning on the waitress, to see if she will help us
Re: (Score:2)
Spamassassin in default configuration uses Spamhaus as one of several RBLs, but just being listed on Spamhaus is not enough to be blocked. It adds 2-3 points to the spam score, and 5 points are needed. Other RBLs are used as well, as is other scoring. It is just one of many bits. Relying on a single RBL to block mail without further thought is a bad idea of course.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's all about the Opinion (Score:4, Interesting)
Spamhaus publishes their Opinion about who are spam problems. It's a lot like Slashdot posts, which are the various contributor's Opinions.
What a quaint mis-framing by using the word "opinion" rather than what it actually is: a declaration. It's much more affirmative than a mere "opinion".
This, BTW, is precisely why ALL blacklists are a crappy idea that ultimately always lead to this scenario. Crowdsourcing this sort of privacy/security function to anonymous people with unverified credibility leads to the well being poisoned with deliberate or unintended misinformation. They are even vulnerable to ill-intentioned people with axes to grind and a willingness to wreck significant swaths of the Internet to exact their vengeance.
Re: (Score:2)
If you misrepresent your opinion with malicious intent or with reckless disregard for truth and you cause damage as a result, you can be in quite a lot of trouble legally.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not an opinion. Whether mail is spam or not can be objectively decided and thus is not an opinion. Therefore any statement on whether someone sent spam is not an opinion either. It's either a fact, a lie or a mistake.
And since spamming is illegal, claiming someone sends spam is defamation, which is illegal in many countries, including the Netherlands and the rest of the EU, where spamhaus has registered offices. Therefore they're probably not that far away from losing in court at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh..... this is grey waters... I honestly think that Spamhaus is making an assertion of fact to a third party, and could be liable for defamation. It's well enough into the grey area that it would have to be settled by the court.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but here in Europe free speech is limited by e.g. libel laws. If the ISP can demonstrate that the claims were false and caused them damage then they have a chance to win.
Responsibility goes both ways (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like there gripe was the primary ISP was refusing to do anything about it they then move to the feeder ISP's until they fix it. By routing there traffic they are aiding spam. Ever expanding there blacklist to push companies to do something is the only method they have.to get something done. By the time they are complaining to a providers providers it's been a issue for a long time. That dutch ISP should never have to block one of it's clients, clients IP's they should have required them to act
Re: (Score:2)
...organizations like Spamhaus and Cisco SenderBase need to take some responsibility to ensure that they are not unduly effecting legitimate businesses and networks. Taking large-scale blanket actions that effect many legitimate sites undermines the anti-spam industry as a whole, because it makes it more difficult for people to rely on anti-spam products/services.
Spammers hide among legitimate businesses and hosting providers often don't do enough, unless their feet are continually held to the fire, to weed them out. Spamhaus can't cut off the account of the abusers at the various hosting providers, so they do the next best thing and make it in the best interests of those hosting providers to clean up their acts. Just take a moment to think about where we'd be without Spamhaus.
Re: (Score:3)
Just take a moment to think about where we'd be without Spamhaus.
Actually, just about where we are right now. Most major mail providers don't use Spamhaus at all... it certainly doesn't affect delivery to GMail or Yahoo or anything like that. They use heuristic analysis of the messages (stuff like Spamassassin), coupled with Greylisting, forced delays in the server greeting, and throttling based on number of recipients. And it works. I don't get any spam at all to my inbox. None. And I've had the same address for nearly 6 years, now. And I don't use Spamhaus, SORBS, or a
Re: (Score:2)
Yahoo uses spamhaus
I rather doubt the ISPs claims. (Score:2)
Choosing to use and trust Spamhaus is a completely voluntary activity by companies that don't wish to receive spam. It is usually only one of many strategies people use to try to block spam. Most use it simply as advice for scoring, some us it to block smtp from hosts completely. Whatever.
If spamhaus gets it wrong too often (and they do make mistakes) then people will stop using it. There's little any authority can do about it though. Spamhaus publishes its opinion and others choose to follow it.
Re: (Score:2)
Good (Score:2)
I know they claim that the
Re: (Score:2)
I've wondered if the honeypot addresses weren't super-obvious or guessable.
This is not to say that the company I was with at the time wasn't a huge bunch
A mailadmin writes... (Score:2)
Spamhaus don't list people unless they've got a very good reason - that's why the majority of email providers, and likely your mail feed is using SBL. Steve is not crazy, and incidentally, business details are not subject to data protection provisions under the EU directive, so it is absolutely fine to say you kicked a spammer.
Lie down with the dogs, get up with the fle
ISPs policing the internet (Score:2)
Here's what these people seem to say.
When it comes to piracy - "ISPs shouldn't be policing the internet!"
When it comes to spam - "ISPs should be policing the internet!"
ICE (Score:2)
Considering only the information readily available via. summary and article, how is this any different from what the DHS are/were doing with ICE, taking out ... was it 86,000 sites to hit one target? When that happened Slashdot was up in arms about the insanity, was that just because DHS is loathed and Spamhaus generally isn't? Am I missing some important detail (other than DHS = Government, Spamhaus = vigilante freelancers) that puts this all in perspective?
Misleading language in this story (Score:2)
This story really rubs me the wrong way. They make it sound like Spamhaus has their fingers on the Internet's routing tables and at any whim can block or unblock networks that they don't like. This is simply not the case.
Spamhaus is no different from an op ed journalist or a food critic: All offer opinions about varying matters of public interest. Spamhaus, in this case, publishes an opinion in the form of a list of IP network ranges. In their opinion these networks can or may be responsible for transm
Spamhaus runs many lists (Score:2)
Just a point of clarification.
Spamhaus runs several DNSBLs: SBL, PBL, XBL.
I use their XBL. It works great. Don't be confused thinking there's just one "spamhaus list", saying things like "anyone who uses spamhaus is a <insulting term>".
People should know what they're getting into when they subscribe to a DNSBL. DNSBLs are best used as part of a scoring system, rather than as an ultimate authority.
Regarding Spamhaus's SBL:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, they blocked one IP used by a spammer. How many spammers use one IP address? They use one IP address, then when that is blocked, switch to another, and another, and another....
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Why not??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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..."
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you say you work for Spamhaus?
Re: (Score:2)
is there anyone watchdogging Spamhaus' watchdog efforts?
If You think that this needs to be done, then why don't You do it?
And then who should be watching over You?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't need a watchdog, it needs deconstruction. It's a centralization of power without accountability, and such almost always leads to corruption. Spam, itself, is one example of this. But to fight corruption with more corruption is the wrong answer. Spamhaus is the wrong answer. I'd sooner use whitelisting. (Greylisting is better. And a combination of whitelisting and greylisting better yet.)
But Spamhaus is the wrong answer. It has become corrupt long since. And it's *because* it's a source o
Re: (Score:2)
is there anyone watchdogging Spamhaus' watchdog efforts?
You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of Cause and Effect. Spamhaus can't actually withhold anything. They can suggest to others that those other parties might want to withhold their goodwill of an abuser, but by itself Spamhaus is completely powerless. It is only when other people agree with them that the group as a whole acts against those who abuse us through our technology. And that group action is entirely legal.
And Heaven help is if it ever does become illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Where the hell does Spamhaus get the authority to dictate routing policy?
If Spamhaus feels that Cyberbunker is harboring spammers, and is being uncooperative, I can see Spamhaus adding all of Cyberbunker's blocks to the blacklist.
I can even see Spamhaus contacting A2B and asking A2B to tell Spamhaus what addresses from A2B's blocks have been assigned to Cyberbunker, such that Spamhaus can block Cyberbunker without blocking the rest of A2B.
But SpamHaus instead demands that A2B stop routing all traffi
Re: (Score:2)
If Spamhaus is using its currently intact credibility as leverage, that very much is not appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And tough luck for A2B and Cyberbunker? I'm sure news of Spamhaus's demise will cheer them greatly at their own bankruptcy hearings.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY: What you're actually saying is that Spamhaus should be allowed to destroy multiple senders and receiver's email capability without law enforcement intervening.
The thing is, they have no right to do this, and nowhere to GET a right to do this -- and THAT is why law enforcement should be provided with a means to show up at Spamhaus's door and arrest the lot of them.
I never signed up for Spamhaus to be my "Internet Mommy." They're presumptuous abusers of other people's rights. Just as bad as spammers, an
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY: What you're actually saying is that Spamhaus should be allowed to destroy multiple senders and receiver's email capability without law enforcement intervening.
The thing is, they have no right to do this, and nowhere to GET a right to do this -- and THAT is why law enforcement should be provided with a means to show up at Spamhaus's door and arrest the lot of them.
I never signed up for Spamhaus to be my "Internet Mommy." They're presumptuous abusers of other people's rights. Just as bad as spammers, and for the same reason: direct interference with my email.
The problem with that approach is that the only power that Spamhaus devolves from the ISPs and server operators who use it. They don't directly block anything. They can't, that's not how it works. They're playing a dangerous game: if they make themselves too risky to use, admins will stop using them and whatever "power" they have will disappear.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not only that. I'll quote their entire policy:
Disaster Free Hosting
CyberBunker will keep your servers online "no matter what". Cyberbunker will protect your servers from hurricanes, earthquakes, crashing airplanes, (nuclear) bombs, floods and anything else that could interrupt the hosting of your servers. However the biggest threat usually is the hosting provider that takes your servers offline if they receive complaints from others. As long as your hosting fee is paid CyberBunker will do anything in its power to keep your servers up. In addition CyberBunker protects your servers also from others who might want to take your servers down like the DMCA, your competitors,authorities, burglars, governments and terrorists.
Impenetrable Hosting Facility
The CyberBunker data center is located in a nuclear bunker that was designed to survive a nuclear war. Even without war the bunker remains impenetrable. In 2007 City Hall accompanied by the local police and fire brigade made an attempt to enter the building without authorization. Their attempts were futile. City hall paid the for the damages caused by the hydraulic tools used by the fire brigade in an attempt to open the first set of blast doors. The doors were damaged but still closed. Even with the right access codes the doors still could not be opened anymore. In 2008 City Hall paid € 24500.- in damages to CyberBunker in order to get the doors operational again. There are 3 sets of blast doors, one set next after the other, on all entrances.
Concealed Location
The physical limitations to enter the building are not the only reason why customers choose to host their servers at CyberBunker. CyberBunker offers a unique routing system in order to confuse parties that are eager to discover the physical location of the servers. Many known and unknown customers use our services to have their servers online without revealing the actual location. Sometimes it happens that one of our customers is exposed by the media. e.g. see: TorrentFreak. And even then we are able find a suitable solution in order to conceal the location of the servers again.
Anonymous Hosting
Most of our customers desire to stay anonymous. In some cases we do not even know who our customers actually are. We have no idea and we simply do not care. Who ever you are, it is our business to keep you online.
Mind Your Own Business
CyberBunker does not poke around on your servers. Customers are allowed to host any content they like, except child porn and anything related to terrorism. Everything else is fine. CyberBunker has adopted a policy not to mind our clients business. Our famous "Mind Your Own Business" policy.
Bold = my emphasis.
This is an open invitation to spammers, neo-nazis, phishing scammers, botnet operators, usenet providers (teh binareez) and torrent servers (torrentfreak, notably) to come and play ball. It's their business model to protect the customer. Given their attitude, they're likely to be in quite hot water once one of their customers actually does run a childporn network or an assassination ring and it turns out in court that their business model is "
Re: (Score:2)
This is an open invitation to spammers, neo-nazis, phishing scammers, botnet operators, usenet providers (teh binareez) and torrent servers (torrentfreak, notably) to come and play ball.
What's wrong with neo-nazi websites? Do you really want your government to take them down on sight? If so, then how do you define "neo-nazi"?
Re: (Score:2)
Mart
Re: (Score:2)
They're open advocates of an ideology that outright calls for mass murder. That's incitement to a crime. That's what's wrong with neo-nazis.
Incitement to crime is when one actually advocates mass murder; displaying a swastika is not such an incitement in and of itself.
In practice, most neo-Nazi writings do not incite directly (care to find a website that explicitly "calls for extermination of Untermenschen"?). Heck, even "Mein Kampf" doesn't do so, even though it already had the entire Nazi theory of racial superiority laid out already. And did you miss the fact that most of neo-Nazis today deny Holocaust, even among themselves? If they genuine
Re: (Score:2)
The very ideology is about mass murder.
Can you concisely sum up what you believe to be Nazi ideology, for starters?
For that matter, I mentioned "Mein Kampf" in my previous post. That book is like a Bible to many (though not all) Nazis, so knowing what's in there is quite important to fully understand them. Have you read it?
You can't display a swastika in earnest without advocating mass murder.
You should let Hindus and Buddhists know that, I'm sure they'll be delighted to know they're advocating mass murder.
Stop apologising for genocidal maniacs.
The issue at stake is freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. When "genocidal maniacs" actually murder pe
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I know. It's probably one of the silliest censorship laws in Europe (the only thing that's more silly is some Eastern European countries banning communist symbols). Consequently, I don't see some organization that helps circumvent it as immoral - if anything, quite the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy isn't bad, and lots of people got something to hide. But to me, there is a difference between local provider XS4All that says "we comply with the law, but safeguard your privacy to the best of our ability. We don't allow spam, botnets or phishing however." and CyberBunker who rolls out the welcome mat for specifically that type of business.
FYI, XS4ALL was the provider that hosted the Fishman affidavit and defended the people who put that up (myself included) in court until the High Court where they
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
wow, and you basically make it sound like PRIVACY is a bad thing.
Got something to hide? You must be EVIL!
Privacy != put it public on the web
If you put something public on the web, it's liable to be noticed. People are liable to complain. And at that point, it's no longer "private".
CyberBunker's policy appears to be "don't worry about people reporting you for doing anything, because regardless of that we'll still do our very best to pretend not to notice if you're doing anything you shouldn't be."