Slashdot Mirror

On a sidenote (with regard to the quest for the email address source), it's fairly common knowledge (enough so that Paetec mentioned it somewhere on litigation.paetec.net back when they were soliciting affidavits from spammed parties) that a number of the addresses used came from WHOIS records.

"MonsterHut Inc. agrees not to exceed a total of 2 percent in e-mail complaints as a result of the total amount of Target Email Marketing Distribution MonsterHut Inc. sends out. PaeTec agrees not to terminate MonsterHut, Inc.'s Internet Services provided the 2 percent complaint limit of the total amount of Email Marketing Distribution is not exceeded, and provided that MonsterHut Inc.'s Internet Services otherwise complies with this Agreement and with application law.

"MonsterHut Inc. agrees not to exceed a total of 2 percent in e-mail complaints as a result of the total amount of Target Email Marketing Distribution MonsterHut Inc. sends out. PaeTec agrees not to terminate MonsterHut, Inc.'s Internet Services provided the 2 percent complaint limit of the total amount of Email Marketing Distribution is not exceeded, and provided that MonsterHut Inc.'s Internet Services otherwise complies with this Agreement and with application law.

Let's say you come up with a purely technological solution to the spam problem. You'd promptly be sued by the spammers for interfering with their "right" to spam you.

The first thing we need is legislation somehow excluding spam from the first ammendment, otherwise it is basically _illegal_ to stop it!

The Magna Carta clauses quoted above have the same problem. They allow unrestricted trade "by the customary means", so all a spammer has to do is prove that email is a "customary means" of communicating with people (not a great reach at all) and then he's _protected_ by this stuff.

First, we must OUTLAW SPAM. Then we'll have the legal right to simply unplug it at its source, whenever it's found. This right does not now exist, ask any ISP who's been sued for unplugging a spammer

There _is_ precedent for this. Many jurisdictions place severe restrictions on, or prohibit entirely, advertizements and business signs alongside roads and highways, freedon of speech notwithstanding. My neighboring Scottsdale AZ, for example, has municipal ordinances prohibiting business signs beyond specific dimensions and over specific heights. These forbid, among MANY other things, the trademark large yellow illuminated arches of a particular fast-food franchise chain. They were forced to resort to other architecture in Scottsdale.

...or you've got an IP address that at one point in the past belonged to a spammer. The problem with a static list such as this is that there's no procedure to get an address removed from it, even if the original ISP eventually kicks the spammer off or even if the ISP goes out of business.

Consider, for example, the position of PaeTec Communications. They've been unable to kick a spammer off (Monsterhut), as said spammer was able to obtain a temporary injunction. When the case is resolved, PaeTec will presumably win. Until then, however, the address range they lease to Monsterhut is getting added to numerous blacklists. I see no reason to why that address range shouldn't be removed after PaeTec succeeds in ridding themself of this spammer -- at some point in the future, that address will get reassigned to a new customer. But if the people blacklisting that address are using an uncommented, static, ad hoc list that the snarfed from Slashdot, there's a decent chance that that listing'll be around indefinitely.

In summary, I strong encourage sysadmins to stick to well-maintained lists when it comes to spam blacklisting. They should carefully evaluate both the criteria that gets a site listed and the criteria that gets a site unlisted.

Why clutter the books with yet another unenforceable law -- which will probably be so badly written that it illegalizes sending email to your mom -- when there are highly satisfactory technical responses? A good junk-mail filter (down to and including a hand-rolled .procmailrc) is perfectly adequate spam control.

You've answered your own question. The number of people competent to hand-roll a procmailrc, let alone install all the other needed anti-spam tools, is a tiny fraction of the total number of email users. And maintaining all of that anti-spam infrastructure to keep up with the latest spammer tricks.

This is a classic arms race, and it's one that the spammers will likely keep winning. Why? Because they care a lot more. A bunch of spam is a time-wasting minor annoyance to you, but their livelihood to them.

Legislation that allows recepients to sue spammers is perfectly enforceable. And even if the legislation only provided criminal penalties, it would still be valuable. For example, the folks from Paetec could have quickly booted the spammers of their network, rather then getting caught up in a multi-year legal battle.

THE COURT: Just as a point of curiosity, what is a DTI card?
MR. KIRCHNER: Can I ask my client? I don't know the answer to that, your Honor.
THE COURT: I'm just curious. What is it? I have an eight year old grandson who knows more about computers than I do, so when I get a change to ask a question like this, I generally take advantage of it.
MR. KIRCHNER: What that is is it's -- I'll try putting it in terms I understand, your Honor. And it's customer equipment that's co-located in our facility. In other words, they're allowed to put their router in with our equipment so that it works.
THE COURT: Thank you.

This is not informative, this is just failure to read the information given.

If you followed some of the links in the article, you'll find that the litigation began in March. The "same identical thing" didn't happen twice, it happened once and is still ongoing. Courts are slow.

...and the worst of the bunch -- randomly inserting punctuation in the entire message:

M`A.K,E M:O'N"E,Y F.A`S'T

*shudder* Every now and again, I wish we would have optional accountability in Usenet, similar to how I can set my default read-level on Slashdot high enough that J. Random Anonymous Coward never shows up. Couple that with a clause in the ISPs contract that allows them to assess significant fines against spammers, and we'd be (theoretically) set.

Then I wake up and realize that people'll just steal accounts or even use litigation to block the ISP from cutting them off for spamming. That's when I wish we could just train those kids who want to go on school shooting rampages to just take out spammers instead, killing two birds with one stone.