Slashdot Mirror
MAPS Sued Again
A reader writes: "
Following the third lawsuit against it in as many months, and in response to unsolicited donations having been "pouring in" (their words), MAPS yesterday announced that they've set up a MAPS Legal Defense Fund. Being as the prior two parties settled their differences with MAPS before the matters actually got to trial, maybe this will be the one MAPS says they've been waiting for in order to establish the legal righteousness of their position. Or not."
The people at Above.net chose to use MAPS. They probably feel that the people who will not use their services because they filter out "spam" will be less than the number of people who object to getting spam. It is their choice to use the RBL.
You have the choice of which ISP to use. Initially, you chose to use Above.net, which uses MAPS, you then changed your mind. You appear to think that receiving spam is less of a problem than not receiving email from everyone.
Your friend chose to use whowhere.com for their email. They appear to think it is, for some reason, better to use them and risk not being able to send email to everyone rather than switching to an ISP that isn't on the RBL.
Whowhere.com's administrators have choosen, for some reason, to be associated in some way with spam and to not change their ways.
Personally, I would have told my friend to stop using whowhere.com. I would consider it rude of them to try and make me not filter out spam just because they don't want to switch from a spam friendly ISP.
The only people who are trying to keep people from choosing here are the spammers. They try to force ISPs to let them use the ISPs resources to deliver unwanted mail to the ISPs customers.
SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
The descriptions "opt-in" or "not opt-in" don't mean much on their own --- you've got to say with respect to whom for it to be meaningful.
As others have pointed out, the MAPS RBL is not opt-in for individuals, since instead of being allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they receive spam from their ISP, the decision is made for them by their ISP on a block basis, not on an individual basis.
Although it's possible for an ISP to give its customers the choice, it's rare for ISPs to offer such a choice. It would probably cost extra anyway, since the ISP would need more machinery to handle the extra load it would experience through handling spam.
It's clearly a market niche though, so full ISPs or mail service providers offering this service are bound to emerge (if they haven't already) for those who prefer to make their own choices and/or do their own filtering.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
The problem with the MAPS RBL is that it is not Opt-In. When I had a machine at Above.net, there was a time when I wished to communicate with someone at whowhere.com, but, unfortunatly, whowhere.com was on the MAPS RBL that particular day. Above.net was unwilling (or unable) to take my machine off of the RBL so I could communicate with my friend.
I also have a friend with a ifn.net account who I would not be able to communicate with if my ISP told me I could not talk to machines on the RBL.
Needless to day, I no longer have an account with Above.net.
I agree with what the RBL is doing, since the internet is a cooperative network, and people have the right to not cooperate with hosts whose content they do not like. I also am glad to see them keep dedicated connections dedicated to broadcating spam in check. That said, I do not like the fact sysadmins can make these kinds of decisions for their users.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
The simple answer to your question is NO.
Spam is _NOT_ (by any definition) constitutionally protected speech.
If someone were to get a big megaphone, and walk up to your bedroom window at 3:00 AM and start screaming obsceneties at you, would this qualify as "free speech"
Not on your life.
If a telemarketer were to call your home COLLECT, saying it's from "Your uncle John" so that you'd accept the charges, only to start telling you how you can make a million dollars in a week through some pyramid scam, would THIS be considered "free speech"?
Again, NO.
Spam is theft, spam is harrassment.
Spam is NOT free speech.
And to answer your last question: if it's opt-in, it's not spam.
But for it to be defamation, the claims have to be _false_.
Why is that so hard to understand?
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
It's amazing that these lawsuits are even brought. MAPS is an opt-in system. It's entirely voluntary. I understand that one can bring suit for any (or no) reason but where do these companies get the idea that they can dictate how other companies and individuals use their own personal resources? If I, as a SA, decide not to accept email from a given source and I inform my customers of this then it's fine. If the customers decide to use my services knowing this, it's fine. My suspicion is that the customers don't understand or are not informed of these administrative decisions and it's upon this that the lawsuits are going to focus.
+.02$
- technik
Haven't we had this discussion before? Why not post with your handle instead of AC?
ORBS is listing you correctly - Manual do not test. SOME ORBS users choose to block that status along with know relays - others do not. It's up to the user - ORBS returns the correct code and the user determines which codes to block. Probably most ORBS users do choose to block that code. You know why? Because several extremely annoying high traffic relays are in there - thinking they will be real clever and sneak their spam through by preventing testing.
The probing they do won't harm your system in any way, and there's really no sane reason to tell them not to probe (unless you have something to hide) - many consider that probing a service, helping them to make sure their server is secure. If you insist on not being probed, that's your choice, but don't be surprised when that means that some users decline to accept mail from you.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
For instance, the way they blackhole anyone who runs an open SMTP server, even if it's not being used for spamming, or has spam filtering built in. You don't know what MAPS RBL does. You appear to be referring to ORBS.
Various blocklists... ORBS - Open Relay Behaviour-modification System
Open relay blocklist. Not affiliated in any way with MAPS. Blocks open SMTP relays. Does not require that the relay actually be used to send spam. MAPS RBL - Realtime Blackhole List
List of IP addresses of machines owned by providers who are know to be spam friendly. Manual submission. [Relatively] difficult to be placed on. This is as much admin behavior modification as spam blocking. To be used for blocking at SMTP level or BGP filtering (i.e. blackholing on the TCP/IP layer). MAPS RSS - Relay Spam Stopper
List of IP addresses of machines that contain open relays. Differs from ORBS because they don't actively scan for open relays and they require a sample of the spam before considering listing. To be used for blocking at SMTP level. MAPS DUL - Dial-up User List
List of IP addresses of dialup modem pools. To be used for SMTP blocking, but only blocking a "direct connection". Many believe that a dial-up user has no business attempting to pose as an SMTP server rather than an SMTP client. Spammers use direct-to-MX programs to bypass any sort of filtering/throttling their ISP might use on their dedicated SMTP servers. This prevents such spam from getting through. Please note that none of these lists block on content. They are all lists of IPs.
--
That said, no-one forces anyone else to actually use the RBL. MAPS simply puts out a list of people who they don't think play nice, and it just so happens that a lot of other people agree. The Consumer Reports analogy in the linked article fits this perfectly.
Now I can understand why they'd be pissed off, but what right have they to complain?
--
--
We have fought the AC's, and they have won.
Also, Spam costs ISPs money. Free speech doesn't mean that person A is obliged to pay for person B's speech.
Find free books.
First, let me say that I hate spam and I hope MAPS wins, so please don't flame me as a spam defender. But when I read that MAPS is defending itself by saying that what they're doing is free speech--which it would certainly seem to be--it occurred to me that spam might also be considered free speech, abhorrent as it is. If so, it still doesn't mean that the spammers lawsuit should prevail, because MAPS isn't preventing their speech. And if spam is free speech, are ISPs guilty of blocking free speech by filtering spam, or does opt-in justify (constitutionally, that is) what they're doing?
--meredith
--meredith
Sometimes a scream is better than a thesis
MAPS's actions may or may not be illegal in the US - it's hard to believe that they are, but either way, the ease with which the organisation could be moved to another country - even if its officers remain in the US - is at least positive. And in many ways it would be poetic justice - spammers have been using the same tactics for years.
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Moderators, please moderate this up. I've seen a couple of posts that have confused this issue. I think it is important to know the difference.
Robert Graham
CTO/Network ICE
PS: It appears that Black Ice Software isn't using our BlackICE product, which of course would warn them that their e-mail servers are forwarding spam :-)
the way they blackhole anyone who runs an open SMTP server, even if it's not being used for spamming
... Open relays may be entered immediately onto the RBL to stop spam-in-progress"
I think you have them confused with ORBS.
From the MAPS site:
"the most common reason for a host or network being in the MAPS RBL is that it was used by a spammer as a mail relay
MAPS does not scan for open relays, so how do they know that a relay is open unless a spammer uses it?
Contrary to your belief, it's _HARD_ to get into the MAPS RBL - you have to screw up and refuse to fix it; it's also very easy to get off the RBL - fix your relay, and notify them.
You should visit the MAPS page at maps.vix.com for more information.
Really, MAPS is not ORBS.
The question is, would lawsuits like this happen if MAPS was hosted in a foreign country? (i'm not sure about the current location)
-Stskeeps, http://unrealircd.com
- http://www.ecst.csuchico. edu
/~atman/spam/adblock.shtml: This site provides you with a hosts file which maps dozens of web ad banner graphic sites to 127.0.0.1. The net affect is that many banner ads won't load at all, and instead will show up in your browser as broken images. This really speeds up the loading of web pages, especially if you're on a modem connection.
- http://spamcop.net/: SpamCop is a great site! For free, it lets you paste a spam email into its form, and then it analyzes the spam, decides who the appropriate ISP's are to complain to, and sends those people a detailed complaint with all the info they need to find and shut down whoever violated their terms-of-service. It also keeps stats on the worst spam offenders, and makes this information available to ORBS. I swear by it, and it's immensely gratifying when I (frequently!) get email from an ISP thanking me for my help and letting me know that the offending account has been terminated.
- http://www.spambouncer.org/: I haven't used SpamBouncer myself yet, but it's a procmail-based way to screen spam out of your mailbox. I've heard it's good.
Another recommendation: If your email client loads images automatically in HTML email, turn that option off! Some spam will put your email address in the URL's of the images it loads, so that just by opening the message (and viewing the images) the spammer will know you saw their message.(I got one spam recently that actually ha a return receipt attached; it was a pyramid scheme and Eudora beeped and told me 'The sender has requested notification that you read this email.' What gall!)
(set flamers on low, please)
(I am not a Lawyer nor do I play one on TV)
MAPS is likening itself, correctly in my opinion, to a Reviewer. The same as one voluntarily buys a copy of /localpaper/ and then reads the reviews, deciding whether or not the Reviewer sounds reasonable, MAPS is voluntary and no one is bound to follow their opinion.
However Reviewers have been successfully sued in the past. One cannot simply publish "It stinks!" (or "It's spam!") without having some sort of objective basis. Courts can & have walked this fine line between free speech and defamation.
Thus the question can move from "Does MAPS have a right to do this?" to "Is MAPS being fair in it's labelling?". This is where the MAPS folks might run into difficulty defending to the Court how they determine what is "spam" (or "Unsolicited-Commercial-Email") and what is not.
If (and this is a big "If") Network Ice can demonstrate that MAPS could be inaccurately labelling some sites as spam sites, specifically Network Ice, then MAPS could have problems.
-- Michael
ps MAPS is based in California, USA & Network Ice is from New Hampshire, USA.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
It's completely voluntary for a sysadmin to set their system up to use MAPS; nobody is forcing it down anyone's throat. This is basic freedom of choice.
..or corporations..)
In regard to the Consumer Reports comparison:
If CR finds that a particular Ford vehicle is less comfortable to drive than a comparable Chevrolet model, by polling test drivers or the general public, it's not illegal for them to report this. I don't see CR bring sued. It's also completely voluntary to buy and/or read Consumer Reports. Nobody is forcing it upon you.
The simple fact that MAPS is so popular, and being used by so many people, should also speak volumes. I haven't heard (but this doesn't mean that there aren't) of anyone who *uses* the service complaining about it... it's just the companies who wind up on the RBL who complain.
Don't they realize that if they changed the way they treated the Internet in regard to e-mail that they wouldn't stay on the list, and if they had the proper method of using e-mail systems they wouldn't have been on the list in the first place?
I think that MAPS is akin to your local public utilities commission or similar, in that they help a great deal in keeping e-mail systems in-check. (And they're not as arrogant as the ORBS people, but that's a whole different discussion.)
It's also very simple to get off the list.. I know, as I have had to get several clients off it lately. (Amazing how Exchange sets up as an open relay out of the box.)
People need to grow a clue.
--
Don't trust your Government. (Update:
*kerchunk* *beep* "...Operator."
My opinion is this:
1. I own the bandwidth
2. I own the server that the mail software runs on.
3. I have the right to do most any legal thing with my own network. Such as firewalling all of AOL's IP addresses. If they don't like it, tough.
4. I chose freely to give MAPS the authority to say who gets blocked. Since I own my mail server, it's within my rights to delegate that authority.
I don't see what the big deal is.
Matt
Don't take life so seriously; it isn't permanent.
Does e-mail have "rights"? Does it have the right to be delivered? Do my words have the right to be heard? Most importantly, do I have the right to ignore others, or must I listen to their free speech? Not to shut them up, just to not listen to them...
/. and the moderators. After all, if I troll/offtopic/flamebait/hot grits myself and everyone else here to death, eventually I might have such negative karma that I'm on a blacklist and all my posts go to -1 automatically. Hey, I'm just a legitimate poster! And now no one gets to hear me rant about natalie portman or whatever unless they opt-in -- after all, default reading is at a threshold of 0.
If MAPS loses, then maybe the Slashdot trolls will move forward with lawsuits agains
Maybe the judge should rule that Outlook, Eudora, Netscape and every other e-mail client that can filter out junk mail disable that feature, and even require people to read all their junk e-mail in full
Because doesn't everyone, especially corporations and people with lots of money, have the right to force others to listen?
-----------
-----------
If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, forget 'em, because man, they're gone. -- Jack