Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spammers Land Optusnet On spews.org Blacklist

Posted by timothy on from the anger-is-good-use-the-force dept.

downundarob writes: "In Australia there are essentially only two major backbone suppliers; eventually all traffic either rides on Telstra (Part govt. owned) or OptusNet (part of C&W Optus). According to this page OptusNet has gotten itself on spews.com blacklist, potentially causing issues for a large percentage of Australian Internet users." Update: 09/30 12:01 GMT by T :DanielS writes: "Looks like Optus did indeed back down; according to the SPEWS listing & delisting info page, Optus were removed after shutting down the DNS service."

91 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. Mulligan. by 1337+$14X0r · · Score: 1, Funny

    http://spews.org perhaps?

    --

    --- Sigs are dumb.

  2. Spews.com is a porn site! by jelwell · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How did that porn sneak into the article?

    Someone is not checking the (non) links!
    I highly doubt a porn site that pops up banner ads is a well regarded spammer blacklist site.
    Joseph Elwell.

    1. Re:Spews.com is a porn site! by cvore · · Score: 1

      The lucky guy that owns that site sure is happy now: His banner site just got ./ed

    2. Re:Spews.com is a porn site! by alexburke · · Score: 2

      Someone is not checking the (non) links!

      Somehow that makes me think of Hooters in Amsterdam...

      (I'd post a link, but Slashdot's search is b0rken right now.)

    3. Re:Spews.com is a porn site! by jesser · · Score: 2

      The goal of some porn site owners, selling domain names through extortion, just got easier. Now they can they tell victims not only "people searching for your site will find our porn" and "people trying to guess at your domain name will find our porn", but also "news sites will link to our porn while talking about your site".

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
  3. huh? by dcardamo · · Score: 5, Informative

    spews.com is a porn site for sale.... spews.org on the other hand. Might want to change that link before 18 year olds go to it.

    1. Re:huh? by jesser · · Score: 2

      spews.com is a porn site for sale.... spews.org on the other hand. Might want to change that link before 18 year olds go to it.

      I wouldn't have looked at the site if you hadn't said that...

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    2. Re:huh? by Edgewize · · Score: 1

      Why, are we afraid of flooding the porn site with too many customers? It's the under-18's that we need to worry about :P

  4. Well maybe they weren't doing their job by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All internet companies have a duty to stamp out spam. If they do not they get blacklisted. Maybe optusnet should try and do a better job at bringing joustice to spam throwers.

    --
    GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
    1. Re:Well maybe they weren't doing their job by bakes · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe optusnet should try and do a better job at bringing joustice to spam throwers

      Yes, I agree that skewering spammers with long pointy sticks is a great idea.

      --
      Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
    2. Re:Well maybe they weren't doing their job by AcidDan · · Score: 1
      If they do not they get blacklisted. Maybe optusnet should try and do a better job at bringing joustice to spam throwers.

      For those of us on Telstra, there was an earlier problem with Telstra's mail servers being open in about (that is, someone from outside the T$ network could use the mail servs to send mail).



      If Optus has a prob like this - it should be fixed fairly quickly - I'd expect to see something on one of Australia's Broadband Community Websites: Whirlpool shortly...



      -- Dan =)


  5. New SPAM logo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Could it be that /. is finally respecting Hormel's trademark? Was it out of goodwill or did the lawyers come a-callin'?

    1. Re:New SPAM logo? by lhaeh · · Score: 1

      I remember a recent slashdot article about that, might have been another site though.

  6. Stupid me. (Don't mod parent down please) by Scoria · · Score: 1

    Oops.

    I misread the article and thought that Telstra maintained a blacklist and had listed Optus. Dur.

    --
    Do you like German cars?
  7. A bit over the top by term0r · · Score: 3, Flamebait

    Mr Barry said Optus had been fooled by a simple ruse as the spam gang split its operations, setting up the computer with sites to be spammed in the US and hosting the domain name server at Optus.

    It seems that the server running on the Optus network is only acting as a Domain server for the spamming. I would hope if this is the case, that the server actually doing the Spamming, which is in the states, has also been black listed.

    Plus, as the article says, running a nameserver is not against the Terms and Conditions of Optus, so there is little they can do about this.
    Anti-Spam people often seem to be so wrapped up in their cause, they often don't realise they are doing more harm than good, i.e. blocking half of Australia's email.

    1. Re:A bit over the top by motherhead · · Score: 1

      One would assume that the spam server in the states is indeed blacklisted as well, if it hadn't been already.

      i think the push of this article is that since aus only has two backbones. the blacklisting of Optus is really going to effect the population at large (in australia).

      now. back to drinking.

    2. Re:A bit over the top by COAngler · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Plus, as the article says, running a nameserver is not against the Terms and Conditions of Optus, so there is little they can do about this.



      They can change their TOS. They can forbid spam-support services from using their networks. They can refuse to renew their contracts with spammers.



      Anti-Spam people often seem to be so wrapped up in their cause, they often don't realise they are doing more harm than good, i.e. blocking half of Australia's email.



      Well, Optus got listed because they failed to respond to spam complaints. For this past month, I've been getting more spam volume than the volume from my Bugtraq subscription. About a quarter of that was connected to Optus in one way or another. In other words, Optus has been filling my mailbox with crap. I lose nothing by blocking them, and it makes my life easier.



      The one response I've had from Optus that wasn't an autoack amounted to "Screw you. Hosting spammers is legal." If their customers consider that to be acceptable net behavior, then they don't need to email me. There is no legal right to send email, anywhere in any Constitution in any nation at all. Or any legal need for me to accept it.

    3. Re:A bit over the top by ghostrider_one · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Well, Optus got listed because they failed to respond to spam complaints. For this past month, I've been getting more spam volume than the volume from my Bugtraq subscription. About a quarter of that was connected to Optus in one way or another. In other words, Optus has been filling my mailbox with crap. I lose nothing by blocking them, and it makes my life easier.

      Optus didnt "fail to respond to spam complaints", they chose not to act on the complaints of a few millitant anti-spam types who think that everyone associated with whatever they decide is "spam" should be blackballed from the Internet. It's boycott blacklisting, and it's a blackmail tool, pure and simple.

      They are, in effect, saying to Optus 'You cannot have this person as a client, or anyone else that we decide is involved with spam, or we will blacklist you to force you to accept our demands'. It's complete BS. Who died and appointed spews.org the spam police? It's organised extortion, and good for Optus for not backing down. Hopefully they will sue spews.org and put them out of business.

    4. Re:A bit over the top by sfe_software · · Score: 2

      i think the push of this article is that since aus only has two backbones. the blacklisting of Optus is really going to effect the population at large (in australia).

      Only to those utilizing the blacklist (which is done by choice).

      If I were an ISP using such a blacklist, and something this large were blacklisted, I'd stop using it. It seems thousands of people would get denied in the name of blocking one spammer...

      --
      NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
    5. Re:A bit over the top by Kryptonomic · · Score: 1
      they decide is "spam"

      Then tell me who should get to decide what is spam?

      A) People who are bothered by unsolicited e-mail?
      B) People who're trying to make money with it?

    6. Re:A bit over the top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Please "ghostrider_one", post your email address. I'd like to mail you today, and tommorow, and again, and again... Now if you decide to block me or try stop me, I'll just sue your censoring ass.

      Now what was that email addy?

      * GOAT *

    7. Re:A bit over the top by Philbert+Desenex · · Score: 2

      Anti-Spam people often seem to be so wrapped up in their cause, they often don't realise they are doing more harm than good, i.e. blocking half of Australia's email.

      Spam people often seem to be so wrapped up in their advertising, they often don't realize they are doing more harm than good, i.e. pissing off 99.9% of their victims to the point where the victims engage in irrationally angry responses to the ads.

      Email advertising is theft. Thieves must be punished. Corporate entities have proved more than once (AGIS, "Pink" contracts) to be basically on the side of spammers. Half of Australia's emails is blocked? Tough. I only hope that half of Korea's spam I mean email gets blocked, too.

    8. Re:A bit over the top by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is a right way to handle spam - make it cost money. Every other advertising vehicle, from web banners and pop-ups to bulk mail in your mailbox costs money. Spam email doesn't.

      The solution today is to let ISP charge for mail being sent out. A very, very tiny amount of money would go a long way to eliminate the problem. Oh, and yes - there needs to be a clear precident that use of an open relay to bounce mail is a theft of service with a minimum $10,000 fine.

      Spam is a problem, but I don't think for a moment blocking email is a solution to it.

    9. Re:A bit over the top by SomeoneYouDontKnow · · Score: 2

      Who gets to decide what's spam and who gets blocked? For me, I do. If I don't like what someone on the network is doing, who they're hosting, what color their hair is, or anything else, I can blacklist them. If they value having connectivity to my little corner of the network, then they can change whatever it is I don't like. If they don't care that I'm blocking them, they're free to go on doing whatever they want, and they'll never get off my blacklist. You can call it blackmail all you want, but there ain't a thing you can do about it. There is no right to connectivity. If you don't like that, tough. Build your own network, and you can do whatever you want. Just don't piss in my pool and expect me not to do something.

      --
      That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
  8. I see Slashdot has changed its "spam" icon... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When did this happen? I actually like the new icon. The old one was a little disparaging to Hormel.
    I could never stand SPAM anyway. I guess I'd eat it if I were trapped in a fallout shelter. Maybe.

    1. Re:I see Slashdot has changed its "spam" icon... by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Informative

      When did this happen? I actually like the new icon. The old one was a little disparaging to Hormel.
      I could never stand SPAM anyway. I guess I'd eat it if I were trapped in a fallout shelter. Maybe.

      Hormel's official policy is that they object to the use of their logo to refer to junk -mail. It was only a matter of time before Slashdot changed it (either voluntarily or involuntarily).

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    2. Re:I see Slashdot has changed its "spam" icon... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Hormel's official policy is that they object to the use of their logo to refer to junk -mail. It was only a matter of time before Slashdot changed it (either voluntarily or involuntarily).

      Changing the icon to a little pig carved from a block of spam is truly poetic justice, in that case. Maybe someday Hormel will choose to market a product like that and this image can be used as an example of prior art.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Not *all* optus by sprayNwipe · · Score: 4, Informative

    Note that this is only for people who subscribe to Optus's OptusNet dial-up service. If you use Optus@Home, an account through another provider that uses C&W's bandwidth, or even if you use another Optus dial-up service besides OptusNet (Dingo Blue?), you won't be affected.

    1. Re:Not *all* optus by cdraus · · Score: 1

      I'd say that Dingo Blue would have been affected as their hostnames are still optusnet.com.au (for some strange reason).

    2. Re:Not *all* optus by andrewcb · · Score: 1

      Dingoblue users would be affected, as it does use the optusnet mail infrastructure, just it's a different hostmask for incoming messages. Otherwise it's just the same servers et al for the dialup customers.

      It would also affect optusnet perm. customers (ie: isdn) who use the optusnet mail servers.

      ---
      acb

      --
      --- acb!irc.slashnet.org
    3. Re:Not *all* optus by Xenex · · Score: 2

      How could this not affect Dingo Blue accounts? The hostmasks are identical to an OptusNet one.

      I personally use Dingo Blue, and (on IRC for example) there's no way to tell that I'm not an Optus user.

      I'm going to be somewhat annoyed if stuff stops working....

    4. Re:Not *all* optus by sprayNwipe · · Score: 2

      Well, I wasn't sure, hence the question mark next to Dingo Blue.

  10. porn threat by Kallahar · · Score: 1

    We're really in trouble if a porn site is running the spam blacklist! What's next, blocking all sites with non-sex content?

    Travis

  11. Removed already by cdraus · · Score: 5, Informative

    from www.spews.org:

    Optusnet.com.au, reports they have shut down the dynamic-DNS spam service run by the Dean Westbury gang on their network. In response, the SPEWS listed network addresses were removed from the list.

  12. Shut out by muttley8 · · Score: 1

    Spam natzi say: OptusNet users, no /. for you 1 year.

  13. this topic is already obsolete. by motherhead · · Score: 2, Redundant

    dear lord... must be an international date line or something.

    Optusnet.com.au, reports they have shut down the dynamic-DNS spam service run by the Dean Westbury gang on their network.

    In response, the SPEWS listed network addresses were removed from the list.

    Updated listing for Dean Westbury: http://spews.org/html/S453.html

  14. Contracts ? by antv · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Umm, why those blacklists are implemented on public backbones (like above.net, etc) ?

    It's not like one of those anti-spam guys filters all connections to his personal machine,. If I pay to my ISPs and they pay to backbone, aren't they supposed to provide me with all the bandwith I want without filtering it ? How come someone on ISP could decide which mail I want to receive ? I'm paying for Internet, not for a part of Internet, and if I want to filter out spam, I would do so myself w/o anyone's help.

    There was a recent case when macromedia.com wasn't accessible because some idiot mistaken it for a spam house - but WFT public backbone started using it ?

    Shouldn't OpusNet be able to sue whatever ISP was doing filtering for breach of contract ? I presume contract does not say "any psycho could censor all IP packets if he thinks one of the name servers is might be used by spammer", so ISPs that do this filtering should be open for a lawsuit, at least from their users.

    --
    Obama 2012: our incompetent asshole is slightly less of an incompetent asshole than the other incompetent asshole !
    1. Re:Contracts ? by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Informative

      The ISP can easily take the defense that they have the right to protect their network from abuse, and an RBL is an acceptible means to help do that. I'm sure the fine print allows them to do it; if you're not sure, read your contract again.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    2. Re:Contracts ? by seebs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The terms of service never guarantee connectivity, and frankly, not blacklisting spammers means overall worse connectivity than blacklisting spammers.

      It's a "cooperative network". If you don't cooperate, we don't network with you.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    3. Re:Contracts ? by nehril · · Score: 2
      This blackmail method of dealing with spammers is wrong and obviously just doesn't work given the amount of spam everyone is still getting. Taking down innocent, third party sites via blacklist in order to extort action from the ISP seems hard to justify ethically, no matter how much you hate spam.

      Playing whack-a-mole with spammer ISPs doesn't work. they get a new dialup, they bounce off mail relays, they up the ante in this arms race. We should spend more effort making these spammers not want to spam: take away the incentive to do so and the problem goes away without hurting bystanders.

      Some very simple legislation that targets the *businesses* (not the spamhouses that they subcontract to) that are advertising by spam could be very effective. Similar to the fax laws in place, the business would have to show that each and every email sent was opted-in somehow. When actual businesses start getting sued for $500/email, they will simply stop doing business with spamhouses that don't work via opt-in. Selling giant email address lists becomes useless, and harvesting the free webmail accounts via vrfy becomes useless. Necessarily, the advertising business must be findable. No need to crawl through ip logs of hacked relay boxes to find the spamhouse, go straight to the TRUE source of the spam.

      While this does little for foreign owned, foreign originated spam, it goes a long way towards reducing spam responsibly. Any foreign companies who continue to do this could have some of their assets in the US frozen. If any employee of the company were to set foot in the US they could be arrested Dmitry style. Other governments can implement similar laws if their people hate spam enough.

      no matter how much you hate spam, taking action against non-spammers in order to force action from an ISP is unjustifiable. Shame on organizations that use such reprehensible tactics, they must be staffed with persons of "leisurely moral growth"*.

      *Thank you, Larry Wall, for such a great phrase. :)

    4. Re:Contracts ? by Nurf · · Score: 1

      I disagree with you.

      You haven't seen an internet without blocking lists, hence you can say nothing intelligent about the volume of spam now vs the volume of spam on such a hypothetical network.

      The internet is a COOPERATIVE. You become antisocial, I cut you out the group. Customers can move to a ISP that is a good netizen. Using a blacklisted ISP isn't like death - it's easily fixable.

      I for one would be very pleased to give my own ISP the what-for if I found out they were abetting spammers. Then I'd move elsewhere. It's part of being a good netizen.

      --
      ---
    5. Re:Contracts ? by r5ahhj · · Score: 1

      I disagree. What is working with SPEWS is the amount of "collateral damage" that ISP spam support policies are having on innocent bystanders. Nothing talks louder than an irate customer telling their ISP to clean up their act or lose business! It has certainly gotten optus to change, while polite requests were simply ignored. Time will tell if SPEWS actually makes a dent in spamming. Things look good so far -- some huge ISPs are using the SPEWS list, while other huge ISPs are paying the price for harboring spammers. However, a lot of other things started with a lot of promise but proved to be too slow or ineffective.

    6. Re:Contracts ? by r5ahhj · · Score: 1

      antv, your ISPs may be sick of spammers crashing their mail servers. Your ISP has every right to control the property they own and decide whom they communicate with. Would you also be annoyed if your ISP prevented DOS attacks or other security risks from reaching your machine? Why are you so anxious to spend time, money, and bandwidth to receive junk e-mails? Seek out one of the ISPs listed on SPEWS if you love spam so much.

  15. Seems to be fixed already by BlowCat · · Score: 3, Redundant
    From http://spews.org/news.html :
    [29/Sep/01] OptusNet listing removed
    Optusnet.com.au, reports they have shut down the dynamic-DNS spam service run by the Dean Westbury gang on their network. In response, the SPEWS listed network addresses were removed from the list.
    1. Re:Seems to be fixed already by BlowCat · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that the moderators who moderated me as "redundant" were not browsing at -1. Maybe it's time to enforce this rule in software instead of expecting moderators to be honest? Anybody browsing at -1 would surely find a better use for their mod points.

  16. Story errors by kimba · · Score: 5, Informative

    1. OptusNet is owned by Optus which is owned by Singapore's SingTel. Cable and Wireless sold Optus some time ago.

    2. Optus and Telstra aren't the only backbone providers in Australia, to say that all traffic in .au ultimately goes through them is a lie. For example, UUNet is a very large backbone provide in Australia. (Probably bigger than Optus)

    I think we can mark downundarob down as +1 Troll.

    1. Re:Story errors by saundo · · Score: 1

      Your first point is accurate. OptusNet, the old Microplex, was purchased by C&W Optus prior to the listing of CWO on the ASX. They've had a spam problem for a while now.

      Optus and Telstra are the major backbone providers out of Australia. Yes, UUNet is a in-Australia provider, but they will ultimately be using Telstra for their last-mile connections. The last time I looked, UUNet was still using Singtel Optus for upstream connectivity, mostly because of the big fat OC-3 pipes to C&W's Global.Net. And they certainly have to use the transit connections to Telstra to reach the Telstra connected sites, as I don't recall seeing any IX announcements of Telstra, SingTelO and Connect/UUNet being made.

      --
      -- The problem with troubleshooting is that sometimes trouble shoots back.
  17. A pig?! by TalShiar00 · · Score: 1

    Did Slashdot get tired of hearing from lawyers and remove the can of spam???

  18. Power structures on the 'net by gusnz · · Score: 2, Informative

    Even though I support any move against spammers, as would most /.ers, does it worry anyone how much influence these groups can freely wield over the net? We complain about ICANN being undemocratic, but when it comes to spam... argh, between a rock and a hard place :).

    If that situation did perpetuate itself, would there be any legal liability on behalf of either Optus or spews.org for the intentional breach of service to the rest of Optus' customers? You would think that after a while the customers would start suing either or both parties to the dispute.

    --
    <!-- DHTML / JavaScript menu, popup tooltip, Ajax scripts -->
    1. Re:Power structures on the 'net by COAngler · · Score: 1
      If that situation did perpetuate itself, would there be any legal liability on behalf of either Optus or spews.org for the intentional breach of service to the rest of Optus' customers? You would think that after a while the customers would start suing either or both parties to the dispute.



      Spews set itself up in a way that makes it hard to sue and harder to serve. It's not exactly incorporated, and most if not all the principals are unknown.



      FWIW, spammers have tried suing blocklist operators before. MAPS has, thus far, beaten pretty much every legal challenge against them, although the latest one with Media3 came to a somewhat questionable settlement. At least in the US, the precedent is in favor of the blocklist operators.



      As for suing the providers...I frankly don't know. If my own ISP managed to get itself listed, I'd consider suing them for failing to enforce its AUP and therefore interfering with my service.

    2. Re:Power structures on the 'net by grahammm · · Score: 1

      Spammers may have tried suing blacklist operators, but have any innocent (non-spamming) victims who have also been blocked ever sued either the blacklist operators or the ISPs who use these list?

    3. Re:Power structures on the 'net by cdrguru · · Score: 1
      Almost - we were recently blocked and the "operator" of the blocking list (not SPEWS) just about got served papers. They listed us because of how our IP address was once used. Wonderful. Then, the "operator" was out of town and PacBell implemented their list as the "main" filter for their mail. Of course, this resulted in a deluge of complaints. Because this is a "hobby" for the operator, nobody was around to answer the phone, faxes, FedEx'd letters, etc.


      Finally, after about a week of not being able to respond to tech support inquiries and such we got ahold of the operator and it was fixed.


      The impact was fairly limited, but I assure you blocking a business and intefering with their revenue is a very serious business. We were certainlying willing to "go to the mat" over this - because capitulation in any form says you're wrong on some level.

    4. Re:Power structures on the 'net by SomeoneYouDontKnow · · Score: 2

      You're funny. Too bad you have no idea how blacklists work. But I'll explain it to you.

      You claim it should be illegal for a third party to block traffic from one domain to another. I assume you're referring to the blacklists. FYI, the blacklists aren't doing any blocking. None whatsoever. Individual ISPs do the blocking. When a message arrives at their incoming mail server, the server checks the blacklist to see if the connecting machine is on it. If it is, the ISP's mail server rejects the message. If not, the mail goes through. The ISP can use a blacklist like MAPS, SPEWS, etc., they can create their own, they can do both, or they can use no blacklist at all. It's their choice. If your ISP uses a blacklist, and you don't want that, get another ISP. If you can't find one that you like, set up your own. Can't afford that? Can't find a backbone that will let you do what you please with your connection to them? Too bad. There is no right to connectivity. And that little point, my friend, is what makes the blacklists so cool. No one has a right to guaranteed delivery of their mail. If you want a network where no one can block anything, build your own. Just don't expect anyone else to want to connect to it.

      But to get back to your claim that third-party blocking should be illegal, if I own a network segment that traffic passes through, I can let it pass or block it. It's my part of the network, not yours. If you don't like that, find another route for your data packets to take. Just don't expect to be treated differently by anyone else.

      --
      That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
    5. Re:Power structures on the 'net by topham · · Score: 2

      Certain backbone providers have used the blacklists to restrict all types of traffic intended for a blacklisted site. When they do this they cross the line, but many individuals have no method to change backbone providers. In many places all providers have the same backbopne provider.

      I hate spam. But I hate the blacklists as much. They both effect my rights.

    6. Re:Power structures on the 'net by SomeoneYouDontKnow · · Score: 2

      I agree that this can be a pain, but the alternative--requiring anyone connected to the Net to pass all traffic--would be worse. Doing this would effectively outlaw:

      • Filtered ISPs (I don't use them, but I can see where some folks want that.)
      • ISP-created blacklists (Spammers could say their traffic is being blocked and they have a right to delivery.)
      • Booting spammers (If all content has to be passed, then you can't discriminate against one kind.)

      Turning ISPs into common carriers is a scary thing. Customers get disconnected for all kinds of reasons, and allowing the government to step in and make the rules is, IMHO, a bad idea. Now, if you have a monopoly situation created by statute or regulatory policy, there may be some room for consideration, but otherwise, providers should be free to do what they want. If enough people walk, their policies will change.

      --
      That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
    7. Re:Power structures on the 'net by topham · · Score: 2

      Never setup a company that does any form of business with the United States without listing its primary contacts. You could find yourself in jail upon entering a state where a judgement was found against you even if you were never served with the lawsuit in the first place.

      Doesn't matter whether you are American or not. Several states allow lawsuit to proceed if the other party cannot be contacted. Note: The lawsuit will likely NOT be in your favour if you cannot be contacted.

      This has happened to a few Canadian companies, the president of one such company entered the state where a lawsuit had been filed and completed a year before. He found himself in jail for failing to follow the judgement. (Details sketchy because I do not remember enough details to find it. Was about 3 years ago.)

    8. Re:Power structures on the 'net by topham · · Score: 2

      perhaps Backbone provers should not be allowed to filter data. Leaving it at the ISP level. Where the end consumer may actually have a choice.

      I've been effected by network bans. I've never been a cause of them, and the solution to fixing it is NOT acceptable to me either. (cablemodem is a monopoly here, while DSL is a joke!).

      Email filtering and blacklists should be done as close to the end-user as possible. In some cases this means it should be user filtering his own mail, in others the ISP. Blacklisting domains so they are in-accessable through backbone providers is sickening. Right now it is done for spam, but a year from now it could be done for Porn. For free encryption tools, etc. Anything some group wants banned.

    9. Re:Power structures on the 'net by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 2
      If enough people walk, their policies will change.


      Walk where? Here, AT&T@Home is the only game in town. Heck, "here" isn't even "in town" -- which is the problem. We're so far out in the country that DSL is not an option. We're so far out in the country that 56K is not an option. We're so far out in the country that 28.8 isn't even an option. Until @Home, 24,000 bps was the best I'd ever seen.

      In some cases, the only game in town is the city-owned cable system. What do people who live there get to do in your "free market" system? They get to move, that's what. Great option! Because they can move elsewhere, their ISP is not a monopoly? Get real.

      Even if your solution were practical and affordable, it does nothing when I send an email from my non-blacklisting ISP of choice to your non-blacklisting ISP of choice and it still doesn't get through because some 3rd party in between us decides one of us is a spammer.

      I agree with the post that says we need better laws -- both against spammers and against vigilanties. ISP are common carriers and the law should recognize that fact. Spammers are preying on otherwise law-abiding citizens and the law should recognize that fact, too. We won't solve one problem without solving the other. The vigilanties (and their supporters here on /.) don't understand that they are not part of the solution, just another problem for the rest of us to solve. We will solve it, one way or the other. If you're not part of the search for a reasonable solution, don't complain when the government-imposed solution targets you.

      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
  19. Overblow, over-hyped. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    A few minor facts.
    #1. Spews has very minor penetration. Going via
    the optusnet mailservers I can't find anywhere
    that actually bounced my mail while the block
    was in place.

    Consequence of which is that basically no-one
    would have noticed the spews block.

    #2. 'half of australia's traffic is unmitigated
    nonsense. 'Optusnet' is the dial-up arm of
    Optus and it currently ranked as the #3 (or #4
    depending on who's counting) ISP in australia.
    Their market share is nothing like 50%. 10% maybe.

    #3. 'won't be able to reach large parts
    of Europe and the US' is sheer junk. As mentioned
    about, the number of sites that use spews appears
    to be near zero. Does anyone know a major site
    that actually _uses_ spews? I couldn't find one.

    1. Re:Overblow, over-hyped. by richard-parker · · Score: 5, Informative

      Does anyone know a major site that actually _uses_ spews? I couldn't find one.

      I couldn't find any statements (definitive or otherwise) from any big players saying that they are using SPEWS. However, by looking at the reports in news.admin.net-abuse.email and the bounce messages that I asked to be forwarded to me I think the two largest users of SPEWS are:

      Pacific Bell - a large telecom on the US west coast.

      Outblaze - a mailbox outsource company which handles mail for such sites as Mail.Com (a free mailbox provider).

    2. Re:Overblow, over-hyped. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Hello fellow Coward,

      I could find two, a "little" company called Outblaze who seems to do quite a bit of email outsourcing (quote: "over 30 million mailboxes under managment"), and a real "tiny" one with a market valuation of only $158 billion called SBC Communications. Better known to 'net users as Ameritech, Nevada Bell, Pacific Bell (PacBell), SBC Telecom, SNET, Southwestern Bell.

      Probably more, but I didn't look too hard. Maybe Optus should subscribe, it'd sure cut down on all than Yank spam sent "daan-unda" - Oui!

    3. Re:Overblow, over-hyped. by cdrguru · · Score: 1
      While there is little that can said in favor of spam, the rabid anti-spam crowd is often doing more of a disservice than a service.


      My company was recently blocked because of an incorrect identification of an IP address as dialup. This took 7 days to resolve because the person responsible was out of town. So, for seven days we could not send mail to some customers that had purchased our products and could not respond to some tech support inquiries.


      Damn right we were going to sue. Not because we couldn't "spam" people, but because the blocking was interfering in our business communications and the "operator" of the "service" that was blocking us was utterly unreachable.


      We finally did get it resolved, but it took a while. This might be a way to deal with open relays. It is NOT a way to deal with anything else and it there needs to clear understanding of the potential liabilities to blocking email.

  20. How to deal by Lothsahn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At times like this, I kinda wish that ISP's would create an e-mail system where anyone wanting to send me an e-mail was charged, say, .02c, for instance. My e-mails could pay for part of my internet connection, and spammers wouldn't spam as much, because it'd highly raise the cost of messaging me. When the user read the message the first time, he would also have the option of waiving the fee for his friends, family, etc. I know it'd take a lot to implement this, but it'd be a really great system.

    On another note: I've been getting Chinese spam at my e-mail address for quite a while now. At first, it was only coming from one address for a while, but now it's coming from multiple addresses. This would all be well and good, except I DON'T SPEAK CHINESE. Feh. We've gotta do something.

    --
    -=Lothsahn=-
  21. why don't /.ers understand the new logo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The new logo is a pig made of SPAM. Why can't you see that? Personally I think it's better as it's slightly more bizarre than the all-too-obvious can of spam. Actually, they should rotate the various things the spam is made out of - pig, squirrel, sponges, Steve Ballmer, etc.

  22. Re:Let me get this straight... by xQx · · Score: 1

    Didn't president Bush say we should get ON with life?

  23. Some Related Links to Calm down On. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Has all the coolest spam songs.
    http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:9uo5LNULpnQ :w ww.orca.bc.ca/spamalbum/+spamalbum

    My favorite lyrics
    http://www.orca.bc.ca/spamalbum/lyrics/pacific-l in k.txt

    and Favorite acompanying song
    http://www.orca.bc.ca/spamalbum/256k/pacific-lin k. mp3

    Enjoy! Laugh! Be Happy!

    Death to spam.

  24. Just the Opposite by datavortex · · Score: 1
    By failing to blackhole traffic that causes network problems, especially on the mail systems, I can guarantee real downtime for the end users. ISPs are left with little choice but to filter bad connections, and it is what 99.9% of the users out there demand of us in the first place.

    There was one evening some months ago where I made a CVS error which resulted in Earthlink's MX servers accepting connections from every single IP attempting to connect. Two servers (of many) died instantly and the previous version of the blockfile had to be reinstated just to get sendmail accepting connections again. The rest of the servers slowed to a crawl. Mail that was in the spool at the time was delayed up to an hour and a half. And that was missing the denyfile that we use for... I'd say 7 minutes.

    --

    He either comes off as a real interesting guy with encyclopedic knowledge,or a pathological liar with an ax to grind
  25. Top spam ISPs: UUnet, Qwest and Sprint. I hate you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    http://www.spamhaus.org/top10.lasso

    1. Cybernet Business Professionals (hosted by UUNet)
    2. Qwest (qwest.net)
    3. Sprint (sprintlink.net)

    Now that I know of your policies, I'll be making sure to take my business elsewhere in the future.

  26. Big debate by macdaddy · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's a big debate on the news.admin.new-abuse.email newsgroup about Spews and their policies about not allowing contact from blocked people except for a newsgroup which isn't their own, NANAE. I have mixed views on it. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, not accepting mail to abuse@ and postmaster@ for a given domain is a blatent violation of the RFCs. I reject around 32k pieces of spam a week. Abuse@ and postmaster@ always accept mail, even from blocked domains. There should be some reliable way of contacting these people if I get listed. My $.02 anyhow. Night all.

    1. Re:Big debate by Farce+Pest · · Score: 1

      postmaster@spews.org appears to work. abuse@spews.org does not, but this is not relevant. Not all domains are required to have an abuse address.

      --
      This message has been scanned for memes and dangerous content by MindScanner, and is believed to be unclean.
  27. blocking IP traffic by Barbarian · · Score: 2
    The black-listing meant that Optus dial-up users would be blocked from networks that participate in the ban - meaning they won't be able to view websites or send and receive email on participating networks.


    Blocking general IP traffic in this manner is a very disturbing trend, one that seemed to get started with Above.net, notably mentioned on /. when peacefire.org was blocked.

    cue all the zealots who believe this is a good thing

    1. Re:blocking IP traffic by r5ahhj · · Score: 1

      This trend that you claim to be disturbing is eclipsed by a far more disturbing trend of spammers raping relays, crashing mail servers, promoting scams, and basically stealing. What is so disturbing about denying traffic from an IP block that harbors known theives? Network owners are free to do with their property as they please, even if it means denying rogue traffic.

  28. w00t! by Hadlock · · Score: 1

    notch one up for the anti-spammers,

    total score: spammers - billions upon of billions of emails, antispammers: 2 or 3.

    the this battle's been won, but we still have the entire war ahead of us.
    -----------
    i can see the MPAA using this as an anti-digital audio tactic, spamming people from a specific network that has alot of MP3 traffic, until the network is blacklisted, and threaten to continue to spam/keep the network blacklisted until they limit the transmission of MP3's across that network.

    just an idea.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  29. Re:Hints for dealing with pacifists. by Snootch · · Score: 1
    What happens when said pacifist punching thug decides to resist arrest and punches the cop? Having someone else do your violence for you doesn't make it better.

    1. A cop is trained and authorised to restrain and detain someone while causing the minimum damage to the person themself or to any bystanders
    2. Calling a cop in / punching the troll back is not the same as killing everyone in the area around said troll. That's the difference between justice and mindless war.
  30. Freedom of association by Kibo · · Score: 2

    Like it or lump it. If other people don't like the crowd a certain someone hangs with, those people are free to be as judgemental as *they* feel inclined to be. This goes for companies too. It's the curse of free markets around the world; people get to choose who they deal with. It hardly rises to the level of extortion, but who am I to interupt bad analogy theater?

    Maybe one bad apple spoils the bunch, or maybe one shouldn't throw the baby out with bath water. But who is anyone, to tell anyone else, who they MUST associate with, and what odious behavior they MUST endure in the process?

    In short: "Negative Ghostrider, the pattern is pull."

    --
    --Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
  31. Just one typo by davemie · · Score: 1

    It's funny, you make one typo and you're viewing a porn site. What's the web coming to!!!

    1. Re:Just one typo by sharkey · · Score: 2

      I think the the President of the USA had a statement on that subject. Check out The White House site: www.whitehouse.com.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  32. Re:Hints for dealing with pacifists. by xQx · · Score: 1

    Nah, I'm not european... (can't even spell the fuckin' place) ... actually southern hemisphere.

    Hell, I don't really mind if you americans want to just go out and mindlessly bomb the fuck out of some innocent people. I'm just pointing out that it'd be a rather shallow, and illogical move.

    Fortunatly for the rest of the world, Bush has some good advisors by his side who are thinking "Hmm, who the fuck are we going to target" rather than "Someone has to pay. someone has to pay now"

    Fer the record too, I'm not a big socialist fan either. Give me capitilism or give me death.

  33. For those who need an official definition... by Stenpas · · Score: 1

    spam (spm)
    n.

    Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail.

    And a couple more definitions just to be clear on what the above is saying:

    junk
    adj.

    1.Cheap, shoddy, or worthless
    2.Having a superficial appeal or utility, but lacking substance

    and

    unsolicited (ns-ls-td)
    adj.

    Not looked for or requested; unsought

    Dictionary.com rules.

  34. Re:Top spam ISPs: UUnet, Qwest and Sprint. I hate by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

    Qwest and UUNet I can do without, but Sprint has some darned nifty services (Sprint ION, if it ever gets out the door). That, and us USAA members get all sorts of discounts from Sprint (EarthLink, long distance, PCS, etc.). So my current solution to that problem is to send a letter to USAA (who seem very privacy-oriented) and asking them if they really want to associate with a company that has such a reputation. I figure they can put more pressure on Sprint to change their ways than I can.

  35. Hmmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    In checking some of the spews.org listings for the spammers involved, I noticed that several of them list their HOME TELEPHONE NUMBERS on their whois records...

    Shouldn't we show them how much we LIKE their
    service(s)... say by calling them up and telling them ...at 3 A.M.?

    I think that's a great idea myself....

    1. Re:Hmmmm... by SomeoneYouDontKnow · · Score: 2

      Not really. It's been known to happen that spammers will list someone else's number or e-mail in their domain registration, usually someone who's reported them in the past.

      --
      That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
    2. Re:Hmmmm... by Splat · · Score: 2

      All the better to stop them. Now that means they're probably violating the terms of service at the Registrar they got their domain name at. Last time I checked, providing false info on a domain record for most registrars was grounds for account termination. You can't spam real well without some form of domain name.

  36. Re:Hints for dealing with pacifists. by Snootch · · Score: 1

    Tell that to Rodney King. Or that wallet-wielding Haitian in NYC.

    True, but in general, the police are more trustworthy than someone who has just been punched in the face by the aggressor. Also, there are procedures for complaining about and reining in police.

  37. Re:How to deal, Me too by budgenator · · Score: 2
    Large amounts of spam from the far east, I quit trying to deal with it, Our site just forwards it all to user bitbucket and bitbuckets mail all goes to the bitbucket.
    At first the chinese and japanese porn links were amusing, but they're pretty tame by american standards. What does surprise me is some of the stuff that comes from otherwise reputable american companies. I'd have never thought that a company like HP would resort to sleazey SPAM adverts and earn a place on my never-buy-from list but they do. even got one signed by Carly Fiorina herself, so I guess that it means that she can't claim plausable denieability now.

    ISP's charging for SMTP wouldn't really work because it just as easy to send from somewhere else, i.e. our verio account lets us send mail through our server, it's marked as having originated at our site with no real way to tell where it came from before. inshort the SMTP traffic goes through the ISP as packets, they don't realy know whats in 'em just where they are going.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  38. More harm than good? by Kasreyn · · Score: 2

    Picture this: John Q Australian can't get his email and calls Optus. Now in reality he'll get some runaround, but if he were to have a logical conversation with Optus it would go along these lines:

    User: Why can't I get my email?
    Optus: We've been blackholed by a large U.S. blackhole list.
    User: Why?
    Optus: Because of some spammers using Optus.
    User: WELL KICK THEIR BLOODY ASSES OFF!!!

    Naturally, this is not the way the actual phone conversation will go. Doubtless Optus will explain it away, if they explain it at all, with "technical difficulties". But the sheer number of angry letters, calls, and emails will put pressure on them to fix the damn problem.

    What YOU don't realize is that spam is everyone's problem. I'm glad of blackholes like MAPS and spews. I'm glad my ISP uses them, and if my ISP stopped using them I'd find a new ISP. Because I don't enjoy having my time wasted, I don't enjoy having my ISP costs being inflated by the cost of handling spam, and I don't enjoy being treated like a cash cow by rude assholes the world over. If an ISP gets on a blacklist, they need only throw the spam in the trash to get out, and they all know this. Lazy corporations uninterested in stopping spamming customers because it mostly eats OTHER people's resources, does not impress me favorably.

    Blocking half Australia's email? I see that as a GREAT thing. This will focus LOTS of anger and pressure on Optus, who will either shape up quick or begin to lose money. Corporations tend to hate that second option, I've found.

    -Kasreyn

    --
    Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger /. flamers since 1999.
  39. Re:waste of time by KITT_KATT!* · · Score: 1

    I thought Australian IT was a specialist IT site, not "mainstream press".

  40. How to stop uu.net by sik+puppy · · Score: 2

    Bounce ALL uu.net originated spam to sales@uu.net and info@uu.net

    Make their sales staff deal with the consequences of selling pink contracts. My accounts almost never receive spam from uu.net spammers anymore. They have been told to leave me alone because they are tired of dealing with the backlash.

    If everyone would bounce spam from unresponsive isps like this, it might discourage the sale of pink contracts. Its not like uu.net can turn of sales@ without a major headache. Serves the vermin right

    --
    The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
  41. Re:bah by r5ahhj · · Score: 1

    But harboring spammers deserves punishment. Optus has at last kicked of this NOTORIOUS spammer's DNS server.

  42. Re:waste of time by r5ahhj · · Score: 1

    What facts are your "bottom line" based on -- none -- speculation? Apparently some huge providers such as swbell **ARE** using SPEWS. Think of it this way, optus would not have responded unless a lot of their traffic was suddenly bounced. Finally, black hat ISPs are paying the price for being bad netizens.

  43. Re:Hints for dealing with pacifists. by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

    Over 6000 people have been murdered in a single shot.

    What's the first thing you think about?

    A Assume the only response will be "carpetbombing" and post an inappropriate analogy in an attempt to claim intellectual superiority?

    B Tell the victims to shut up and like it?

    Score -2:
    -1 for feeding a troll
    -2 for upsetting your delusion that your analogy was actually valid logic.