Spammers Land Optusnet On spews.org Blacklist

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."

Comments

Spews.com is a porn site!

[jelwell]

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.

Re:Spews.com is a porn site!

[alexburke]

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.)

Re:Spews.com is a porn site!

[jesser]

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".

huh?

[dcardamo]

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.

Re:huh?

[jesser]

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...

Well maybe they weren't doing their job

[GoatPigSheep]

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.

Re:Well maybe they weren't doing their job

[bakes]

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.

New SPAM logo?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

A bit over the top

[term0r]

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.

Re:A bit over the top

[COAngler]

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.

Re:A bit over the top

[ghostrider_one]

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.

Re:A bit over the top

[sfe_software]

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...

Re:A bit over the top

[Philbert Desenex]

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.

Re:A bit over the top

[SomeoneYouDontKnow]

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.

I see Slashdot has changed its "spam" icon...

[MillionthMonkey]

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.

Re:I see Slashdot has changed its "spam" icon...

[Phroggy]

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).

Not *all* optus

[sprayNwipe]

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.

Re:Not *all* optus

[Xenex]

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....

Re:Not *all* optus

[sprayNwipe]

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

Removed already

[cdraus]

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.

this topic is already obsolete.

[motherhead]

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

Contracts ?

[antv]

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.

Re:Contracts ?

[Phroggy]

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.

Re:Contracts ?

[seebs]

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.

Re:Contracts ?

[nehril]

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. :)

Seems to be fixed already

[BlowCat]

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.

Story errors

[kimba]

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.

Power structures on the 'net

[gusnz]

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.

Re:Power structures on the 'net

[SomeoneYouDontKnow]

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.

Re:Power structures on the 'net

[topham]

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.

Re:Power structures on the 'net

[SomeoneYouDontKnow]

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.

Re:Power structures on the 'net

[topham]

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.)

Re:Power structures on the 'net

[topham]

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.

Re:Power structures on the 'net

[Rick the Red]

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.

Overblow, over-hyped.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Overblow, over-hyped.

[richard-parker]

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).

How to deal

[Lothsahn]

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.

Top spam ISPs: UUnet, Qwest and Sprint. I hate you

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Big debate

[macdaddy]

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.

blocking IP traffic

[Barbarian]

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

Freedom of association

[Kibo]

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."

Re:Top spam ISPs: UUnet, Qwest and Sprint. I hate

[Guppy06]

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.

Re:How to deal, Me too

[budgenator]

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.

Re:Hmmmm...

[SomeoneYouDontKnow]

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.

More harm than good?

[Kasreyn]

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

Re:Just one typo

[sharkey]

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

How to stop uu.net

[sik puppy]

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

Re:Hmmmm...

[Splat]

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.