Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MAPS and Experian Settle Lawsuit

Posted by michael on from the one-big-happy-family dept.

dbrower writes: "Experian is trumpeting a settlement with MAPS here, where MAPS agreed not to blackhole them without a court order, and agreed that Experian didn't need to do opt-in. Looks like a loss to me."

35 of 313 comments (clear)

  1. Today is a bad day for all email users by hillct · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let there be no question about it. This is a victory for spammers. I hope MAPS elects to keep a list of companies which they are unable to block through their service. Then I could grok the list and be happy once again.

    --CTH

    --

    --Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
  2. Advertising is Pollution by ewhac · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...And spamming is the worst type of pollution; they make you pay for the sludge with your connectivity, time, and frustration.

    It would be interesting to know why MAPS decided to cave in. Perhaps a Slashdot interview is in order?

    I'd like to see MAPS publish a list of IPs it's forbidden to add to its main blocklist, so that we could manually add them to our MAPS config.

    Schwab

    --
    Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
    1. Re:Advertising is Pollution by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 3, Funny

      It would be interesting to know why MAPS decided to cave in.
      <HUMOR>
      Maybe they didn't want their credit rating trashed? ;-)
      </HUMOR>

      HUMOR tags have been added for the humor impaired, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    2. Re:Advertising is Pollution by dgreenwood · · Score: 3, Informative

      MAP's take on this is here
      EXACTIS SUIT AGAINST MAPS DISMISSED October 3, 2001 - REDWOOD CITY, CA - Mail Abuse Prevention System, LLC (MAPSSM) announced today that Experian Emarketing, Inc. (formerly Exactis.com) has dismissed all of the claims which it had previously filed against MAPSSM. "A settlement has been reached in which Experian has committed to requiring their clients to provide them with lists which contain only those email addresses for which they have obtained the addressee's permission to send them email", explained Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., MAPS'SM Director of Legal and Public Affairs. "They have further committed to address and resolve any complaints and concerns which may arise as a result of any mailings they do for either themselves or their clients."

  3. winners or loosers? by Rev.LoveJoy · · Score: 5, Informative
    I have a hard time looking at MAPS vs. the spammers as us agsinst them anymore. For me this has turned into one of those moral dilemas wherein the actions taken by maps are nearly as deplorable as those they are attempting to defeat.

    Do not misunderstand, I am no sympathizer of the spammers. I do not think what they do warrants first ammendmend protection. However, I do not think that MAPS arbitrarily black holing companies who it cannot strong arm with threats really deserves our respect anymore.

    A good idea gone awry.

    Cheers,
    - RLJ

  4. I don't get it! by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 5, Interesting

    MAPS only maintains a database that provides information to others, who seek that information.

    That database expresses an opinion: in the opinion of MAPS, the networks listed in the database are suspected of passing through or generating spam.

    Shouldn't this be protected by the First Amendment?

    1. Re:I don't get it! by btempleton · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Whether it's protected by the 1st amendment is an interesting question. Most probably yes, but not certainly. Clearly the court that issued the TRO didn't think so, since prior restraint on protected speech is supposed to be verboten.

      However, this is not actually relevant. They used the threat of the courts to make a settlement agreement, and settlement agreements are not affected by the first amendment.

      In theory, MAPS could have fought it, and probably (though not certainly) have won on 1st amendment grounds, after a few years and at great expense.

      They always said they were willing to test that out but clearly not that willing. They may be more keen to test it on an actual spammer rather than an operator of single opt-in mailing lists.

      How might the 1st amendment not protect them? I haven't read the TRO, which will have some reasons. However, they might rule that blacklisting isn't a protected activity, even though it involves speech. I wouldn't agree, but I could see courts ruling that way.

      --
      Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
    2. Re:I don't get it! by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Experian only maintains a database that provides information to others, who seek that information. That database expresses an opinion: in the opinion of Experian, the people listed in the database have good or bad credit.

      Shouldn't that be protected by the first amendment and they should be able to do anything they want with it, whether it's accurate or not?

      Or to put it another way, should I be able to put up a web site that is a "blacklist" of employees who are incompetent? What if someone put you on that list unfairly? That's called defamation.

      Free speech doesn't mean you're allowed to say anything you want, regardless of damage.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    3. Re:I don't get it! by Velex · · Score: 3, Insightful
      MAPS only maintains a database that provides information to others, who seek that information. That database expresses an opinion: in the opinion of MAPS, the networks listed in the database are suspected of passing through or generating spam. Shouldn't this be protected by the First Amendment?

      The First Amendment is merely a bunch of words on a piece of paper. It can't protect anything. Instead, it is the people that protect their own liberties of free speech. What this decision means is that the people, unless they resist (which they won't), have allowed their government to become more of a corporate republic than a democratic republic.

      Welcome to the Corporate States of America, where the corporate right to censor out trumps the individual right to press. In the year C.E. 1791, the people believed that every person had the right to speak and publish his mind freely, so they drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights as their supreme law of the land. The times have changed however. To become a valuable player in the world of fast-paced business, like those corporate-sponsored business classes promise you will become, you must become submissive to the will of the corporation you subscribe to. The Bill of Rights is antiquated by this new workplace, where it is common for people to think of employment as selling themselves to someone they hate, doing something they don't like, for a cause they don't approve of. In the Corporate States of America, the people don't believe in the right of free expression, so it atrophies and disappears like an unexercised muscle.

      For Libertarians such as me, it is a very distressing thing to see such egalitarian fervor which was displayed at the outset of the United States of America wither into the Orwellian, business-driven culture expressed in that same country today. Unfortunatly, we Libertarians and egalitarian thinkers are a minority, and it seems as though, in the wake of September 11, our goals will be shattered by a powerful majority, whose corporations and sometimes families have been damaged by the unseen enemy. It seems futile to resist; sometimes I only wait until I am assymilated.

      But I know that I won't be. I believe steadfastly in egalitarian Libertarianism, which forbids this kind of bullying by corporations against disinterested parties. Simply because some advertiser can buy law-expert whores shouldn't give them the right to censor an organization that can't buy the same whores to do battle. Apparently it does, because the judge is incompetent. The judge was appointed by a president who was incompetent. The president was elected by a people who are incompetent.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    4. Re:I don't get it! by benedict · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Corporatism isn't Orwellian -- Orwell's dystopia was a socialist one. It's more like _Brave New World_ than like _1984_. So it's, uh, Huxleian.

      --
      Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
    5. Re:I don't get it! by btempleton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If it's clearly an opinion, it is not defamation. If it could be viewed as a statement of fact, it can be defamation, unless of course, it's true. MAPS wordings have been more like factual statements -- these sites, they say, are known to send [some definition of] spam.

      They might have felt at risk for a defamation ruling. Experian's own databases are highly regulated, subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, so they won't feel a lot of 1st amendment sympathy. Even with the FCRA, they are often wrong and hurt people getting credit who can't afford to sue.

      I don't know the rules, but I could see trouble if you make a statement you claim is opinion, but everybody is treating it as a factual judgement. In this case, Experian claimed they have sent some 40 billion E-mails and MAPS admitted there were less than a dozen spam complaints. That's a lower ratio than just about any site out there, so this may have played a role, though if so, I don't know why they didn't settle earlier.

      --
      Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
    6. Re:I don't get it! by pjrc · · Score: 3, Informative
      MAPS only maintains a database that provides information to others, who seek that information.

      Vixie (who runs MAPS) is the CTO of a backbone internet provider (abovenet) which just happens to be one of those who "seek information". They have a regular history of blocking traffic... of course without explicit permission (and usually without even the knowledge) of downstream ISPs and their unsuspecting customers.

      This is quite a bit different than end users making an informed decision to subscribe to the "service". Likewise, some ISPs subscribe to MAPS on their user's behalf, sometimes without informing them, and other times while leading them to believe the service doesn't impact non-spam messages.

      That database expresses an opinion: in the opinion of MAPS, the networks listed in the database are suspected of passing through or generating spam.

      This is true. ...at least true if "passing through" includes lots of unsuspecting non-spam businesses and users who simply connect to those spamming-suspected networks.

      The lie is in much of the promotion regarding how accurate these opinions are, and the lack of disclosure regarding the non-spam users who are also intentionally blocked. It's quite questionable how well MAPS blocks spam. At the same time, there is no question that MAPS has been responsible for disrupting non-spam communication time and time again.

      For a good taste of the deceptive nature of MAPS, check out their Realtime Blacklist Policy Page. They claim four there are four ways to become blacklisted:

      • Spam Origination
      • Spam Relaying
      • Spam Support Services
      • Netblock Inheritance
      The section about "netblock inheritance" claims that some unsecting users obtains IP address space that was once occupied by a spammer. Note that it doesn't say that they will discontinue listing the non-spammer who is blocked due to "netblock inheritance". But that's only scratching the surface of the deception.

      What that MAPS policy page doesn't clearly explain (or really explain at all) is their regular practice of listing large netblocks, which contain large numbers of non-spammers. It isn't explained that MAPS uses this strong-arm tactic to pressure ISPs that are hosting some spammers by blocking not only the spammer but all of the ISP's unsuspecting non-spam customers.

      MAPS's policy page also doesn't explain that there is no notification to these innocent and unsuspecting bystanders that their communication is being intentionally disrupted simply because some other customer at their ISP is sending spam.

      MAPS's policy page doens't state that they will refuse to stop discrupting messages to non-spammers when it is brought to their attention that a non-spammer has been affected by a netblock that also contains a spammer. (yes, believe it or not, Vixie/MAPS has a long history of refusing to un-block non-spam users when they complain that they are blocked) It certainly doesn't state that it is their intention to block messages to non-spammers and spammers alike, if they happen to be hosted at an ISP that (in MAPS's rather extreem and un-accountable opinions) isn't working hard enough to stop spam.

      Sure, MAPS is entitled to their opinions, and they have the free speech right to share those opinions. Where the line is crossed (IMHO) is:

      • Upstream providers, not end users, subscribing to the service... thereby forcing MAPS's rather extreem opinions on end users without giving them a choice.
      • Misrepresenting their blacklisting policy to imply that they only target spammers and those directly involved in spam... when in truth they intentionally target unsuspecting non-spammers (and never even notify them) simply because they inadvertently chose the same ISP as a spammer did (and the ISP didn't respond by immediately cutting service to an existing customer who MAPS says is a spammer)
      --
      PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
    7. Re:I don't get it! by pjrc · · Score: 3, Informative
      And while I'm on my soapbox... take a look at this this MAPS press release. They write:

      ...the RBL, MAPS' database of IP addresses which have been proven to originate or facilitate the sending of unwanted email...

      Even without the words "have been proven", this is an bold faced LIE. MAPS has a regular practice of blocking large groups of IP numbers (often an entire ISP), with the intention of disruption to the spammer and many non-spammer customers at that same ISP.

      When these non-spammers complain to MAPS that their IP numbers, which certainly don't originate spam and don't facilitate the spammer's activity, have been blocked, the response from MAPS it that these non-spammer need to seek a different ISP.

      To even get close to the truth of how MAPS really operates, perhaps it should read:

      ...the RBL, MAPS' database of IP addresses which may be originating or facilitating unwanted email, or have some loose association with present or prior unwanted email, including unsuspecting users and businesses who happen to be customers at the same ISP as a suspected spammer.

      Of course, there's no requirement to tell the truth in a press release... but this lie is about as blantant as Microsoft's recent press releases claiming IIS is attacked because it's the market leader (when apache is the #1 web server by a considerable margin).

      --
      PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
  5. MAPS must have been scared by btempleton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Making this settlement goes against all their principles, so Experian must have made them afraid for their very existence with this.

    As noted, unless the agreement is very broad, they can certainly name on their web site the companies they have been compelled not to block, and people configuring their own mail filters could decide case by case whether to include them.

    However, if they made an automated list, effectively an alternate blacklist, I could see a court saying they were violating the spirit of the agreement, unless they wrote it carefully to allow them to do this.

    However, oddly enough, it could be to experian's detriment to have it happen manually. If site admins manually put in blocking for their domains, it will be almost impossible for them to get that blocking removed except over a very long period of time, since each admin would have to manually reconfig.

    Of course, they could change the IP address and domain they send mail from to get around that. Somebody (not MAPS) could provide a service that simply lists mail sending IP addresses used by experian, no other comment made.

    --
    Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
  6. Re:Double opt-in? What the hell? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Think about what happens if someone else subscribes you to a mailing list with a high volume. Single opt-in means your mailbox starts getting filled up with mail without giving you any chance to avoid it. Do you really want to enable people to kill your e-mail easily by just signing you up for a few dozen multi-megabyte-per-day single-opt-in mailing lists?

  7. access.db by jmd! · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, experian.com just made it in to my access.db, along with everyone else who's sued maps in the past. Do they have any mail servers outside that domain, anyone know?

    Here's a list of some other companies not understanding what MAPS is and trying to stop them with bogus lawsuits. I hope they don't accidently wind up in your access.db (or whatever your MTA uses).

    yesmail.com
    harrisinteractive.com
    blackice.com
    media3.com
    247media.com
    experian.com
    exactis.com
    liveprayer.com <--- accused MAPS of being an agent of Satan

    To block these in sendmail, use the 550 5.7.1 error code in your access.db file, like so:

    yesmail.com <tab> 550 5.7.1 Spammer suing MAPS.

  8. Re:Double opt-in? What the hell? by AndyS · · Score: 3, Informative

    If I don't sign up for a mailing list, I should not suffer hundreds and hundreds of spam from it.

    If I signed you up to 100 such mailing lists, would you rather get 100 verification mails that you could just delete, or 10,000 mails from the mailing lists that you'd have to unsubscribe from manually?

    The idea of double opt-in isn't designed to make people's lives inconvenient - all it needs is a quick reply. It's pretty easy, I do it all the time. You can even do it from a different e-mail address. However, it does protect those who suffer from massive mailbombing.

  9. History on this case by hillct · · Score: 3, Informative

    In the spirit of Karma Whoring :-)

    Here's some history on this case. It features articles from various stages in the case. Has anyone found the text of the complaint or injunction? still looking...

    --CTH

    --

    --Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
  10. Re:Double opt-in? What the hell? by RollingThunder · · Score: 3, Offtopic

    I believe what they call "double opt-in", is this:

    You punch in an email address at the webform.
    Their system sends a confirmation email, with a token of some sort, to that address.
    You reply, with said token, and the address is confirmed and added to the list.

    It's not that hard, and it also allows you to get your ass off a list even if you don't send from that address any more - if you get the emails forwarded, it's all good.

    Now, if MAPS was demanding something more (and I half expect they may have, it seems to me they've been constantly increasing their requirements), that's unreasonable. But simply verifying that the stated account really wants on the list isn't a huge deal, nor is it hard for the user - AND it pays off for the sending servers, as they spend less time spinning their wheels on bogus/broken addresses.

  11. For those who are confused: by Nindalf · · Score: 4, Funny

    Experian is a company that sells crack by spamming millions of schoolchildren. MAPS (the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) has refused to provide their drug-friendly mailing lists because they insist that crack is not a psychedelic drug. However, Experian threatened to take them to court with the argument that if they can include marijuana under their umbrella, then the definition is broad enough to include crack.

    Wisely recognizing that both sides are better off not attracting the attention of the courts, MAPS has apparently backed down.

    A loss indeed. You can expect many of your peaceful local potheads to become violent criminal crackheads any day now.

    I hope this clears up any misconceptions you may have had from the shamefully vague top-level story. I'm a little fuzzy on some of the details myself, but as usual, trying a few likely domain names gave me access to the essentials.

  12. Re:Double opt-in? What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The realistic problem is that if spammers could claim legitimacy by being single opt-in, they'd just claim they got your address when you (or someone else) requested you be added. What, you want to be removed from their list? Sure no problem... *wink* *wink*

    Double opt-in is the only method that lets YOU as the user have a real way of saying yes or no and holding onto your own email address. Honestly, meaningful opt-in doesn't even start before double opt-in. And single opt-in can be WORSE than opt-out because of the pretended compliance scenario cited in the first paragraph.

  13. Other filter lists... by gavcam · · Score: 5, Informative
    If a spammer gets taken out of one filter list then you can always rely on it still being in the other lists.

    I use

    • relays.ordb.org
    • or.orbl.org
    • inputs.orbz.org
    • outputs.orbz.org
    • spews.relays.osirusoft.com
    to keep my inbox clean.

    Winning one battle doesn't win the war!

  14. Re:Double opt-in? What the hell? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What gives you the right to tell a sysadmin what they can and cannot block?

    Because ISPs are lazy like everyone else. They will just trust that MAPS has not become corrupt.

    Put it this way: do you think Experian should be able to publish anything they want about a person regardless of accuracy? After all, banks have the choice whether to use Experian or not.

    This is actually pretty real world, because all three credit agencies suck when it comes to accuracy (which is not surprising when you have 150 million records). That's why they need government regulation because of the power they hold.

    Believe me, I am very anti-government regulation, but blacklists of any kind are very apt to be abusive.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  15. maybe a blacklist would work on a web page by mj6798 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Currently, to many lawyers and judges, MAPS probably looks like an obscure, deeply technical means by which some group of people is "preventing" another group of people from getting mail.

    But these people understand the concept of a "web page". If, instead, something like MAPS were based on a list of domain names found on web pages, I think people would have a much harder time "shutting it down". After all, it would be human readable speech, and if people mine that data for their E-mail programs, well, so be it.

  16. Re:MAPS settled by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 4, Informative
    As a victim of MAPS, I know quite a bit about it. I'm not a spammer, I just noticed one day that my brother wasn't getting any of my email. Turns out his ISP was using MAPS's "service" and my ISP got on MAPS's shit list. When I contacted MAPS about it to find out what happened and how to fix it, the bottom line was this: MAPS lied to me about what they did and how it worked. They left me with one choice: find a new ISP. I refused; my brother found a new ISP, one that would allow him to receive my mail. My ISP does not use MAPS and guess what? I am not flooded with spam. Not one bit. You do not need MAPS to avoid spam.

    P.S. I did not get "flamebaited," I got modded down. Go ahead, mod this down, too. I'm not a karma whore.

    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
  17. Dynamic DNS Services get blackholed too! by mtgstuber · · Score: 4, Informative

    Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of SPAM, but given that MAPS and services like it, automatically blackhole email from dynamically served DNS entries, I am quite happy to see them sued, sued into oblivion even. MAPS decreases freedom on the net. I have a DSL connection through a local carrier who shall remain nameless. I run a web server on my connection, largely for family and friends. If I get a business connection where I can get a properly registered DNS entry, I have to pay twice as much for half the bandwidth. So I use dynamic DNS services. Thanks to MAPS its about impossible for me to send email directly from my server. Instead I am forced to use the email account of my service provider. (Ironically, I can send email from SPAM ridden web mail services any time I want.) I resent MAPS's heavy handed self righteous policing of the net, even more than I resent the bandwidth wasting spammers. I would rather delete some extra #$%^ and have freedom, than have somebody tell me what I can and can't do.

  18. Free speech? by Hanzie · · Score: 5, Interesting
    How in hell can posting a list of spammers be illegal when posting a list of abortion doctors you want murdered be protected speech? Families of future victims are listed by name too. And addresses.

    The crossed off names are people who have been murdered since the list went up. Greyed out means they were only wounded.

    --
    ********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
  19. simple solution.. by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A non US company to start making a blackhole list.

    If you were in a country that wasnt under direct US control you could basically have the entire staff moon a camera and respont to expierian's lawyers with the photo.

    anyone in the former USSR care to start a global business?

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  20. Re:Double opt-in? What the hell? by Jay+Carlson · · Score: 5, Informative
    That's fine if you're the one who actually signed up. Me, nop@nop.com, and my friend ben@ben.com, get truly fascinating spam by way of people who are enticed to give some email address in return for something; somewhat believably, people will use fake email addresses under duress.

    In addition to all the random female-depicting porn you're familiar with, I get aluminum market newsletters, British SMS-music-info-service announcements, and some very tasteful Swedish news mailings. Oh, and for a while nop@nop.com was listed as the contact address for a gay personals service ad in Portugal. The letters I got were very sweet, but my wife still thought it was funny...

    My favorite is when people buy unlock codes for commercial software, giving my email address. I've got a whole folder full of registration codes that I didn't pay for and will never use....

    Oh right, back to opt-in. So here's what's going on.

    • When spammers say "opt-in" they mean that at least somebody typed an email address into a web page somewhere.
    • When spammers say "double opt-in" they mean the horrible, onerous, business-destroying requirement to confirm that the person receiving mail at an email address wants to receive their mail. Anti-spammers prefer to call this "verified opt-in", and I like that term better, but it doesn't matter what you call it.
    So when somebody types nop@nop.com into the signup for Goatmail (intentionally goating me or not), a verified opt-in system sends nop@nop.com a message saying "hi! hit reply to this message to confirm and enter the wonderful world of goats!" With non-opt-in systems, I'm in Goatland without any further delay. Sort of like when my "friends" sent all the "I'm interested!" postal reply cards to the Navy recruiters AND the dental post-doc programs with my address on them. Took years to get rid of them.

    But I digress again. Here's the summary:

    • Unverified opt-in means someone wishes for an email address to receive spam.
    • Verified opt-in means the recipient of mail sent to an address wants spam.
    That clear things up?
  21. Re:do i understand this correctly? by SnatMandu · · Score: 3
    Who the hell granted them this authority over the Internet? Nobody, that's who.

    All the ISPs that subscribe gave them authority, that's who. That's not nobody.

  22. Re:MAPS settled by CharlieG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Heck, I've always used my real email here, and on the usenet and my web page too. Yes the SPAM is annoying. I wish there was a Windows Client Side software that would tap into the RBL/ORBS etc

    As it is, I deal with the 20 or so pieces of spam I get every day with the delete key

    --
    -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
  23. Re: SPAM by Kasreyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My ISP does not use MAPS and guess what? I am not flooded with spam. Not one bit. You do not need MAPS to avoid spam.

    Oh really? I double-dog-dare you to go online, in chatrooms, read certain webpages and enter certain data, and have your email address unobscured on major websites like /. 4 months later, if you're not drowning in spam, then I'll apologize.

    Put another way, there are three explanations for your not getting spam without MAPS: Maybe they're just not spamming you. Maybe your ISP is using a non-MAPS blackhole list (gasb! they exist). Or MAYBE the spammers just ain't NOTICED you yet, monkey-boy. New ISP means new email address, duhh.

    -Kasreyn

    --
    Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger /. flamers since 1999.
  24. Interference with contract? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One thought. Now that MAPS is charging for access to their service, can someone paying for their services consider there to be a contract between MAPS and them wherein MAPS agrees to provide a list of IP addresses that meet it's definition of 'spammer'? If so, and Company A goes to court and prevents MAPS from listing their IP addresses even though they meet MAPS' definition, can RBL subscribers sue Company A for damages due to Company A's interference in MAPS' performance of it's duties under it's contract with them?

  25. Sysadmins don't forgive. Sysadmins don't forget. by KMSelf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Rick Moen has a standard message for those who would sue MAPS. You see, MAPS actually wins by losing.

    Time to update those DNS records and MTA rulesets, people.

    My own last message to Experian:

    Subject: Experian settles with MAPS -- Welcome to the Blackhole of Death

    You've been added manually.

    By me.

    By 100,000 other sysadmins.

    Or is it only 10,000?

    Or is it 1,000,000?

    Who knows?

    But you're in named.conf.

    You're in Sendmail, Exim, Qmail, Postfix, and Exchange reject rulesets.

    And you'll never get out.

    Ever.

    Because.

    You sued MAPS.

    You can't root us out.

    You can't make up, fly straight, and appeal your listing.

    You lost by winning.

    Welcome to the Black Hole of Death.

    Remember: no one can hear you.

    And no one cares.

    --

    What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?

  26. MAPS deserves our full support! by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They don't arbitrarily blackhole any companies.

    They do keep a list of servers whose administrators that does not want to cooperate in the fight against spam for whatever reason.

    It is up to the mail server administrators to decide whether they want to accept mail from those servers. That is a perfectly fair and honorable thing to do.

    Why excatly do you think I should be denied the choice to refuse to accept mail from people who will not help fight the one thing that have made mail nearly useless to me?

    And why exactly do you think that giving me that choise is as morally questionable as trying to force me to accept and pay for junk I don't want?