Spam Blackhole Lists Redux

tsu doh nimh writes "Are spam blackhole lists good, bad or indifferent? That appears to be the question they're tackling in this Washington Post story. It has some interesting back and forth between supporters of the lists and those who claim they condone censorship." J adds: Brad Templeton recently offered some comments on the most extreme pro-blacklist position.

Comments

Uhh, no.

[Motherfucking Shit]

Blockquoth the article,

It is unknown who runs SPEWS, and the Web site -- spews.org -- offers few answers. The site's registration information at various Internet WHOIS databases is deliberately false, with the e-mail contact listed as not@available.org.

Someone hasn't figured out the -h flag to whois, apparently. Depending upon the flavor of whois being used, any queries for .org domains will now list "not@available.org" as the contact email addresses unless the sponsoring registrar's server is queried.

SPEWS' WHOIS record isn't really hiding anything when you ask the right server:

# whois -h whois.joker.com spews.org
domain: spews.org
status: production
origin-c: chip@sendmail.ru#3
organization: Visit Lake Biakal!
owner: chip level domains
email: chip@sendmail.ru#3
address: po box 61, Baikalsk-2
city: Irkutsk region, -- 665914
postal-code: 665914
country: RU
admin-c: chip@sendmail.ru#3
tech-c: chip@sendmail.ru#3
billing-c: chip@sendmail.ru#3
registrar: JORE-1
created: 2001-07-07 15:50:12 UTC caserv
expires: 2003-07-07 15:50:12 UTC
source: joker.com

Whether or not that address really exists, I don't know - but I doubt SPEWS is about to put obviously bogus information (e.g. not@available.org) in their WHOIS record. The spammers would just file a complaint with ICANN.

Free Speech

[Detritus]

If you live in the USA, the Bill of Rights enumerates your right of free speech. That does not make it an absolute right. Try exercising your right to free speech on my property and I will have you arrested for trespassing.