Slashdot Mirror
Osirusoft Blacklists The World
NSXDavid writes "Earlier today our site mysteriously ended up on Joe Jared's Osirusoft SPAM blacklist which is used by lots of antispam software (like SpamAssassin and sendmail). Since he is currently under a serious DDoS attack, there was no way to appeal this decision. We contacted Mr. Jared by phone who informed us that 'everyone needs to stop using Osirusoft and that he's going to be shutting the service down.' Then he says he's going to blacklist 'the world' (aka, ban *.*.*.*) to get his point across. Later on this evening, he apparently went ahead and did just that. Succumbing to lawsuits and DDoS, a once great blacklist is dead. SpamAssassin is removing it from their config in the next release (rc3) and email admins around the globe are reconfiguring their mail servers."
It may take a little more work, but the only solution to spam is the whitelist.
The non-communication only breeds rumours.
This isn't any different from any time spews blacklists anybody; They've never claimed to not blacklist legitimate people. And, it's impossible to contact spews to get yourself removed if unfairly blacklisted. Everyone in the world, who has been blacklisted unfairly by spews is now celebrating. Hopefully now, people using spews will realize that spews really is a poor solution to the problem, that causes more harm than it prevents.
get 0wned. irc.w30wnzj00.com
I'm sorry, but this guy is a true blue asshole. My condolences for being DDoSed, but by banning "the world" to try to tell people to stop using his service ASAP, plenty of legitimate non-spam email got blocked, meaning that people may have to resend, and in some cases may not even know their email was missed. That's worse than spamming, people.
Oh, I forgot, the standard propaganda line from these SPEWS.ORG type anti-spam fundamentalists is "we didn't block your email, the ISP using our service did, blame them."
The coolest way we could stop spam from being distributed is to require mail servers to register with a trusted signer, and do the delivery over ssl. anyone distributing spam via a trusted mailhost would be promptly identified by their ssl signature, and anyone sending mail from an untrusted source could be rejected. there is already enough infrastructure in place for this to occur now. verisign and friends as trusted signers, and smtp-ssl. the only other thing required is the will to put it to work.
They want you to get flamed to death as further punishment.
"Switch ISPs." So if a major residential cable modem ISP's mail server gets blacklisted, then how is anybody in any of the towns serviced by that cable company supposed to send e-mail to users of ISPs that use SPEWS?
Will I retire or break 10K?
My point exactly. You hit me to get me to complain. Did you ever think that I don't want to take that active of a role in your war? Did you even bother to ask me if I wanted to participate? Are you, or anyone who uses the list offering to help me out with the costs of forcing me to be your soldier?
Here's the deal I am willing to make: if you are going to block an entire C block that I am part of, send me an email and let me know and then I will happily complain to my ISP until I am red in the face. I am willing to make that promise.
But... if you want to just slam me on a list without any regaurd for the costs it will incur for me, then don't expect me to be a happy little soldier. It's just not going to happen.
Somebody call the waaaaambulance.
I'm an anti-spam nazi, and SPEWS gave us all a bad name. I'm glad SPEWS is dead, and it needs to stay dead. It did nothing good for the anti-spam movement, only exacerbated the situation. With no appeal process and the total lack of caring for innocents leaves me with nothing but happiness to see this travesty of justice get blown into oblivion.
Sometimes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend...
Goodbye Spews... we won't miss you, you hulking piece of ill-thought out crap. Let me wave goodbye with my middle finger.
Now, maybe System Admins without a clue will be forced to take real steps to protect their users from spam, instead of playing the lazy asshole and taking the Hail Mary approach that is SPEWS and hoping for the best.
I feel greasy, now... to have agreed with spammers. I think I'll go take a shower.
I would guess it will take no more than three months for another blocklist, very similar to SPEWS, to rise from the ashes. Remember that SPEWS, and the anonymous group of admins that made it up, are still Out There -- they're just without DNS at the moment.
One important point to remember is that Joe Jared himself was NOT SPEWS. No one ever knew who they were (at least no one that will admit to it). He merely acted as a reflector for their listings.
Another thing to remember is that a DDoS attack -- ANY DDoS attack -- is a criminal act. If the release of the recent incarnations of the SoBig worm and the DDoS attacks against SPEWS are indeed related, then it only proves that spammers are indeed criminals.
For my part, I've already seen an increase in spam as the result of losing access to the SPEWS DNSBL. I've had to update our local blocklist six times today, and that's really unusual for my setup. I suspect I'll be fairly busy over the next couple of weeks, doing a little of the same each day.
Spammers may have won a battle today. They're a LONG way from winning the war.
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
Please tell me more about these ISP-critical machines that don't affect innocent users. But then why are they critical?
As for narrowly listing spammers, it's been tried. Sleazy ISPs move the spammers around to evade such blocks.
Then be part of the solution and start fighting network abuse in your country.
BTW, what have you done to fight abuse in the US?
To me personally, spam blacklisting is a much bigger problem than spam itself because many organizations abroad (like some departments of my former Uni) with whom I sometimes have to communicate (I live in the US right now) blacklist all major US ISPs (MSN, AOL, Yahoo, AT&T) and justify this behavior with the arrogance of US sys-admins that tend to block all foreign mail. This tit-for-tat behavior does not benefit anyone and if anything pisses me off it's the arrogant attitude of sys-admins who for some reason forget their place and think they have absolute power to decide with whom the people in their organization may communicate with and with whom they cannot.
When men used to be men
I'm not sure it can be correctly called censorship - that requires a governmental entity.
That is a fucking myth, and I am sick and tired of hearing people parrot that nonsense. Saying a business can't censor because it isn't a government is akin to a black man saying he can't be racist because he is black. These are both examples of the same logical fallacy: just because a behavior is traditionally associated with one entity or group doesn't mean it is impossible for another entity or group to begin behaving in exactly the same behavior.
Obviously, anyone of any ethnicity is capable of becoming a racist, just as anyone with any power or influence over others is capable of engaging in censorship.
Responsible parents routinely censor what their kids see and hear. We as a society, by and large, find this to be an acceptable form of censorship.
Many religions routinely censor what their congregations are and are not allowed to see and hear (the Catholic church has had a censorship office for centuries, but they are hardly alone. The Mormons censor what they deam inappropriate for their membership, just as the Jehovah's Witnesses do, and I really don't need to cite example after example for Islam, do I?).
And finally, yes, many, many companies engage in censorship, both the obvious 'media' companies that bury stories they don't like or can't be bothered with, as well as other more subtle businesses (like Monsanto pressuring Fox News into not running a news story on how their hormone saturated milk was actively harmful to the health of children, an action that resulted in Fox News firing two reporters who refused to disavow their story, and said reporters winning a lawsuit against Fox News under Florida's whistleblower laws).
Anyone with any form of power over another, be it parental, religious, corporate, or governmental, has the power in some capacity to censor information available to those less powerful. It is a telling, and appalling, commentary on our culture to observe just how common this sort of censorship is, and how eager we have become to silence those with opposing viewpoints, rather than to argue the counterpoint (as I am doing here, for example).
Your Libertarian Newspeak definition of censorship is plain wrong. You may have the right to censor what comes across your network, and you may chose to excersize that right, but don't think for a moment you aren't engaging in censorship, or think you can convince the rest of the world (a few gullible moderators aside) you are not simply by trying to spin your verbiage.
And lest there be any doubt as to what censorship is:
censorship
n.
1. The act, process, or practice of censoring.
2. The office or authority of a Roman censor.
3. Psychology. Prevention of disturbing or painful thoughts or feelings from reaching consciousness except in a disguised form.
censor
1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
2. An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security.
3. One that condemns or censures.
4. One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals.
5. Psychology. The agent in the unconscious that is responsible for censorship.
tr.v. censored, censoring, censors
To examine and expurgate.
(source: dictionary.com)
You will notice, that with the exception of historical references to Rome, none of these definitions presuppose governmental authority over just plain authority, indeed, quite the contrary.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy