Slashdot Mirror


DoS Assaults Underway Against Spam Blocklists

Hiawatha writes "The same sort of denial of service attacks that drove spam blocklist Osirusoft off the Internet are battering many other blocklist services as well." Apparently spammers aren't going to sit by and let people try to ignore their unwanted pitches.

797 comments

  1. Why does he think it's spammers? by seanadams.com · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apparently spammers aren't going to sit by...

    Has anyone stopped to think that maybe it's not spammers who are doing this? I hate spam with a passion, but words cannot describe my pleasure in seeing these blacklists, especially SPEWS, shut down. They are pure evil in their methods, and largely ineffective against spam while causing massive inconvenience for ISPs and legitimate users of the network.

    All of these centralized blacklists have made so many enemies in their history that any finger pointing is simply laughable. They have made powerful enemies, including the large ISPs who happen to be the only ones that in a position to stem these attacks. This is not your normal DDOS: it is not only the originators of the DDOS, but the very network itself that wants them destroyed!

    1. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by The+Old+Burke · · Score: 1, Troll
      I hate spam with a passion, but words cannot describe my pleasure in seeing these blacklists, especially SPEWS, shut down. They are pure evil in their methods, and largely ineffective against spam while causing massive inconvenience for ISPs and legitimate users of the network.
      Pure evil? So beacuse someone sets up a system to block those servers that allow spam this system becomes pure evil?

      Legitimate users? I guess that you are refering to users that "accidentaly" rents space at the same place as some spam-house. Innefectiv? Yes maybe today, but not when they where updated and cheched?

      All this leads me to the conclucion that since you are defending these spammers so frequently you are probably someone that supports or maybe earns money by harboring spam-bussinesses.

      --
      Proud patriot and republican voter.
    2. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Gorm+the+DBA · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      Gee...so daring to think that perhaps the cure is worse than the disease makes someone a spammer sympathizer?

      Sounds kinda like McCarthy witchhunts, where those who refused to name names and testify against their friends were branded "Commie Sympathizers"

      Oh...I just noticed, the poster is a proud Republican...that explains it. Anyone who feels the need to brag about their conservatism generally has a soft spot for Joe McCarthy.

    3. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by ahodgson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually SPEWS is very effective. It makes people DO something about spammers they are harbouring or sharing space with. Naturally, that's why you hate them.

    4. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by geeveees · · Score: 1

      "it is not only the originators of the DDOS, but the very network itself that wants them destroyed!"

      whoa

      thats deep man

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
    5. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by hypovex · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. Having had to deal with spammers directly on a pretty regular basis over the last 3-4 years, I would doubt the vast majority are technically competent enough to pull something like this off. Spews/Osirusoft have long since pissed off enough people through their excessive blacklisting that some sort of backlash was pretty inevitable. The anonymity of spews won't save em from this. I'm surprised this didn't happen a long time ago.

    6. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by fmaxwell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hate spam with a passion, but words cannot describe my pleasure in seeing these blacklists, especially SPEWS, shut down.

      I will be equally happy when someone uses a DoS to keep you from posting comments with which I disagree. As you point out, a DoS is a valid way to suppress free speech.

      They are pure evil in their methods,

      How is it "evil" to publish a list of IP addresses that match a listing criteria? You don't want to block e-mail from Nigeria? Fine. Don't use nigeria.blackholes.us. You don't like SPEWS listing criteria? Don't use them. (I don't because I don't like their criteria).

      and largely ineffective against spam while causing massive inconvenience for ISPs and legitimate users of the network.

      Absolutely untrue. I use several of the blacklists for my domain and the quantity of spam blocked is tremendous with very little collateral damage. Without those blacklists, I would be seeing far more spam than legitimate e-mail every day.

      They have made powerful enemies, including the large ISPs who happen to be the only ones that in a position to stem these attacks.

      Yeah, the same large ISPs who, in many cases, were writing "pink contracts" for spammers and making money from spam. Those are the large ISPs that really hate the blacklists. And if it wasn't for the blacklists, more and more ISPs would be writing pink contracts.

    7. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by nearlygod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that they are not checked and updated (at least in my experience). My companyies IP (actually my ISP's entire C-block is blacklisted by one list and dispite trying for 6 months, I have had no luck getting removed. I have gotten zero responce from the blacklist dispite many attempts and following their removal instruction to the letter. No other blacklist has us listed and we have never had an open rlay or sent spam. So to me, this particular blacklist is evil and since they are the only one that I have had to deal with, I wouldn't be suprised if others have had the same experience.

      --
      The Tools Of Ignorance wanna be a tool?
    8. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by P!Alexander · · Score: 5, Informative

      My own email provider (Fastmail.fm) is very proactive about eliminating spammers and has a very strict anti-spam policy; however, it has been erroneously listed on Spamcop on at least one occasion causing problems for all of its legitamite users.

      Here's a great blow by blow report of one such incident by Jeremy Howard, one of the directors of the company, as well as some reasons the list doesn't work.

    9. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by paitre · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You, sir, are a know-nothing dumbass .

      Have you -ever- worked in network security?

      Have you -ever- worked an abuse desk?

      Having cleaned up one hosting providers network (and reputation) I take great umbrage with this statement:

      They are pure evil in their methods, and largely ineffective against spam while causing massive inconvenience for ISPs and legitimate users of the network.

      These blocklists are very effective in stopping the entry of spam into a user's network. While I also think the guys running SPEWS could use some lessons in public relations, and have an easier way of getting IPs removed, that does -not- mean that they're evil and inneffective.

      I also do not believe it is the large ISPs that are behind this. That's almost as laughable as Julian's statement that it's organized crim behind it. It's likely the larger spam groups that are behind it, like Ralsky and his ilk. And I -know- he has no moral compunction to not break the law.

      And just a reminder:

      Spamming is ILLEGAL in a not insignificant number of states, and several of them explicitly allow for blocking of offending IPs if the ISPs involved are unresponsive.

    10. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      words cannot describe my pleasure in seeing these blacklists, especially SPEWS, shut down.
      So what words describe how you feel given that SPEWS wasn't shut down? Since you seem to have forgotten, I'll remind you that SPEWS works by DNS queries and is still completely functional.
    11. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by The+Turd+Report · · Score: 1

      Osirus couldn't even get their own provider to trace the attack; they ended up calling random Teir1 providers and tried to make them trace the attack. I guess Joe learned that when you go out of your way to shit on every big provider, they do not lend a helping hand when you need it.

    12. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by TillmanJ · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Oh...I just noticed, the poster is a proud Republican...that explains it. Anyone who feels the need to brag about their conservatism generally has a soft spot for Joe McCarthy.

      Anyone who needs to point out someone elses political leanings in order to denigrate them generally has a soft spot for Chairman Mao.

    13. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by jazman_777 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Sounds kinda like McCarthy witchhunts, where those who refused to name names and testify against their friends were branded "Commie Sympathizers"

      There has _got_ to be a Godwin's Corollary, except about McCarthy. Is anyone else sick of it?

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    14. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by rusty0101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "They are pure evil in their methods,"

      How is it "evil" to publish a list of IP addresses that match a listing criteria? You don't want to block e-mail from Nigeria? Fine. Don't use nigeria.blackholes.us. You don't like SPEWS listing criteria? Don't use them. (I don't because I don't like their criteria).


      What he is getting at is not himself using the list, it is midling sized ISP's using these lists preventing him from sending legitimate e-mail to people who can't get that e-mail, because his ISP is blackholed even though the ISP has corrected the issue that got them on the blackhole list in the first place. Or that his ISP's ISP happens to be blackholed through no falt of his own ISP's policies or practices.

      The problem with blacklists is that they decide that it is more important to thow the baby out with the bath watter than it is to see if the baby is clean.

      -Rusty

      --
      You never know...
    15. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by seanadams.com · · Score: 4, Informative

      How is it "evil" to publish a list of IP addresses that match a listing criteria?

      I will tell you precisely why, and these points are almost never brought up by the usual SPEWWS critics:

      1) Those listing criteria are not publicly specified - only a small group of network admins, and readers of NANAE, who are familiar with SPEWS understand their method. The vast majority of admins using these blacklists are people who are just desperate to stop spam so they install tool XYZ without realizing the implications. SPEWS feeds on this desperation to get their foot in the door - it's not until someone finds that a ton of their legitimate mail is being blocked due to deliberate "collateral damage" that they realize they need to ask their administrator to stop using SPEWS (or whitelist the hapless victim with whom they're trying to communicate).

      2) SPEWS keeps logs which are not deailed and often downright inaccurate.

      3) SPEWS does not provide a way for spam filters to differentiate between real spammers and collateral damage. It's all listed the same.

      There is a reason why civilized countries have laws against libel/slander, and SPEWS walks a *very* thin line.

    16. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by wmaker · · Score: 1

      It's almost as if you are comparing SPAM to terrorism, using a word like harbouring. Everyday people shouldn't be doing anything about spam. The executive branch of our [USA] government should be enforcing the laws against it.

    17. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Eneff · · Score: 1

      Or...

      An individual rents space on a dedicated server someone sets up. He's just looking for somewhere to have his email and a small webpage on the cheap.

      Turns out this is in turn on servershost's network (of BurstNET fame) and service goes in and out depending on spammers in the subnet.

      how the hell is anyone to research these things? there's no servershost out there with some reseller page. You google and you don't get some big "servershost sucks" page, you've just become another victim of the spam wars.

      Yes, I'm bitter. And out of about 40 bucks right now that I've finally decided to cut my losses.

      So no, it's not just the spammers that get pissed.

    18. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Graelin · · Score: 1

      How is it "evil" to publish a list of IP addresses that match a listing criteria? You don't want to block e-mail from Nigeria? Fine. Don't use nigeria.blackholes.us. You don't like SPEWS listing criteria? Don't use them. (I don't because I don't like their criteria).

      Those only applies when the listing criteria posted to the BL website matches the listing criteria of the operators. Joe Sixpack SysAdmin probably thought SPEWS was a great service from reading their website. Too bad he doesn't have the time do more research. Otherwise he would have seen their darker side.

      The fact is these blacklists cannot claim immunity. They try to point the finger at the sys admins that use them, and that may be technically correct. But morally it's the list operator who is responsible for my mail not going out.

      Look at it another way, do you believe that software companies should be held responsible for their work? Should Microsoft be punished for releasing such an insecure OS to millions? Or is it the user's fault for running it in the first place?

    19. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Kaa · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Actually SPEWS is very effective. It makes people DO something about spammers they are harbouring or sharing space with. Naturally, that's why you hate them.

      You know what? I am sure there's crime in the city where you live. How about we put everyone in city under house arrest? I am sure it will make people DO something about criminals they are sharing space with...

      --

      Kaa
      Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
    20. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by mrex · · Score: 1

      Actually SPEWS is very effective. It makes people DO something about spammers they are harbouring or sharing space with. Naturally, that's why you hate them.

      Of course SPEWS is effective -- if it weren't, you wouldn't see such a giant PR/DDoS effort by the spammers against SPEWS. It's probably THE most effective strategy for combatting spammers that has been tried yet.

      I find it remarkable but not surprising that the "anti-spews" posts in here echo the arguments sometimes word for word of trolls on NANAE in months past. The spammers public relations machine is working overdrive against SPEWS (see: mobilization of Something Awful goons against NANAE/SPEWS/Kuro5hin).

      Like we should all tell the spammers: I'm not buying it.

    21. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by ahodgson · · Score: 5, Informative

      The US government essentially said spam wasn't their problem, and that the industry should self-regulate. Blocklists are self-regulation in action.

    22. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by BasharTeg · · Score: 4, Informative

      These blocklists are very effective in stopping the entry of spam into a user's network.

      These blocklists are also very effective in keeping me from sending email from my T1 from Lightyear Communications.

      I'm sure there are a million other guys out there with a thousand dollar a month T1 that is completely worthless for emailing customers thanks to these blocklists.

      Go ahead and shout "spam-haus" and tell me I'm doing business with spammers or companies that support spammers, or in this case, our company's T1 is provided by a company (Lightyear) that gets their upstream from a company (UUNet), that supports spammers.

      I guess by associating with spammers through about 4 levels of indirection, we are guilty and need to be punished.

      Spam-Nazi apologists are worse than Spam-Nazis themselves. I was a Spam-Nazi myself until suddenly the punishment was applied to me, and there was nothing I could do about it.

      I hope SPEWS is pinned by packetting until they shut down.

    23. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by _bug_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How is it "evil" to publish a list of IP addresses that match a listing criteria?

      The devil is in the details. It's not a list of single IP addresses, that's far too large and complex to maintain. What's happening is large blocks (we're talking B class IP blocks here) are getting blacklisted because of the actions of a few individuals.

      This does more harm than good especially with colocation services. What happens is one person starts spamming off a machine at a colocation company and SPEWS and other lists will blacklist the whole block that colocation company is on.

      That kills mail services to the hundreds of other legitimate companies who are unfortunately on the same block as the one spammer.

      Anyone familiar with Something Awful's battle with SPEWS knows this is a very real situation.

      So what's a blacklister to do? Maintain a large list of several hundre thousand (at minimum) IP addresses or block B (and even A) class adress blocks to bring that list down to a far more easily maintained list?

      That's why it's "evil". It's lazy, inefficient, ineffective, and does more harm than good. ...with very little collateral damage.

      Wait until someone who has a server within the same B class you're on to start spamming and you get put into the blacklist. Then we'll see if you're still singing the praises of blacklists.

    24. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Dimensio · · Score: 3, Informative

      Those listing criteria are not publicly specified

      The SPEWS FAQ (still available at a number of mirors) very clearly spells out the criteria for SPEWS listings. You are either willfully ignorant or lying to make such a claim.

      SPEWS keeps logs which are not deailed and often downright inaccurate.

      Specific reference, please.

      SPEWS does not provide a way for spam filters to differentiate between real spammers and collateral damage. It's all listed the same.

      SPEWS makes it very clear that their listing is of IP addresses owned by spammer-friendly ISPs, not just spammers. If an admin uses SPEWS without understanding what it will be filtering,that admin should be fired.

    25. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by hypovex · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What makes you think they don't? Most U.S. based ISPs don't require anything more than enough complaints with reasonable evidence to shut spammers down. It's really unnecessary to block an entire /24 or /16 if you think that's what is necessary to get attention. Spamcop, ordb, dsbl, & maps are just great and actually are bold enough to let the world know who they are and what they are doing. Spews takes it WAY too far, are completely irresponsible, are the worst chickenhawks on the net, and completely ineffective. Just for argument's sake, a couple years back, I used osirusoft for about a month with not even a dent in the amount of crap I received in my inbox. But did lose a lot of email from people that should have never been associated with their listings. This cost me time and money. I don't blame the isp who got themself blacklisted because they never received any complaints directly. This was because the only relation between them to the said spammer, was a freaking email address hosted by one of their customers, which was used as a the administrative contact record, for a domain they had nothing to do with. N.A.N.A.E, Osirusoft, s.p.e.w.s. : Chug one. I'm happy to see you getting what you've had coming for a long time.

    26. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      Joe Sixpack SysAdmin probably thought SPEWS was a great service from reading their website. Too bad he doesn't have the time do more research. Otherwise he would have seen their darker side.

      SPEWS does not hide their practices. The nature of SPEWS listings is very clearly spelled ou in the SPEWS FAQ. If an admin filters based upon SPEWS without understanding how SPEWS works, that admin should be fired.

      Should Microsoft be punished for releasing such an insecure OS to millions? Or is it the user's fault for running it in the first place?

      Microsoft software problems are a result of unintentional problems caused by lazy or irresponsible coders. SPEWS works exactly as advertised.

      Should a gun manufacturer be responsible if you buy a gun and shoot a bunch of people in a crowd with it and then claim that you didn't know that you weren't supposed to use a gun that way?

    27. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by randyest · · Score: 1

      I know what you're trying to say, but that's a bad analogy. If you're on house arrest, and you're honest (and abide by the law), you stay inside. Those who we're trying to control, however, are not law-abiding, and they will ignore the house-arrest edict. While tucked away on house arrest, how will the law-abider do anything to the law-breaker running around outside?

      Moreover, putting someone on house-arrest without cause is a violation of their basic rights. No one has a right to email anyone. And, everyone has the right to refuse email from anyone.

      Again, I know what you mean -- several people (who clearly have been burned by SPEWS, at least in thier own minds) have tried to express this point here and failed, primarily because of excessively-ambitious analogies. But don't let that stop you! Keep trying to get your message through. You've got the desire to do it, so now all you lack is a solid argument and/or a valid, well-presented analogy. Go for it!

      --
      everything in moderation
    28. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by wmaker · · Score: 1

      So why is it that every time i've tried one, it blocks out half of my legit mail, including my slashdot passwd e-mail when i first signed up?

    29. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 1
      These blocklists are very effective in stopping the entry of spam into a user's network.

      Ok. And what's banning a very popular site like something awful in the bigger picture?

      After all, when "we" are fighting spam, it doesn't matter if we use draconian measures...

    30. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by seanadams.com · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you can point me to a working mirror of their web site, and the incident database, I can give all kinds of supporting links.

      In the mean time, feel free to dig through these.

    31. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      They are pure evil in their methods, and largely ineffective against spam while causing massive inconvenience for ISPs and legitimate users of the network.

      Funny, they're stopping hundreds of spams here, and I have had exactly one report ever of legitimate mail being blocked.

      Perhaps your "largely ineffective" argument is COMPLETE AND UTTER CLAPTRAP.

    32. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by hypovex · · Score: 1

      Amen. I think He will find himself on an island, surrounded by a lot of burnt bridges.

    33. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Insightful
      He's right though. There is a large and powerful body of extremists within the anti-spam movement for which any criticism of the more extreme of the methods of the more extreme of the anti-spammers is considered "pro-spam". In the case of SPEWS, the intention of the system is to punish the innocent, in the hope that they will, in turn, punish another party (the ISP), in turn punishing a third party (the spammer.) It's perfectly legitimate to consider this absurd, unfair, and a system that breaks the Internet. But until recently, expressing this kind of opinion in public generally resulted in barrages of hate-filled slander in response.

      It would be relatively easy to ignore if the extremism wasn't actively supported, and often encouraged and even organized, by certain pillars of the Internet community.

      Solutions to spam need to be sought and properly thought out. Punishing spammers is perfectly understandable, but it's gone, with SPEWS, too far, and dishing out punishments is, in any case, a poor substitute for making a problem obsolete.

      (ObComment: The DDoS also is extreme, punishes third parties, and breaks the Internet. It needs to stop.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    34. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 2, Informative
      There is no libal/slander involved. Anyone who is capable of competently running a mail server realizes you must close holes which make you an open relay. The also realize other admins may mistakenly leave a machine set as an open relay accidently (and other idiots who do it deliberatly).

      It's not secret information that sometimes folks get put on the list because of an accidental mistake in their setup that they soon correct.

      The question is if it is worth it to you (and your users) to have this potential loss of legitimate mail in order to reduce the ammount of spam you are recieving. To some it is, to some it's not, some even set up two different mail servers, one blocking the other not so folks can use different accounts on each if they wish.

      Putting someone on the list does not say that company/isp whatever, is a spammer, only that some spam was reported at some point to come from that IP or IP range. It's up to the individual running the mail server to determine if it is a greater benifit or not to use the list. No one is forced to use the list. If the users don't like it they can either get the mail admin to remove the block, or get another mail account on another server that doesn't block. It's not like email accounts are exactly tough to come by these days.

    35. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Oh...I just noticed, the poster is a proud Republican...that explains it. Anyone who feels the need to brag about their conservatism generally has a soft spot for Joe McCarthy.

      Anyone who needs to point out someone elses political leanings in order to denigrate them generally has a soft spot for Chairman Mao.

      There's not any fundamental difference between Joe McCarthy and Chairman Mao.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    36. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My companyies IP (actually my ISP's entire C-block is blacklisted by one list and dispite trying for 6 months, I have had no luck getting removed. I have gotten zero responce from the blacklist dispite many attempts and following their removal instruction to the letter.
      Maybe they took offense at your user-id or spelling.
    37. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by ZoneGray · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure it's effective. So is shutting off your mail server.

      The problem is that collective IP blacklisting is so mistake-prone that it's just unacceptable. I had a server, one that hosted e-mail for several domains (none of which do anything remotely spam-like), and somebody forged the IP in a header, and the server got into some darned blacklist based on three anonymous "reports". Thankfully, most people are smart enough to use better anti-spam measures such as keyword or header filtering, which don't cede control to external mobs.

      On a corporate server, you'd be nuts to use one of those blacklists; at the very least, you want to be able to whitelist your important business partners. Perhaps the DDOS attacks are from some disgruntled syadmin who got canned when an important e-mail to the CEO mistakenly bounced.

    38. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 2, Troll
      primarily because of excessively-ambitious analogies

      Ok. No analogies.

      Fuck you you SPEWS assholes! You blocked a perfect ISP for me.

      I regard SPEWS as pure terrorism and I keep reporting you to the feds as such. Maybe some day they'll crack down on you.

      I'd rather have spam than you.

    39. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Skapare · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely and totally wrong.

      The DNSBL blacklists have been immensely effective against spam, spammers, the ISPs that harbor them, and the customers of those ISPs that subsidize them.

      The only enemies these blacklists have made are those they are intending to block. For example, if you are a customer of an ISP that harbors spammers, then you are subsidizing spammers, and blocking you is intended. So of course I'd expect you to hate them.

      The effectiveness varies from one ISP to another. While there are many ISPs which continue to harbor spammers despite being listed, many others have decided it is bad business to do so, and have ejected their spammers, in many cases at significant loss of revenue and significant risk of legal action by those ejected spammers. But they did the right thing by preventing those spammers from stealing resources like my network bandwidth and by mail server processing capability.

      Those large ISPs may very well be participating in these attacks, or are being accomplices in it by refusing to backtrace to where the attacks are coming from. Expect more people, not fewer, to be blocking those ISPs in the future. It is the very network itself that wants spammers, spammer harboring ISPs, and their subsidizing customers, to be destroyed.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    40. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by McDutchie · · Score: 1
      Has anyone stopped to think that maybe it's not spammers who are doing this? I hate spam with a passion, but words cannot describe my pleasure in seeing these blacklists, especially SPEWS, shut down.

      Bzzt. SPEWS has not been shut down. The DNS to their website is currently down due to the DDoS attacks, and in addition, one particular method of querying SPEWS (among others), i.e. relays.osirusoft.com, has been shut down.

      The blocklist SPEWS itself is still operating and perfectly functional. There are plenty of other, still-functioning ways, of querying SPEWS. I won't post them here for obvious reasons, but anyone who is really interested can google for them in the appropriate newsgroups.

      They are pure evil in their methods, and largely ineffective against spam while causing massive inconvenience for ISPs and legitimate users of the network.

      On the contrary, they are very effective. They do exactly what they claim to do: list spam-supporting networks (not spammers), so that those who are so inclined can automatically refuse mail from them. They do so by choice; nobody is forcing them.

      If they weren't effective at what they do, there wouldn't be so many spammers, spam supporters and clueless lusers bleating about how evil they are.

      All of these centralized blacklists have made so many enemies in their history that any finger pointing is simply laughable. They have made powerful enemies, including the large ISPs who happen to be the only ones that in a position to stem these attacks.

      ROTFLASTC. Would those include all the large ISPs cooperating in hosting the SBL, for instance? They have been under constant DDoS for months, and they aren't so much as slowed down. Osirusoft (which, again, is not SPEWS) was run off a DSL line by a single person and would have been relatively easy to shut down by the spammers or a pack of clueless luzer skript kiddies hired by them.

      This is not your normal DDOS: it is not only the originators of the DDOS, but the very network itself that wants them destroyed!

      No: spammers, spam supporters, and clueless lusers want them destroyed. The very network itself wants spam destroyed. The blocklists are the network's immune system, and they're now gearing up for the real war on spam, which is only just getting started.

      You thought SPEWS was evil? You ain't seen nothing yet. You can't stop mail admins from protecting their network against criminals. If SPEWS is shut down, multiple, much nastier sons-of-SPEWS will pop up everywhere, ones that probably won't have any way of getting out of them.

    41. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      He's right though.

      And Godwin was right, too.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    42. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by mrex · · Score: 1

      1) Those listing criteria are not publicly specified - only a small group of network admins, and readers of NANAE, who are familiar with SPEWS understand their method. The vast majority of admins using these blacklists are people who are just desperate to stop spam so they install tool XYZ without realizing the implications. SPEWS feeds on this desperation to get their foot in the door - it's not until someone finds that a ton of their legitimate mail is being blocked due to deliberate "collateral damage" that they realize they need to ask their administrator to stop using SPEWS (or whitelist the hapless victim with whom they're trying to communicate).

      Anyone who uses SPEWS thinking that its just another blocklist is a drooling moron who shouldn't be let near a keyboard. SPEWS makes it clear in every way possible that they are not simply a list of spammers. I would point you to their website, but...

      At any rate, I know of plenty of competent admins who use SPEWS, and none of them have done so accidentally.

      You are almost right with one point, however: SPEWS does feed on desperation, albeit of a different kind than you mention. Spam has become a desperate situation on the internet, and desperate times call for desperate measures.

      As for SPEWS methods not being made public, they do not specify their criteria publically for good reason -- doing so would be providing the spammers with a road map of how to avoid getting SPEWS listed.

      2) SPEWS keeps logs which are not deailed and often downright inaccurate.

      As you offer no evidence to support this, I can't really comment aside from asking where you gained access to SPEWS' logs or knowledge of them.

      In my perusal of NANAE/NANAB I have seen a few mistaken listings, but these have always been removed in a timely manner with simply a note to the group. Mistakes happen, but legitimate mistakes appear to be taken care of with concern by whoever it is that runs SPEWS.

      3) SPEWS does not provide a way for spam filters to differentiate between real spammers and collateral damage. It's all listed the same.

      SPEWS is not a list of spammers, thus, it does not distinguish between spammers and spam support organizations. Duh.

    43. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      I hate spam with a passion, but words cannot describe my pleasure in seeing these blacklists, especially SPEWS, shut down. They are pure evil in their methods, and largely ineffective against spam while causing massive inconvenience for ISPs and legitimate users of the network.

      Do not the administrators of a mail server have the right to choose what traffic they do and do not accept? Centralized blocklists only have an effect if admins choose to use them. It's their system, so it's their choice whether or not to use it.

      You seem to believe that a blocklist can force someone to use it to block traffic. It can't.

    44. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by DeVilla · · Score: 1

      Ok. Forgive me for being a little slow here. So you're doing it? :-P

    45. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      If there were a Godwin corrolary, it would apply to Usenet, with it's week-month-year long rant threads. Not to a weblog where discussion threads almost never last more than 24 hours.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    46. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by gilleyj · · Score: 1

      Actually, as a net admin at an ISP, I think the black lists are great. They enable me to filter out nearly 60% of confirmed spam sources. I see nothing wrong with being black listed for having a incorrectly configured server. The down side is some of the attitudes given by the admins of SOME of the black lists. And we have had client servers black listed for stupid mistakes in the past (mistakes that are not made any more I assure you). At anyrate, last time I checked of the over 600k connections to our mail servers, only 8% were legitimate mail. 60% were repeated RBL delivery attempts, the rest were found by spam assassin, virus check and content filters.

      the carte blanche RBL's are bad is a pretty closed way of thinking about it. All of our spam filtering servers are "opt outable" by our customers but out of the 1500 customers we have I've only had 3 people who have decided that the few false positives superceed recieving 100+ spam messages a day. The rest, when explained and demonstrated find other ways to communicate with black listed servers.

      my .01

      --
      feh
    47. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      That's actually not a bad idea. The cops here sure don't seem to give a shit, unless you point a plastic gun at somebody or light up a joint.

      You can break into people houses all day long and steal stuff just fine.

    48. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by undef24 · · Score: 1

      Try some better ones? Bayesian based lists seem to work well.

      --
      Writing it off what? -- You don't even know what a write off is.

    49. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Anyone who needs to point out someone elses political leanings in order to denigrate them generally has a soft spot for Chairman Mao."

      Heh I read that as "...generally has a soft spot for Charmin".

      Maybe I just don't have enough caffeiene in my system right now, but that made for an amusing interpretation.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    50. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      You evidently miss the point of these lists. The point is to apply pressure to ISPs by causing them to lose customers if they do not change their ways.

      The logical step for you would be to change ISPs to one that isn't listed. That's how it's supposed to work.

    51. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by dissy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > I'm sure there are a million other guys out there with a thousand dollar a month
      > T1 that is completely worthless for emailing customers thanks to these
      > blocklists.

      What you are wrong about is its not thanks to the blocklists, its thanks to the ISPs that have willingly chosen to use the blocklists, and share the same opinion as the people that run the blocklist, who do not want you to email them.

      Do you think its only you that knows SPEWS blocks UUnet ?
      The ISPs that use SPEWS know this too. They still use SPEWS. They do not want email to enter their network that comes from you!
      Yes, even through about 4 levels of indirection, the networks you are trying to send email to have chosen to not want your emails.

      Why are you blaming the blacklists for this?

      You bitch and moan that it isnt fair to you to have your IPs blocked by those that want them blocked. You sound just like a spammer with that logic.

      You may be happy to see SPEWS packeted until they are shut down, but what about my right to choose that I want to block email from people who spam, and people just like you, who use ISPs indirectly that support spam?

      Are you so much more importaint than I that my right to choose not to recieve your email is less importaint than your right to force your emails upon me aginst my will?

    52. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      If SPEWS and Osirusoft were the only spam lists being DDoS'ed, you'd might think it was innocent victims who they pissed off and not spammers doing this, but then WHY are the other lists under attack too? Spamhaus, SORBS, and monkeys.com are all under attack, and they're not nearly as hated by non-spammers as SPEWS/Osirusoft.

    53. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      there was nothing I could do about it.

      You can't find another ISP for your T1 connection? OK, you may be in a 1-year contract, but at the time that contract ends, you should discuss the issue with Lightyear.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    54. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Skapare · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your network is probably still providing some service to a spammer in some way. The requirement of SPEWS, other than for first time spammers (i.e. this means any services to any repeat spammers), is that absolutely every service be terminated with no exceptions. This not only includes IP access through which they may spam, but also web hosting, DNS hosting, phone service, office space rental, ... everything ... period. Now if you really have done all that, and posted a description of exactly everything that was terminated (don't just say you did, admit to what services you provided and when that service was terminated), it should get read by one of the SPEWS team, who can check the database.

      But you do need to realize that SPEWS does have a punitive element. If you kept providing services to a known spammer for N months, expect SPEWS to delay your deletion for N months.

      Also, many people have mis-interpreted the SPEWS listings. Level 1 means listed, and level 2 means probationary. If you are on probation, it is because you delayed long enough to get your network listed (you should have disconnected the spammer before that happened). Level 2 is not listing to be blocked. A few networks choose to block based on level 2 for extended punitive purposes. You know who they are (from your mail server logs), so complain to them for mis-using SPEWS.

      Provide some specifics, like which network this is, or which SPEWS record number, and I can look up some of it (my archives of the public data from SPEWS cover 7 July 2002 to 15 August 2003).

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    55. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 1

      Poppycock. Without a blacklist I'd be getting several hundred a day. Obviously you have a vested interest in allowing spam to get through. Or you're just a conspiracy minded person.

    56. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Indy1 · · Score: 1

      you know what, if you want to financially support criminals, thats your business. If you live in a crackhouse, even if you dont do drugs, people are gonig to NOT trust you, or in this case, trust your network traffic. If spews did die, you'd just end up on hundreds of private blacklists with zero chance of getting out of them. My current private blacklist is over 730 lines, and thats NOT counting the geographic blocks i am using, which is another 283 lines.

      Besides, if you insist on using a spammy isp, there's a solution: smarthosting. Smarthosting in the smtp context is where someone who isnt blacklisted agrees to act as relay for you, so all your outbound smtp traffic is sent from a non blacklisted address. Its fairly cheap, and solves the problem for everyone involved.

      --
      Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
    57. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by drudd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You claim it's a false analogy, but everything you bring up makes the analogy more apt in my mind.

      These lists are basically operating under the assumption that punishing a large group of people weakly associated with undesired behavior will result in the elimination of that behavior by the minority of that group. The innocents are unable to do anything about the people they are affiliated with. The ISP is like a zoning commission. Yes, with enough complaints from their customers/constituents, they might change their ways, but in the short term, the people punished have no real control over the situation.

      You also show why this tactic is doomed to failure. The honest non-spammers will continue to not spam, but be incredibly inconvenienced, while the spammers will ignore the edict and run around spamming on other networks.

      Doug

      --
      Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
    58. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by randyest · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The innocents are unable to do anything about the people they are affiliated with.

      Really? What law requires the "innocents" to stay with a spam-friendly ISP? Or did you mean unwilling instead of unable?

      in the short term, the people punished have no real control over the situation.

      Other than the 100% control afforded by their free choice of any ISP they want to go with, yeah, I guess you're right.

      The honest non-spammers will continue to not spam, but be incredibly inconvenienced, while the spammers will ignore the edict and run around spamming on other networks.

      Ah, but as long as SPEWS is up and running, and as more and more admins use SPEWS or similar, the behavior and work-around attempts of the spammers becomes more and more irrlevant.

      If it didn't/doesn't work, why were so many spammers unhappy with SPEWS?

      --
      everything in moderation
    59. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Master+Bait · · Score: 1
      Another solution is to stay far, far away from ISPs that use spews to censor your incoming email.

      --
      "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
      --Tom Schulman
    60. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by 222 · · Score: 4, Funny

      This wouldn't be a problem if everyone just started setting the "Evil bit" on their spam packets....

    61. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wait until someone who has a server within the same B class you're on to start spamming and you get put into the blacklist. Then we'll see if you're still singing the praises of blacklists.
      If that happens, I'll tell my colocation provider that their tolerance of spamming is causing a big problem for me, their reputation is at serious risk that will take a long time to correct, and I'm probably going to have to stop doing business with them. Then they'll have to choose between doing business with real people like me, or doing business with spammers.
    62. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Do we care whether it is spammers? Clearly, anybody who would participate in a DDOS, which involves taking over the computers of innocent people and using them in an illegal enterprise, is on the same moral and ethical level as the spammers. If blackhole lists are inconveniencing that kind of people, that's another point in their favor!

    63. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Geekboy(Wizard) · · Score: 1

      [AOL] ME TOO [/AOL]

      Is it *my* fault my network neighbor spammed you? Don't punish me for what someone else does.

    64. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by LVWolfman · · Score: 1

      I've only had one experience with the blacklist services. Right after I got stuck with implementing our new mail server a few years ago (and I had no clue as to what an open relay was) we suddenly found our company on the ORBS blacklist.

      As it turned out, no one had ever spammed through us (according to ORBS), we just got picked up in a scan of IP addresses that they did looking for open relays.

      The only way we found out about it was when replying to customer tech support emails, some of them came bouncing back with the "we don't accept email from you because you're on the ORBS list" type messages.

      As in other cases on here, even after closing the relay, it took a long time (weeks) to get off of the list.

      I always thought it ironic that to find open relays, ORBS would violate the ECPA by accessing smtp servers without consent of the owners. The black lists also served as a prebuilt list of open relays for spammers to use!

      "Your honor, I plead not guilty to attempted breaking and entering. All I was doing was checking to make sure businesses locked their doors at night to keep out the thieves."

    65. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by attaboy · · Score: 1


      The main flaw in SPEWS is that it has a serious problem with accountability.

      There's no reasonably transparent process for assuring removal. Say an Internet service provider gets notified by customers who are being blocked by SPEWS that they have a spammer on their network, and at first tries to get the spammer to stop. The spammer doesn't stop and finally they get booted off.

      The ISP then goes to n.a.n-a.e and posts that the spammer has been removed. And they wait. And no one from SPEWS responds. And they wait some more. And they wait indefinitely, but they are never removed.

      So the next time they get a report of a spammer on their network, and a second block of IPs blocked by SPEWS, how likely are they going to be to go through the trouble of policing that spammer to get try and get that block de-listed?

      I agree with the concept behind SPEWS of forcing ISPs to deal with spammers or face irate customers. I don't think they handle(d) the de-listing process very well. Without violating their confidentiality, having some mechanism to see how the process of de-listing works would have helped. For example, you can see all sorts of details about what specific infractions got you listed in the first place, why not post something like "x ISP has gone 3 months w/o any spam... they'll be delisted in another 3 months."

      An alternate means of solving the problem would have been to set up a Web-based form for agreeing to a contract of sorts. The ISP contracts to take action (or prove that it has taken action) and SPEWS contracts to remove the listing withing a specific, defined time period.

      Just a little more accountability and transparency could have won the ISPs over. They hate spam as much as the end-user. But if the time and money it takes to get rid of the listings doesn't bear results or even hope of results, they're going to give up.

      --
      The facts have a liberal bias. --The Daily Show
    66. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 1

      You'd sound like an "angry spammer" too the e-mail you bought became unsable - not because of the spammers - but because a fucking flock of zealots decided to block the entire subnet.

    67. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by destiney · · Score: 1


      Exactly. Once you're on the list, that's pretty much it.. no matter how the hell you got there, you're there, for good.

      I had the unfortunate luck of moving a brand new domain I just purchased to a "new" ip address that was already listed there. I realized very soon I pretty much couldn't send mail from that IP cause of the stupid blacklists. Had to move elsewhere, eating all the setup and re-setup charges of the move.

      I think it's best to run a local filter. Spamassassin is great.

    68. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by tgibbs · · Score: 1
      The problem with blacklists is that they decide that it is more important to thow the baby out with the bath watter than it is to see if the baby is clean.

      Blackhole lists don't decide anything. They provide information which individuals and private businesses are entitled to use as they see fit. Clearly, some unethical individuals are going to great effort to censor that information and deny the rest of us access to it. Which suggests that such lists are an important and valuable information source.

    69. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1
      how the hell is anyone to research these things? there's no servershost out there with some reseller page. You google and you don't get some big "servershost sucks" page, you've just become another victim of the spam wars.

      Look up the hosting company on Google Groups. If there are a lot of hits in abuse.sightings, and a lot of discussion of them in abuse.email, and these don't appear to be mostly old things that were handled properly, keep looking.

    70. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Alranor · · Score: 1

      Can you point to a case where a class B network was blocked because one person spammed once.

      SPEWS FAQ states that this would only happen after repeated complaints have been ignored, so i'd be interested to see if you can back that statement up with some evidence.

    71. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by RollingThunder · · Score: 3, Informative

      Blackhole lists don't decide anything.

      Not quite correct. They decide to list, and delist, people based on their criteria. They decide how you will contact them when you get listed - or decide to make it absolutely impossible to reliably contact them, and decide to mock you/nitpick the minutae of your phrasing when you fall back on posting to nanae.

      And many of them decide, quite clearly, to be assholes.

    72. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by randyest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      YAAASP - Yet Another Anecdotal Anti-SPEWS Post.

      This is getting tiresome . . .

      My own email provider (Fastmail.fm) is very proactive about eliminating spammers and has a very strict anti-spam policy; however, it has been erroneously listed on Spamcop on at least one occasion causing problems for all of its legitamite users.

      How do you know, other than by the facade they present to you, how pro-active or strict their antispam policy is? How do you know the listing was erroneous? Bottom line: you don't.

      I read the blow-by-blow you posted, and it includes a blatant admission of guilt which completely contradicts the claims you made above. The page you cited doesn't include denial of spamming. On the contrary, the guy admits that spammers were (and are!) using his service. He even goes to great lengths to prove the that ratio of "good" email to spam from his service is very large, like 100k to 1 or something, and then argues that he shouldn't be listed bcause the spam originating from his company is so small in relation to the real mail.

      Like so many posters here angry with SPEWS, this totally misses the point! SPEWS isn't a gentle suggestion to reduce your ISP spam output, or to make sure yor real mail/spam ratio is high. It is hardcore non-negotiable insistance that your ISP have ZERO spam tolerance. That's hard for some ISP's that are used to even the occasional pink contract for a little extra income. But it's the only way to avoid the list (except I guess DDoS now, yay).

      --
      everything in moderation
    73. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by CaptainTux · · Score: 1
      All of these centralized blacklists have made so many enemies in their history that any finger pointing is simply laughable. They have made powerful enemies, including the large ISPs who happen to be the only ones that in a position to stem these attacks. This is not your normal DDOS: it is not only the originators of the DDOS, but the very network itself that wants them destroyed!

      Why would anyone assume or even suspect that the ISP's or other networks would be involved in this attack? It's silly to believe that reputable businesses would deliberately put themselves in line for criminal prosecution just because they're ticked off at the blacklists. There is just too much the stand to lose by participating in such an attack.

      See the great new Linux PC I have for sale

      --
      Anthony Papillion
      Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
      "Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
    74. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by packetgeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That sounds an awful lot like a terrorist who threatens to kill a hostage unless their terms are met. Cause undue pain and suffering to an innocent bystander until you are conceded to.

      Does the end really justify the means?

      --

      Please be patient, I'm a work in progress! --Alan Jackson
    75. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still wasting money, pal. If it was your bank account being hit, you'd be hollering bloody murder too.

    76. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps your "largely ineffective" argument is COMPLETE AND UTTER CLAPTRAP

      This coming from a poster using nothing more than conjecture and anecdotal evidence to "prove" a point.

      It's a good thing slashdrones are nothing if not consistant.

    77. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by tgibbs · · Score: 1
      Not quite correct. They decide to list, and delist, people based on their criteria.

      They are information providers, and the only thing they decide is what information to provide. Their clients are individuals and companies who are entitled to use that information as they choose fit. Those who use it do so because they find it valuable. So valuable that unethical individuals are now going to great lengths to try deny the list's clients access to that information.

    78. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 1

      This has been my experience. I use SpamCop and rarely even check 'held mail' anymore. I do a mass delete. Over the 2 years I've been using SpamCop I've seen maybe 100 false positives out of hundreds of thousands of spams. SpamCop has saved me many, many hours of not having to wade through hundreds of spam e-mails every day. Yesterday alone over 200 spam e-mails were blocked. I shed no tears at all.

    79. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by hawkfish · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Anyone who needs to point out someone elses political leanings in order to denigrate them generally has a soft spot for Chairman Mao.
      Amusingly enough, this can be applied to Rush Limbaugh and most of the other right wing fruitcakes in the US. As it is written, "Choose your enemies wisely, for you will end up resembling them."
      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
    80. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by BasharTeg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you so much more importaint than I that my right to choose not to recieve your email is less importaint than your right to force your emails upon me aginst my will?

      I'm not emailing you asshole.

      I'm emailing my customers who are users of ISPs who tell them nothing about their use of SPEWS. They then call us and claim they never got their bills or statements, and we're supposed to explain to them how THEIR ISP is behaving (choosing to throw away their legitmate emails without notifying them). Then when we tell them their ISP is using SPEWS and they call their ISP, their ISP's tech support retards tell the customers they have no idea what SPEWS is, and we look stupid and lose customers.

      We are not spammers. We don't support spamming. But for the greater good of the anti-spam jihad, we are blacklisted because the ISP of our ISP doesn't willingly cancel spam accounts.

      Your bullshit about YOUR right to choose to deny email from me is all great in theory. But the honest truth the anti-spam community doesn't think about is a majority of users "protected" by SPEWS don't know what SPEWS is, don't know they can and do lose legitimate email to it, and they wouldn't CHOOSE to use it if they had any idea what sort of ideology was behind it and how many innocent people are being filtered. You people use the ignorance of the masses to enforce your ideas of what anti-spam should be on everyone else, and those of us who have nothing to do with spamming must suffer for it.

      No admin should employ SPEWS without properly educating the management of his company on the policies of SPEWS, including the potential loss of valid email. No ISP should employ SPEWS without educating their users of the policies of SPEWS, including the potential loss of valid email. If those two conditions were met, all of our customers who call us saying they didn't get their emails would know what SPEWS is and why they didn't get the emails they WANTED to receive from us.

    81. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by furballphat · · Score: 1

      Really? What law requires the "innocents" to stay with a spam-friendly ISP? Or did you mean unwilling instead of unable?

      The laws of economics? Just switching ISP on a wim because some asshole decided to block your subnet is not a cheap thing to do.

    82. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by BasharTeg · · Score: 1

      You can't find another ISP for your T1 connection? OK, you may be in a 1-year contract, but at the time that contract ends, you should discuss the issue with Lightyear.

      We are a telecom company, we have a channelized DS-3 full of T-1s, most of which are voice. We get our data T-1 through that same setup. Of course we could be pushed by anti-spam nazis into changing providers, and therefore paying extra loop costs to provision a T-1 outside of our DS-3, I suppose.

    83. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by BasharTeg · · Score: 1

      If you live in a crackhouse

      We don't live in a crack house. We have a friend who lives on the same street as a crackhouse. People still not going to trust us?

      Your metaphor lacks the levels of indirection involved.

    84. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      I know you are trying to be a badass and all but you are't drumming up a lot of sympathy for these blacklist sites. When I first read the headline I was angry at the DOS'ers but now I hope they succeed in shutting down every single blacklist in operation.

      A bad cure is worse than no cure.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    85. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      it is not only the originators of the DDOS, but the very network itself that wants them destroyed


      Don't speak for me, cretin. If I can no longer use SPEWS to protect my networks from spam, then I'll do it with local block lists.


      In fact, I'm shitcanning www.seanadams.com [64.71.158.0-64.71.158.63] right now just because I've decided I don't like you. At least with SPEWS, they'd take you out of their blocklist if you and your upstream didn't take money from spammers. You'll get no such courtesy from me.

    86. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by randyest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Aha, there it is. Someone finally said it. See, too many people choose their ISP based on cost and quality of service alone. That seems like a reasonable thing to do, of course, and it is a pretty reasonable thing to do when considering most service types. Without SPEWS, it was (and is, now again, I guess) a workable way to choose an ISP.

      But that was bad. Really bad. Because it created an environment that favored ISPs who let a spammer on at least once and a while, then moved them around or temporarily suspended their service (only to re-instate them after the heat died down). ISPs can generate income from excess bandwidth pretty easily and at their convenience by allowing spamming customers, and they can make a nice premium if they do so. This extra income allowed the unethical ISPs to make their prices more competitive, and possibly even afford to buy better equipment or more support staff. This gave (gives) an advantage to the spam-facilitating ISPs and a disadvantage to the honest, spam-hating ISPs.

      People who choose their ISP based on cost and quality of service alone, disgregarding what annoying and in some cases illegal activities the ISP might be supporting, are the reasons that a SPEWS-less environment favors spam-friendly ISPs. This means you.

      Consider one who does business with criminals. Maybe all available business in the area seems to be criminal, or all the legit folks are too costly or inconvenient to do business with. Or maybe he didn't bother to check on them and really didn't know. If his nefarious business associate slips him a counterfeit $100-bill which he then deposits at his bank, the Secret Service won't reimburse him when they take the bill away. He's out $100 because of the actions of those who he chose to do business with. His reasons for doing business with them in the first place, no matter how compelling, are irrelevant.

      It's one of those unfortunate situations that sometimes arise in a system that's mostly unregulated and primarily left to market forces. It kinda sucks, but it's nothing new. Caveat emptor

      --
      everything in moderation
    87. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      You're right, that's a perfectly good solution. What's inappropriate is to take down the blacklists, as I should be able to filter anything that enters my machines, for any reason.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    88. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by TheRealSlimShady · · Score: 1
      you know what, if you want to financially support criminals, thats your business

      Surely if they are criminals, there would be legal methods to deal with spammers, not by blacklisting entire class C ranges? How many of these criminals have actually been prosecuted - or are you just calling them criminals in the hope that people will believe you?

    89. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by DonnarsHmr · · Score: 1

      You sound just like a spammer with that logic.

      And you condemn and judge and sound just like a dictator. Seriously, the tactics you support (SPEWS et. al) are identicle to those used by totalitarian military states. "What? He doesn't crack his eggs on the big end?!?! Kill him and every one he knows!" Or more common nowdays: "He's gay? Let's beat the shit outta him and his friends 'cause he might have infected them!"

      ...but what about my right to choose...

      What about my right to chose? I'd like to chose to recieve email from whomever would like to talk to me, and I'd like to send email to whomever I'd like to talk to. But you, and the listkeepers, and the list users are denying me that choice. The existence of the lists and their use are de facto censorship.

    90. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by eyeye · · Score: 1

      Its the kind of justice somethingawful would give out too. Look at their forum policies.

      Never been a member just pointing out that they are hardly blameless when it comes to draconian measures even when the people are paying.

      I think they realise sometimes you just have to cut people off.

      Still I do see the other side of the argument, personally razor works great for me - no need for things like spews really. If I go for a blacklist I will try to be careful.

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    91. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by PyromanFO · · Score: 1
      You are almost right with one point, however: SPEWS does feed on desperation, albeit of a different kind than you mention. Spam has become a desperate situation on the internet, and desperate times call for desperate measures.

      As for SPEWS methods not being made public, they do not specify their criteria publically for good reason -- doing so would be providing the spammers with a road map of how to avoid getting SPEWS listed.


      I bet you're the first to bitch about Ashcroft locking up people and not telling you why, only to get at thier friends. Or here, let me spell it out for you

      You are almost right with one point, however: the PATRIOT act does feed on desperation, albeit of a different kind than you mention. Terrorism has become a desperate situation in the US, and desperate times call for desperate measures.

      As for the DoJ's methods not being made public, they do not specify their criteria publically for good reason -- doing so would be providing the terrorists with a road map of how to avoid getting on the DoJ's list.
    92. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by crotherm · · Score: 1
      You bitch and moan that it isnt fair to you to have your IPs blocked by those that want them blocked. You sound just like a spammer with that logic.

      I have a few of the comments, and the one disturbing trend I see is when the SPAM Nazis disagree with someone, they assume the person is a spammer. Sure, this is a topic that causes no shortage of heat, but when a person is wrongly blocked, all the SPAM nazis say it was their fault, stick their fingers in their ears a start saying "NYA NYA NYA NYA"

      The only advice the Nazis will offer is when your time comes up to renew your contract, do something about it. Not everyone can afford to wait, nor does everyone have any other options. it would be much more effective if wrongly blocked people were able to easily get white listed by SPEWS and its ilk, but as SPEWS has said, they want to punish the ISP and all its customers, regardless of who they are. Punks, that what I call those black listers.

      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
    93. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by TeraCo · · Score: 1

      Your problem is that you think everyone who hates spews is a spammer. Remember, spammers are business people and DOSing a site doesn't make them any money. I think that the anti-spam sites in question have just pissed off some script kiddy. And you know what? I'm on the script kiddies side on this one.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    94. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by e40 · · Score: 1

      You paint all blacklists with the same brush. That is COMPLETELY UNFAIR.

      My company uses a blacklist that is VERY fair and conservative and I've never seen one single complaint. I'm not going to tell anyone which one we use, because I don't want a DDoS launched against it...

      I agree there are good and bad blacklist maintainers. Not all are good and not all are bad.

    95. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      What he is getting at is not himself using the list, it is midling sized ISP's using these lists preventing him from sending legitimate e-mail to people who can't get that e-mail, because his ISP is blackholed even though the ISP has corrected the issue that got them on the blackhole list in the first place. Or that his ISP's ISP happens to be blackholed through no falt of his own ISP's policies or practices.

      So complain to and about those ISPs rather than blaming the people who maintain a list. It's not the fault of SPEWS if some ISP chooses to block e-mail from IPs on their list. Obviously SPEWS is intended for use by entities that fit one or both of the following:

      a. Don't mind blocking legitimate e-mail.
      b. Feel that the collateral damage is a good thing since it makes it spam hosting so unattractive.

      The problem with blacklists is that they decide that it is more important to thow the baby out with the bath watter than it is to see if the baby is clean.

      Some blacklists try to be very specific to minimize collateral damage while others take the opposite approach. Those who attempt to maximize collateral damage are doing so in order to cause ISPs to be very vigilent against spam and to never write "pink contracts" with spammers. No one forces an ISP to use any blacklist, much less one which causes a lot of collateral damage, sio don't blame the people who maintain the lists.

      This is capitalism. ISPs that use inappropriate blacklists will block a lot of legitimate e-mail and will lose customers. On the other hand, if the ISP lets through too much spam, some customers might choose to get another ISP.

    96. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by drudd · · Score: 1

      How do you verify that at no point now or in the future will a spammer ever exist on your ISP's network?

      Answer: YOU CAN'T!

      Many times spam is sent from cracked machines, or from people violating the ISP's terms of use. Whether or not the ip is likely to send spam again in the future is never taken into account. An entire ip block may be rendered useless by overzealous blacklists, just because of one cracked computer.

      Doug

      --
      Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
    97. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by mrex · · Score: 1

      Your problem is that you think everyone who hates spews is a spammer. Remember, spammers are business people and DOSing a site doesn't make them any money. I think that the anti-spam sites in question have just pissed off some script kiddy. And you know what? I'm on the script kiddies side on this one.

      Script kiddies working for spammers? Let me check my surprise-o-meter:

      -=[----------]=- (0.0)

      Nope, not freaking surprised at all. It's been readily apparent for a while.

      Who says only the technically challenged can also be morally challenged?

    98. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      This does more harm than good especially with colocation services. What happens is one person starts spamming off a machine at a colocation company and SPEWS and other lists will blacklist the whole block that colocation company is on.

      What should happen is that the colocation company sues the pants off of the person(s) who got them blacklisted. They should also provide the information to their other customers so that they, too, could take the person(s) to court.

      As it is now, the spammer gets a slap on the wrist and maybe lose their hosting. Let the spammers get sued for a few million dollars at a time when their breach of contract causes the colo facility to be blacklisted and the spam problem stops.

    99. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Eneff · · Score: 1

      that's nice now... for me.

      Now find a way to inform the average consumer.

    100. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We're usually under attack from 5,000 to 10,000 servers at once,"

      Yeah, some legitimate ISPs and legitimate users of the network have trojaned 5k to 10K servers and are DDOSing the blocklisters. Get real.

      Even if they were legitimate users, after trojaning 5k to 10k servers, I don't think they are legit anymore! Yeah, and maybe there are people out there with legit control of 5k to 10k servers, but that could be pretty easily traced and the offending party(ies) would be outed quickly.

      And the real criminal in all this? Microsoft! for making such shitty software that this even became possible. I have talked to hackers that routinely appropriate sites for distributing warez and such. Many, many detailed instructions for taking over M$ sites. Just a few (and one was sooo ancient) about rooting *nix systems. Bet on it: 99% of those DDOS servers are running M$ software!

    101. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by mrex · · Score: 1

      I bet you're the first to bitch about Ashcroft locking up people and not telling you why, only to get at thier friends. Or here, let me spell it out for you

      Except, unlike Ashcroft, there's a public newsgroup watched by SPEWS, everyone in the SPEWS list is by nature known, and everyone has the choice to honor SPEWS or not. Wouldn't it be nice that if we noticed the government becoming corrupt, we could just ignore it and it would go away?

      Oh, and there is the whole issue of drawing a comparison between e-mail and human life.

    102. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by jcr · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there are a million other guys out there with a thousand dollar a month T1 that is completely worthless for emailing customers thanks to these blocklists.

      Oh, cry me a river.

      So, find an ISP that doesn't use UUNET as an upstream provider.

      I don't give a damn what you pay for your net connection. I care whether my mailbox gets filled up with spam. If I have to take spam to get mail from you, then I'll forego the great privilege of reading your messages.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    103. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your criticism is completely fair, but just to be a dick I'm going to point out that yes, most other people are going to be leery of people who live in in most neighboorhoods in which crackhouses can be found and are tolerated.

    104. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by randyest · · Score: 1

      How do you verify that at no point now or in the future will a spammer ever exist on your ISP's network? Answer: YOU CAN'T!

      Of course not. You can't be sure the contractor you hired last year will do a good job this year. You have to keep up on it, and you may have to change once in a while. We need ISPs to treat spam and spamming companies as seriously as lawyer takes client confidentiality or an EDA company treats an NDA -- violating propriety, or even looking as if you did, is a serious f-up, so extra steps are taken, with error margin, to prevent them. Once this is done for a while, it should cease to be a major problem as ISPs get the message that if they f-up, they will be out of business as thier customers will dump them in concert, immediately, if they facilitate spam.

      An entire ip block may be rendered useless by overzealous blacklists, just because of one cracked computer.


      You were doing good, but now this is FUD. As has been pointed out (successfully) already in this thread, it's just not that easy to get blocked, and there is a working procedure for getting un-blocked.

      --
      everything in moderation
    105. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by TeraCo · · Score: 1

      Ha, there you go again. I doubt there is a secret spammer/script kiddy consipracy here. My take on it is that through their own actions one or more spam lists have pissed off someone who [rightly or wrongly] has the power to retaliate. It's kind of like internet justice in a way.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    106. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go right ahead, ha ha ha....

    107. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by mrex · · Score: 2, Funny

      I doubt there is a secret spammer/script kiddy consipracy here.

      You doubt there are script kiddie spammers, or script kiddies working for spammers?

      In that case, you sound like the kind of investor I need to develop this great idea I had for an anti-gravity machine.

    108. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by TillmanJ · · Score: 1

      Yep, Fascist right wingers on one side, Communist left wingers on the other, and the few of us with brains stuck in the middle again...

    109. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by crucini · · Score: 1

      I'm responding to you because you're more coherent than most of your "teammates". Most of the anti-spews posts contain either false statements (for example, that SPEWS has listings which violate its stated criteria) or credulity-stretching narratives with the key facts omitted. In the latter category we find the company that's listed on SPEWS because some spam was sent from their IP's three years ago. Of course neither company name nor IP address is included in the sad story, so nobody can verify it.

      That last case is a good example of the emotional divide. If you're anti-SPEWS, you probably think the story is true. If you're pro-SPEWS, you've read too many similar stories on nanae and seen them all debunked. It's always possible that story N+1 is true, just as it's possible that perpetual motion machine N+1 really works.

      Many anti-spam people have become so calloused from dealing with endless lies, threats and manipulation that they are unable to discuss the problem in a civil manner. Either that, or the combative personality types sought out the combative roles.

    110. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      I don't give a damn what you pay for your net connection. I care whether my mailbox gets filled up with spam. If I have to take spam to get mail from you, then I'll forego the great privilege of reading your messages.

      Damn, man, do you think you could sound like any more like an asshole?

      Maybe it's a new concept for you, but some people do care how much they pay for their net connection, and they can't change providers on a whim just because someone running SPEWS or another blocklist is a careless zealot.

    111. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by rant-mode-on · · Score: 1

      You need to pick and choose. Most lists publicise their policy. Pick one that's appropriate to your needs. Then test it thoroughly. I pour all my existing email at an address before I decide to use it. One false positive, and I don't use it. The two that I use (which catch some 80% of my spam, and have not yet caused any problems in 9 months of use) are sbl.spamhaus.org and list.dsbl.org

    112. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think for a minute about UUnet.

      What happens if admins bitch loud enough to get a spammer kicked off UUnet (without the blacklists involved)? UUnet will undoubtedly connect the spammer to a subsidiary ISP to 'quiet the mob'.

      Guess what, YOUR ISP is a subsidiary ISP of UUnet, the spammer's potential new home.

      With the Blacklists, this doesn't work anymore. Now, UUnet has to completely remove spammers to be removed from the blacklists.

      A better solution to you, would be to BITCH like a mad man to your ISP AND UUnet to completely remove spammers, and not juggle the damn leeches around. When they do this, they keep the profits the spammers bring with them, its a way small thing for a major payoff on the balance sheet.

      Think like a business man for once. (And I MEAN business, think IBM before the fall, or M$ now.)

    113. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      Speaking as an ISP sysadmin, blocklists are extremely effective against spam (we use them) and there is nothing at all evil in either their methods or their use, because:

      - No one forces any ISP or other business to use blocklists; we do so voluntarily b/c they are effective against spam and our customers like that. Moreover, our spam filters are completely optional and are off by default; any customer of ours who rejects your mail has consciously done so by activating our filters;

      - I have never, ever seen an IP address falsely added to a blocklist, nor have I ever used a blocklist that did not have a removal procedure;

      - You don't have the *right* to send email to anyone. Deliverability is at the sufferance of the recipient, and if the recipient chooses to block mail from your server via a blocklist, you have no cause for complaint. It's not your server, bandwidth, or money that is used to receive the mail.

      So if you don't like the existence of blocklists, well, tough. They have a right to exist and we have a right to use them. We aren't going away, and neither are the lists.

    114. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Yorkshire · · Score: 1

      Is this a game of how close we can get to godwin without actually saying the german housepainter guy's name?

    115. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by zangdesign · · Score: 1

      Sure, and if there's one person dealing drugs in a house, then all occupants of the building should all be killed.

      But that doesn't make it right.

      I can give you a specific reason why I hate blacklists: they aren't specifically targetted.

      If someone wants to fight spam, that's their prerogative. However, dragging me unwillingly into their fight is more likely to cause me to have sympathy for the side they are fighting.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    116. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Tadghe · · Score: 1

      Ineffective? Bullshit. I'll gladly post the numbers from the domains I control that use SPEWS showing the spam it blocks.

      Your argument against spews is a common one, and like nearly every other damned time I hear it spouted forth, incorrect and shortsighted.

      Spews does a VERY good job at blocking spam (and those of us who use can back that up). The very idea behind spews is that you cause the ISP enough grief so they shutdown whatever spammer is on their network. go check out www.spews.org and read the faq. It takes a lot of work (ok, a lot of ignoring complaints) to get on spews...

      As far as powerful enemies go... whatever...I see more people using Spews everyday, so I'd have to disagree.

      --
      Bugs Bunny was right.
    117. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by drudd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Changing ISP's is a very costly event, and one that no company worth anything takes on lightly.

      The problem is it may be fine for you to want to press hard against ISPs and potentially drive them out of business if they're light on spammers. Fine, that's your choice, make your voice heard with your dollar. The rest of us have to make do with the resulting mess.

      I don't care how easy it is to get un-blocked, the problem is there's still lag between being blocked, and finding that out, and then figuring out how, and sucessfully un-blocking your ip.

      Doug

      --
      Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
    118. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1
      Now find a way to inform the average consumer

      The average consumer sends email from home through their ISP, and has no problem whatsoever getting their mail out despite SPEWS and other blacklists.

      If you are advanced enough in your internet needs to be finding a hosting company to host a domain with a website and email server, you are sophisticated enough to know about Google.

    119. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by RipCurl808 · · Score: 1

      Dude, there is no such thing as collateral damage.

      You pay money to an ISP that harbors a spammer. They knowingly know that they have this spammer.
      The know that if they keep that spammer, they WILL end up in blocklists.
      THEY continue to do nothing with that spammer.

      SPEWS shows that your isp is hosting this spammer.
      That they have done nothing to boot the spammer.
      They continue to get paid by the spammer as well as you.
      Would you continue to pay an ISP that knows that the spammer will get them blocklisted?

      There is no collateral damage. Your isp is willfully supporting abuse of the net, and by you continuing to pay your ISP they continue to let the abuse happen. There is no collateral damage; your isp is irresponsible and those who keep on paying them are just helping them to remain irresponsible.

    120. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's spamming pieces of donkey shit like you that make the internet unsafe for children. Shame on you!

    121. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Pete · · Score: 1
      In the mean time, feel free to dig through these.

      He asked for a specific example of inaccurate "logs" by SPEWS, not a google groups search on an incredibly vague set of words.

      It's not our job to go through those search results and try to make your point for you. You're the one trying to make a point, so do some work and try to find some actual evidence to back up your allegations.

      Pete.
    122. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by canadian_right · · Score: 1

      I thought it was voluntary to use the services of a blacklist. If an ISP doesn't want to use one - they don't. If your ISP uses a blacklist that "blocks all of Brazil", you might be a bit put out, but I don't see how it would harm the ISP.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    123. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by S.Lemmon · · Score: 1

      The US government seems to think so (and so do most others). They routinely use tariffs, embargoes, or withhold aid from countries that abuse human rights. This hurts innocents too, but does that make every Western nation a terrorist nation?

      Bandying about terms like "terrorist" is like calling people "nazis" - in most cases it's an extreme exaggeration. Indeed by placing a mailing blacklist in the same catagory as groups that wantonly kill people, you only serve to cheapen the memories of real terrorist victims.

    124. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Pete · · Score: 1
      What he is getting at is not himself using the list,

      Exactly. I believe that's the point fmaxwell was trying to make, but it apparently went straight over your head. It's none of your business if people who own/manage mailservers decide to use a blocklist. It's their property, they can do what they like with it (depending to some degree on specific details in contractual agreements they might have with, eg. customers). You can, if you wish, try to persuade them to change their mind and not use a specific blacklist, but they're also quite free to ignore you.

      The only thing that is your business is what you decide to do on your own private property.

      [...] because his ISP is blackholed even though the ISP has corrected the issue that got them on the blackhole list in the first place.

      That may, in some cases, be exactly the way that that blacklist/blocklist is supposed to work! If I remember correctly, there's a particular blocklist which I think was called the eXtreme BlockList (XBL), which has a documented policy of never unlisting. If an IP or set of IPs gets put on the list, they never get removed - regardless of whether they've "fixed the problem" or not. One strike and you're out.

      Of course, that blocklist isn't taken very seriously by most of the denizens of news.admin.net-abuse.email, and it's probably used by very very few people :-).

      As far as I'm aware, though, all of the major blocklists have clearly documented policies for both listing and unlisting. SPEWS, the SBL, SpamCop, SORBS, RFC-Ignorant... all of them. And all of those policies are different, because all of those blocklists approach things in a different way.

      I'd also mention another little point - most of the aforementioned lists (including at least the SBL and SPEWS) may require the owner of the listed IPs to actually do something before the IPs can get unlisted. For example, the SBL requires that you contact them directly and tell them that you've got rid of the spammer. SPEWS requires that you post on news.admin.net-abuse.email, identify yourself as an administrative person of the ISP in question, and say that you've got rid of the spammer.

      Just as an aside, SPEWS will also unlist IPs without seeing a message from an ISP rep, but it will take longer... ie. once they've seen no more spam from that source for a while, it gets changed from level 1 (on which most users block) to level 2 (on which most users tag or ignore) to level 0 (which is maintained in the records for historical purposes only).

      The problem with blacklists is that they decide that it is more important to thow the baby out with the bath watter than it is to see if the baby is clean.

      Actually, most major blacklists are very restrained in their listing policies. But then I think you're making your misleading, ill-informed accusations against all blacklists when you were just meaning to make a misleading and ill-informed accusation about SPEWS :-).

      And no, even SPEWS isn't indiscriminate. They'll (usually) list only a single IP (the spammer's website or mailserver) first, and report to the ISP that they're hosting a spammer and they should get rid of that person. After that report is ignored, then and only then do the stakes get raised. Let's be quite clear here - any ISP that doesn't read and act upon abuse reports does not deserve to be part of the responsible Internet.

      There is another special case when SPEWS will immediately raise the stakes and list a large chunk of an ISPs netspace - when they take on a well-known, notorious spammer or spam gang, eg. Alan Ralsky, Eddie Marin, etc, etc. And again, any ISP that doesn't do minimal research on their major hosting customers (even minimal research on such a high-profile spammer should reveal who they're dealing with) doesn't deserve to be in business.

      Pete.
    125. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To paraphrase an earlier post, and add a little embelishment.

      You, sir, are a happy-slappy, super-dooper, monkey-chunky, dumbass-a-go-go.

      Of course I don't want to send your stupid ass email. I'd prefer never even having to read anything you ever wrote again, much less correspond with you.

    126. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Pete · · Score: 1
      I guess by associating with spammers through about 4 levels of indirection, we are guilty and need to be punished.

      You're not guilty, and if you sent your email out through an alternative source, the SPEWS block would not extend to cover you.

      The block covers netspace that doesn't belong to you. Nor does that netspace belong to Lightyear Communications. It belongs to UUNet. UUNet are being punished by blacklisting, and it is UUNet's laziness, incompetence and (most importantly) their greed, that has led to LightYear (and thus you) suffering.

      The simplest thing I could suggest to you would be to route your mail through an external (unlisted) smarthost. Ideally, you would reduce your $1000/month fee to Lightyear by the same amount that it costs you to hire this smarthost. If LY complain about this, ask them to suggest an alternative that allows you to email from unlisted netspace.

      I mean, they're your provider. They're the people you have a contract with. If you've got a problem with your network connectivity, they're the ones that should be offering a solution.

      And quite frankly, I don't see any reason why they'd object. You have a perfectly valid problem, and if they only have to lose a small amount of money so that your problem can be solved, they should be delighted. And as an extra bonus, it does make the very clear point to them that they should alter their contract with UUNet so that UUNet are the ones losing money for hosting spammers, rather than Lightyear.

      Pete.
    127. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Pete · · Score: 1
      Maybe it's a new concept for you, but some people do care how much they pay for their net connection, and they can't change providers on a whim just because someone running SPEWS or another blocklist is a careless zealot.

      $comment =~ s/on a whim just because.*is a careless zealot/just because their current provider hosts criminal scum/;

      Oh, and also: $comment =~ s/can't/won't/;

      Hope that helps to clarify the situation for you.

      Pete.
    128. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by packetgeek · · Score: 1

      This is getting wayyy off topic but what the hell, why not. Tariffs, embargoes and witholding aid prevent oppressive goverments from profiting (The funds would not reach the oppressed even if the were allowed to get through). And if you look again, I did not call the blacklists terrorists I simply used terrorists as an example of another group that wantonly abuses inncoents to reach their ends.

      I hate spam and I agree with the goal of the blacklists but I subscribe to the theory that if you have to stoop to the level of the "bad guys" you are no better than they are.

      --

      Please be patient, I'm a work in progress! --Alan Jackson
    129. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by mckyj57 · · Score: 1


      The problem is that collective IP blacklisting is so mistake-prone that it's just unacceptable. I had a server, one that hosted e-mail for several domains (none of which do anything remotely spam-like), and somebody forged the IP in a header, and the server got into some darned blacklist based on three anonymous "reports". Thankfully, most people are smart enough to use better anti-spam measures such as keyword or header filtering, which don't cede control to external mobs.


      Apparently you are dumb enough to believe this spammer claptrap.

      There are three basic choices available for admins running mail servers in today's spam flood.

      1. Little or weak filtering or blocking means communications are lost as
      people have scan-and-delete errors due to battle fatigue from their
      daily fight with spam in their mailbox. Much legitimate email is
      lost, and it is lost and *neither party knows it was never read*.
      This collateral damage is spread over every part of the net,
      spam-friendly or no.

      2. Aggressive filtering and tagging means that legitimate communications
      are tagged as false-positives. People usually don't scan their spam
      folders carefully, because such a high percentage is spam. Again,
      legitimate email is lost and *neither party knows it was never read*.
      This collateral damage is spread over every part of the net,
      spam-friendly or no.

      3. Aggressive blocklisting and bouncing causes some legitimate email to
      be lost. However, that collateral damage is limited to spam-friendly
      parts of the Internet. The sender knows full well it was not read and
      can re-send the message via another channel if it is important. This
      knowledge also allows them to take action to correct blocking errors;
      and heightens awareness of who is not doing their part to fight spam.

      To me, selecting #3 is a no-brainer. When legitimate email gets lost,
      the sender knows it was not received. And it is almost all lost from
      networks participating in the massive denial of service attack on the
      Internet at large that is spam.

      AOL, for example, does a simply outstanding job of making sure spam is
      not sourced from their network. They don't allow spam hosting of any
      kind. I *never* want to lose mail from them. Same with Earthlink, MSN,
      and Hotmail. They deserve that consideration due to their effort. If my
      users lose mail from them due to scan and delete errors, I have not done
      my job. I would much rather have them lose email from the people who pay
      the spam-friendly providers.

    130. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by mckyj57 · · Score: 1

      What makes you think they don't? Most U.S. based ISPs don't require anything more than enough complaints with reasonable evidence to shut spammers down.

      And most US-based ISPs are not in the blacklists, either.

      The ones who *do* have a problem shutting down spammers because of cluelessness, complicity, or malice have constant problems with blacklists.

      It's really unnecessary to block an entire /24 or /16 if you think that's what is necessary to get attention.

      You make that statement, but it it is obviously false to fact. That measure was taken precisely because blocking only spam sources did not work; no one allows spam to be *sourced* from their network any more.

      Spamcop, ordb, dsbl, & maps are just great and actually are bold enough to let the world know who they are and what they are doing. Spews takes it WAY too far, are completely irresponsible, are the worst chickenhawks on the net, and completely ineffective.

      Again you make statements that are false to fact in every case except SpamCop. MAPS is the epitome of not-effective; but the others you mention are locking a barn door that doesn't have any horses behind it; open relay is not the problem any more.

      Just for argument's sake, a couple years back, I used osirusoft for about a month with not even a dent in the amount of crap I received in my inbox. But did lose a lot of email from people that should have never been associated with their listings. This cost me time and money.

      I simply don't believe you, sir. I used Osirusoft.com for over one year, and never received a single complaint from one of my thousands of users. I *did* receive complaints about the spam load from users on systems which were not protected by relays.osirusoft.com; and when that protection was added those complaints dropped off to nothing. Besides just SPEWS, relays.osirusoft.com included the SBL, its own open relays list, and an open proxies list for most of that time. It was proven to block large quantities of spam, so your "didn't make a dent" is an obvious lie.

    131. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by mckyj57 · · Score: 1

      Sure, and if there's one person dealing drugs in a house, then all occupants of the building should all be killed.

      Are all anti-blocklist people logic-impaired? Do you think your arguments make sense?

      Equating killing with the rejection of an email message is way over the top.

      The proper analogy would be that you refused a call from a caller with caller ID indicating they were using the phone lines of a drug dealer. That's all. Killing? Are you insane?

      Even more insane are the people who would mod something like that up. I have have lost an incredible amount of respect for the users of Slashdot today.

    132. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by jcr · · Score: 1

      Damn, man, do you think you could sound like any more like an asshole?

      I'm sure I could, if I tried taking your side of this argument. "I paid a lot for my T1, so I'll demand that people take my traffic!"

      Maybe it's a new concept for you, but some people do care how much they pay for their net connection

      Oh, I'm sure *most* people care how much they pay for their net connection. That's not any reason why *I* should care what they paid for it.

      Sorry, whatever you paid for your connection STILL has no bearing on whether I should take your packets.

      If SPEWS says there are spammers on your class B, (or even your class A, for that matter), I'm not going to listen to you.

      If you need to talk to me that bad, then it's up to YOU, not ME, to try another route. If that means you change ISPs, then maybe your former ISP will learn that the net is *voluntary*, and that they'd better shape up if they want other people to listen to their traffic.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    133. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by jcr · · Score: 1

      Umm, if you don't like the RBL's, then don't use them. Personally, I don't like spam, so I don't take traffic from net blocks listed in SPEWS.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    134. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by arthurh3535 · · Score: 1

      That ignores the fact that if enough ISP's are black-listed and then "improve" that the Spammers will run *out* of places to send SPAM from.

      Or at least to a low enough point that most of my inbox won't be filled with really stupid Spam because I like to post to newsgroups about rocketry.

      Arthur Hansen

      --
      No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
    135. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by bryanthompson · · Score: 1

      I think he'd be interested to know the Joe McCarthy was 100% right.

    136. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by randyest · · Score: 1

      Changing ISP's is a very costly event, and one that no company worth anything takes on lightly.

      I disagree. If you design your system right, and know when you're going to do it, you can pull off a scripted switch in a few hours, with zero down-time if you have a few days of redundancy, and you can arrange it to be at the least active time just in case.

      I'm sorry, I just don't buy that it's that big of a deal. Especially when compared to spam. Costly in certain cases maybe, but as the link above argues, in many cases you have been getting the low prices you enjoy now (and are so reluctant to lose) because of the subsidy provided by spammers to your ISP.

      The only way to avoid this costly inconvenience to you is for everyone else to tolerate spam. That's unacceptable.

      --
      everything in moderation
    137. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by GryMor · · Score: 1

      The metaphor is accurate, though some levels are missing. Would you be happier with the following:

      The T1 guy does buisness out of a room. The room is subleased from a company that controls a floor of the office building. The floor is subleased from another company that owns the top half of the building. The building as a whole is owned and operated by UUbuildingco, and they, in their great wisdom, lease the ground level and rooms on other floors to a company that knowingly subleases individual rooms to crack dealers and meth labs.

      Some People against Excessive Wack Stuff publish a list of nasty establishments that people may want to know about. Some taxi companies happen to trust and agree with the opinions provided in the list and in the interests of protecting their staff and customers, refrain from driveing near the address on the list. Sure, there are some legitamate buisnesses (like T1) that don't get customers because of the Taxi companies policies, but if the customer really wanted to visit them, they could just go to another Taxi company, or better yet, the T1 guy could move to another building that actually cares about the safety and well being of the rest of the town and their tenants.

      --
      Realities just a bunch of bits.
    138. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Kvan · · Score: 1
      But you, and the listkeepers, and the list users are denying me that choice.

      Only the list users are denying anyone anything. If they're not educating management and users about what the lists do, then they're being very irresponsible admins--but they're using a morally neutral tool.

      I personally wouldn't ever consider using SPEWS or any other list beyond my control for purposes other than tagging, since I want the ability to whitelist anyone I damn well please.

      --

      "A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
      - 'K' in Men in Black.

    139. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noone punishes you. They punish your ISP for not terminating his account.

      Your ISP is not providing you with the service you believe you are paying for? Complain to them. You are not paying other ISPs to receive your mail, so if they don't want to, tough luck.

    140. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't want your mailserver to handle mail, firewall it off. No judge is going to accept the argument that trying to send a mail to a mailserver, is "accessing smtp servers without the consent of the owners". Otherwise, you would have to call an ISP to get their permission to send an e-mail to one of their customers.

    141. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All this leads me to the conclucion that since you are defending these spammers so frequently you are probably someone that supports or maybe earns money by harboring spam-bussinesses.

      Conversely it leads me to believe that perhaps the organisation you're so vigorously defending has lost a popularity contest with spammers. Go figure.

    142. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      Boo hoo. My heart bleads.

      Look, this is really very simple. If you want to do business with someone connected to an ISP which uses SPEWS, take your money away from the spam host and to a provider which does not host spammers.

      So you paid lots of money for your fancy T1 line did you! Well gee, that's touching. Now quit whining and do something about it - change to an ISP which doesn't host spammers.

      Well, you could always spew out insults and lame exuses as to why you should be able to force your crap on everyone else, but this simple question remains:

      Why don't you change to a different ISP?

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    143. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      Something Awful was banned? Or was their ISP banned because it is a spam host?

      Why are you blaming the blocklists for blocking ISPs that harbor spammers? It isn't the blocklist's fault that there are spammers on that network.

      The spam provider is to blame, and if Something Awful wants out of the mess, it should take its business elsewhere.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    144. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by dcs · · Score: 1

      Bullshit.

      I work for an ISP, and I have had the experience of various IP addresses being blacklisted by various dnsbl at various times.

      I *NEVER* had *ANY* trouble unblacklisting these IP addresses.

      --
      (8-DCS)
    145. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by ZoneGray · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never run a mail server that has actual human customers on it.

      Ever get one of those rejection messages from Osirusoft and try to figure out what to do next? (answer: there's nothing you can do except repent.) Now imagine an end user, or a customer getting one of those. This is improving e-mail? And the server admin has no ability whatsoever to fix it, other than to try and convince the jackboots at SPEWS or some other dipshit little club that they've mnade a mistake.

      But, if that's what you want, then go ahead and turn your mail delivery over to those folks. But once you've turned over your delvery to them, then you're subject to anything they do and anything that gets done to them, right or wrong. Maybe one day you'll wake up and they'll be bouncing all mail... oh wait, that already happened.

      But don't look for sympathy from me. My customers got their mail yesterday, with about 90% of the spam filtered out through more tactful means. The phones in customer service didn't light up like a Christmas tree, and I didn't have to explain to the CEO why a message from his mother resulted in a cryptic rejection notice.

      IP blacklisting is for lazy pricks and idiots who couldn't figure out that this was going to happen someday.

    146. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      I speak for myself, not "teammates".

      I'm well aware that many of the stories about SPEWS are false. I'm also aware that it is the stated policy of SPEWS, the modus operandi, to attack innocent third parties. It's not when SPEWS goes beyond its stated policies that I draw the line, it's SPEWS doing, and system administrators signing on, what it actually says it's doing.

      SPEWS makes the assumption that changing an ISP, and/or discovering whether it is going to be spammer friendly some time down the road, is a trivial matter. For anyone except dynamic IP dial-up users who use Yahoo! email accounts if they use email at all that simply is not true.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    147. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by jjhall · · Score: 1

      I partially agree with you, but there is collateral damage.

      Sure, an ISP may very well knowingly (or accidently) allow spammers to roam free on their network, and they get blacklisted. Yes it is their fault, and yes, they deserve to get blacklisted until they fix their technical issues and/or policies to disallow the spam.

      The collateral damage is the users of the said ISP. For example, my mother, as much as I have tried to teach, is not technically savvy by any stretch. She has a hard enough time feeling confident in checking her e-mail and browsing the web. Say her ISP gets blocked. Now she tries to send an e-mail to a friend whose ISP subscribes to the blacklist. Her message will get bounced, or worse yet, dropped, and it is by no fault of her own, or the person to whom she is sending the message.

      In this scenario, she has no idea that her ISP had been blocked. The person she is sending the message to has no idea that her ISP subscribes to a blacklist. Both people in this case are collateral damage. And as some people have mentioned in other threads there are contracts for ISP service, so simply changing ISPs is not an option for most people. My mother, for example, gets a much better rate by paying 2 years in advance, and has a contract of the same term. Luckily her ISP is very astute at spam control (one of the reasons I selected it for her) but if they had a technical issue, even temporarily, she could still get nailed.

      I believe the blacklists truely do mean well, and I think they would be very useful if not taken verbatim, such as used as part of a spam score, rather than a complete blacklist. The other thing that would trememdously help is for the entries to expire after some time. I have seen a blacklist (I don't remember which one, it has been a while) that starts out by blocking an individual IP for 24 hours, then it is removed from the block. If the abuse continues, it is blocked for a week, and it goes on from there. Same with the address block. If the user changes IPs enough, the system just expands out both the time and the address block until the time limit expires and there is no further abuse.

      Another thing that would make the blacklists more user friendly, is if the blacklist systems sent out status messages. Such as if ISP B blocked a message from my mom's IP, the bounce message would have a message stating why it was banned and to contact their ISP for more details. The blocking ISP should generate a list of all messages blocked by the system, and send that on a daily or weekly basis, depending on the volume. Then the recipient would not only see the benefit the list provides, but would see my mom's address and be able to let her know she didn't get the message.

      I know this ended up being a lot longer of a post than I originally intended, but I feel I was able to make my point. To sum it up, while I agree that the blacklists are a good thing, there are issues, and there are innocent people who are affected by them.

      Jeremy

    148. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by BasharTeg · · Score: 1

      I like how you dismissed the argument that most of the people who are being "protected" by SPEWS are completely ignorant of the spam-nazi ideology and potential loss of legitimate email. I guess that's a non-issue when your NetAdmin ego trip is focused on the anti-spam jihad.

      As for your question, why don't we change to a different ISP:

      Well kid, you see, you might be able to hop your ADSL account from provider to provider whenever it suits your fancy. And perhaps at the clown-shoes operation you somehow got hired to admin at, your operations are small time enough that you can hop your single data T1 around from provider to provider. But see, we don't just have a "fancy T1 line" as you put it. We have a channelized DS-3 with 18 voice T1s and two data T1s. We have a negotiated package deal that includes special long distance rates as part of our contract. Our voice T1s are what power our business (we do telecom/voice services). So we can either kick in the extra $1200 a month for an entirely seperate T1, or dump the whole package and start over again (aka go out of business).

      So when some self-important anti-spam nazi nerd tells us "JUST CHANGE TEH ISP AND JOO WILL NOT BE FILTERED" those of us who work in real business and have some idea of contracts and more levels of service than just a single data T1, have no choice but to laugh.

      My questions to you is:

      WHY should I be forced to change ISPs in order to email people who are "protected" by SPEWS but WANT to receive email from me? If they want to receive the email, how is SPEWS helping them?

    149. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      I'm sure I could, if I tried taking your side of this argument. "I paid a lot for my T1, so I'll demand that people take my traffic!"

      I'm not sure you understood my statement (blunt as it was) correctly. You may have a perfectly valid point, but deliver it in that fashion, and you'll cause many people to reject it simply as a knee-jerk reaction.

      Oh, I'm sure *most* people care how much they pay for their net connection. That's not any reason why *I* should care what they paid for it.

      So when someone's forced to spend time and money to switch providers due to an overreaching blocklist entry and/or your use of that entry...It's not your problem because it's not directly affecting you? Sounds pretty selfish and self-centered to me.

      Sorry, whatever you paid for your connection STILL has no bearing on whether I should take your packets.

      If SPEWS says there are spammers on your class B, (or even your class A, for that matter), I'm not going to listen to you.


      Wow. Just...wow. I think this is more than a sufficent example of that attitude that makes people hate blocklist supporters so vehemently.

      Go ahead and start blocking class A's with spammers...You sound anti-social enough that you probably didn't ever want to talk to those people anyway. And Heaven forbid that a SPEWS listing might be...wrong, too.

      If SPEWS says there are spammers on your class B, (or even your class A, for that matter), I'm not going to listen to you.

      If you need to talk to me that bad, then it's up to YOU, not ME, to try another route. If that means you change ISPs, then maybe your former ISP will learn that the net is *voluntary*, and that they'd better shape up if they want other people to listen to their traffic.


      Again, this is not a viable solution for the general populace. People cannot simply change ISP's on a whim...Oftentimes, they're already on the only decent ISP in their area, or even the only one that exists in that area. More likely, they'll just start ignoring you, if you can't be reached by phone or at another email or something.

    150. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      No, you've helped to obfuscate things more, though. Is there a reason you couldn't just say what you wanted in English instead of coding shorthand? You're not l33t or cool or whatever effect you're hoping for, just annoying.

      From what I can gather, though, you're trying to classify spammers as "criminal scum", and saying that classification would be a valid reason for people to change their ISP.

      To that, I paraphrase Morpheus- you're living in a dream world, Pete.

      Just because agressive anti-spam zealots believe all spamming should be crimnalized, that doesn't make it so for the vast majority of "normal" people using the net. Such people see spam as an annoyance, to which they ignore, click "delete", or update a filter, and go on their way.

      Oh, and also: $comment =~ s/can't/won't/;

      I say again, can't. You try explaining to someone that in order to keep communicating to important contacts, they must switch to an ISP that doesn't offer essential services or one that costs twice as much, simply because there's a few stubborn spammers on the network somewhere.

      And what about people who are already on the only ISP that serves their area? Are you going to tell them they're just being stubborn when they can't move their homes or entire buisnesses to get a blocklist-approved provider?

      If you're going to support draconian policies, at least try to have a sense of where they can actually be applied.

    151. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by rocca · · Score: 1

      Not the spammers? Possible, but they seem the most likely. They make millions off spam and are spending tons of cash having to jump through hoops to keep their IP's off the lists. The last 2 or 3 weeks we have seen viruses are dropping trojans everywhere. Last week I saw an article referring to the trojans and stating "massing an army, but for what purpose?" -- this seems to be a pretty applicible purpose.

    152. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by j-turkey · · Score: 1
      We have a negotiated package deal that includes special long distance rates as part of our contract. Our voice T1s are what power our business (we do telecom/voice services). So we can either kick in the extra $1200 a month for an entirely seperate T1, or dump the whole package and start over again (aka go out of business).

      Looks like it's time to renegotiate your contract. I mean, if your tier 1 provider's business practices are causing some CTO of your customer's ISP to essentially ban you, instead of whining that you're losing customers, maybe you should either renegotiate your contract to make your customers happy, or find another provider, or some other solution. Given the same circumstances -- if your tier-1 ISP was supporting (insert "bad" thing here [does terrorism work?]) and were blacklisted by folks who didn't want their company to have anything to do with that network -- would you be so upset then? You'd do what you had to in order to make your customers happy. They shouldn't have to know about this stuff, that's your job.

      Things change from the happy status-quo of the 80's Internet, and blackholes won't go away. Many people really hate having to cover the cost of someone else's advertising (see above paragraph). They're really pissed about this, and they'll do whatever they feel they can -- even if it affects you and your unsuspecting customers. Furthermore, you're in a vast minority of people who are adversely affected by this. Your business and network are specialized...In your situation, it's shitty -- sorry. But bitching and pointing your finger won't help. With the kind of T-age you mention above, I'm sure that you've got vendors up the wazoo who want to sell you service for cheap. (Even with a "channelized DS-3 with 18 voice T1s and two data T1s", you can easily find a vendor who would cream their shorts if you asked them to sell you the same service with no downtime -- maybe even save you enough money to eat the the termination penalties on your contract).

      Finally, with bandwidth as cheap as it is, might I suggeset a potential solution for you: Go get a frac-T from a separate provider for $400/mo to use for SMTP only. If you need email to do business -- do what has to be done and get over it -- I'm sure that you've got more important things to do. Especially if you're losing more than that $400/mo in revenue (since you're losing customers over this) it doesn't sound like a tough decision. Now wait until your primary T contract expires and find something else.

      The only reason I say all of this is because I hate it when folks blame someone else for all of their problems and sit on their ass and don't do a goddamn thing because they think they were wronged and deserve something. It doesn't work in your personal life, and it definitely doesn't work in business. I'm not trying to be a prick here -- it's not your fault, but it is your problem. That's business -- if you don't like it, quit your ops job and become a cable monkey.

      (This should also answer your questions and comments with regards to the following:)

      those of us who work in real business and have some idea of contracts and more levels of service than just a single data T1, have no choice but to laugh.
      and
      WHY should I be forced to change ISPs in order to email people who are "protected" by SPEWS but WANT to receive email from me? If they want to receive the email, how is SPEWS helping them?
      Anyway, just my 2 cents.
      --Turkey
      --

      -Turkey

    153. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      No one is focring you to change ISPs, but as long as you use a spam shelter as an ISP, you will face the consequences.

      As for the users who do not know that they are losing mail, tough luck. They can't blame their ISP for not accepting traffic from spammer ISPs. Blame the spammers.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    154. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously -- you are one of those people who never listen to Rush et al, you just "know" what they are saying is wrong.....and you call THEM fruitcakes??!!

    155. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by hypovex · · Score: 1

      And most US-based ISPs are not in the blacklists, either. The ones who *do* have a problem shutting down spammers because of cluelessness, complicity, or malice have constant problems with blacklists. I beg to differ. I work for one and constantly have to deal with spews bs, on many occasions, for some for some REALLY reaching spam associations. You make that statement, but it it is obviously false to fact. That measure was taken precisely because blocking only spam sources did not work; no one allows spam to be *sourced* from their network any more. No, it really isn't necessary to block 65536 ip addresses to stop spam from one person, particularly when x block of address space being used (in some cases as small as a /30) is swip'd, identifiable, and can be completely isolated from the rest of the subnet. Spews doesn't pay any attention to this at all. Again you make statements that are false to fact in every case except SpamCop. MAPS is the epitome of not-effective; but the others you mention are locking a barn door that doesn't have any horses behind it; open relay is not the problem any more. "Maps is the epitome of not-effective", what because the grassroorts anti-spam community is too cheap to cough up the scratch to use it? Gift from the clue tree jackhole, that is you're opinion, not fact. Don't tell me open relays & proxies are not a problem anymore, I see em all the time. I simply don't believe you, sir. If I cared, I would have asked. I used osirusoft, they suck. Whitelisting works. Try it.

    156. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by hypovex · · Score: 1

      sorbs, monkeys.com, & spamhaus pull right up for me, without any delay at all. Then again, it's also possible that they haven't burned any bridges with their neighboring networks & might have gotten some filtering cooperation from upstream (yeah, that's a speculation, who knows, all I know is they are online and spews is not).

    157. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      This coming from a poster using nothing more than conjecture and anecdotal evidence to "prove" a point.

      If you can't tell the difference between "perhaps" and "prove a point", you should be studying instead of slashdotting.

    158. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Pete · · Score: 1

      PhoenixFlare:

      Is there a reason you couldn't just say what you wanted in English instead of coding shorthand? You're not l33t or cool or whatever effect you're hoping for, just annoying.

      Well, I was trying for "amusing", but I guess "annoying" at least starts with the same letter :-). And as to why, well, sometimes it can be more effective to make a point in a humourous way - as opposed to a deadly serious way. Of course it may have been more effective in this case if it'd actually been funny, at least to you *wry grin*.

      For the record, though, you were perfectly correct in your interpretation of what I meant.

      From what I can gather, though, you're trying to classify spammers as "criminal scum",

      In some places, spamming ("just" spamming) is, in fact, against the law. I believe the punishments in those places are pretty inconsequential - eg. a small fine for each infraction - but it's a start. For the serious spammers, however, you'll generally find that what they're trying to sell is in fact much more illegal. Pump-and-dump scams, 419 scams, pyramid scams, child porn,... and then we get into the more humdrum stuff like pills-and-potions-for-perfect-penises scams and the mostly-legal pornography. But in most places, selling drugs that purport to have some medical benefit when in fact they have none (or are in fact potentially dangerous) is at least legally risky - and what do you reckon are the chances that spammers selling "legit" porn actually hold the copyright on the stuff that they're "selling"?

      And we haven't even got into the issues like spammers who abuse open mail relays to send out their crap (which is criminal behaviour but I suspect unlikely to ever be prosecuted)... and then the fundamental issue that spammers steal your time, bandwidth and storage space, making you pay for their "advertising".

      I'm really just trying to illustrate that spammers tend to be low-level scammers that try to get something for nothing. Which is pretty much how I'd define a criminal mind.

      You don't need to agree with me, but I think most people would have trouble trying to imagine the concept of an honest, moral spammer.

      To that, I paraphrase Morpheus- you're living in a dream world, Pete.

      It'd be pretty sad if I was - I'd prefer my dreamworld(s) to not involve any spammers at all. That'd be much nicer.

      [...] the vast majority of "normal" people using the net. Such people see spam as an annoyance, to which they

      JHD. Just Hit Delete. Spammers love people who do that. That's exactly what they want you to do - shut up and suck it down. Don't complain to your ISP and get your ISP to blacklist them... and for god's sake don't complain to their ISP - because, hell, enough complaints and their ISP might decide that the pink contract they've signed is getting to be too much of a headache.

      But even the religious JHDers - you know, the kind of people that think anyone who complains about anything is a whinger - will eventually start to get annoyed when spam outnumbers their "normal" email by 10 to 1 or more. But for some people, a 10:1 spam:nonspam ratio would be heaven - how'd you like to be dealing with a spam:nonspam ratio of 100 or even more? Feel like relying on JHD then?

      Well, the funny thing is that normal people would probably be at that stage already if it hadn't been for the efforts of some of the more dedicated spamfighters (including blocklist maintainers). And spam is still getting worse.

      [and regarding the option of people caught in a blocklist changing ISPs - PhoenixFlare said they can't move, I said they won't move]

      I say again, can't. You try explaining to someone that in order to keep communicating to important contacts, they must switch to an ISP

    159. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by jcr · · Score: 1

      You may have a perfectly valid point, but deliver it in that fashion, and you'll cause many people to reject it simply as a knee-jerk reaction.

      Don't get all patronizing with me, kid. You're the one who went ad-hominem with that "could you sound like more of an asshole" quip.

      So when someone's forced to spend time and money to switch providers due to an overreaching blocklist entry and/or your use of that entry..

      Forced? WTF are you talking about? Force is when someone puts a gun to your head and tells you do to something. Force is NOT involved when I (or ANY number of other people) simply refuse to listen to you.

      Why is it that when some prat like you is trying to argue a ridiculous premise, that you always sqeal about someone "forcing" you to do something when other people don't just give you what you want?

      It's not your problem because it's not directly affecting you?

      Yes, now you're starting to catch on. It's my prerogative to listen or not listen to your traffic based on whatever criteria *I* decide to apply.

      If you're coming from a class B that SPEWS tells me is riddled with spammers, that's your problem. If it ever happens that my ISP's netblock gets listed in SPEWS, then it would be my problem, which I would deal with it by switching my provider if my current provider was unable to get their act together.

      I think this is more than a sufficent example of that attitude that makes people hate blocklist supporters so vehemently.

      How interesting. How exactly did your parents instill this belief in you, that you should hate people who don't listen to you when you're coming from a known spam block?

      People cannot simply change ISP's on a whim...Oftentimes, they're already on the only decent ISP in their area, or even the only one that exists in that area.

      If the "only decent" ISP in their area is in SPEWS, then there's a market opportunity for a better ISP to eat their lunch.

      Sorry, but I'm not going to take the spam just because it's inconvenient for you to change your service provider.

      More likely, they'll just start ignoring you, if you can't be reached by phone or at another email or something.

      If you want to ignore me, I'm sure I can find some way to cope with the loss...

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    160. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      http://spews.sorbs.net/ is up now (was down yesterday). The spews.org site was apparently up earlier today, but it's down again (though I can resolve the domain, which is an improvement).

      Rumours of the death of SPEWS are greatly exaggerated. :)

    161. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm, Dos attacks (e.g. against osirusoft) are great. Exposing yourself to attack (e.g. maps et al) is "bold" and that's great. OK guy, put your money where your mouth is and post all your relevant hosts and address blocks, so we can all chug one when you get DoS'd. That'll be great!

    162. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you deny that Lotax's followers are not skript kiddies?

    163. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Indy1 · · Score: 1

      theft of network resources is a crime in my opinion, and spam is theft of network resources. The penalty for such a crime is blacklisting. Support of spammers indirectly or directly is a crime punishable by blacklisting. As has been said many times, either smarthost, or dont support a spammy isp, or you face blacklisting.

      --
      Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
    164. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by mckyj57 · · Score: 1
      I beg to differ. I work for one and constantly have to deal with spews bs, on many occasions, for some for some REALLY reaching spam associations.

      If you constantly have to deal with SPEWS BS, that means you constantly have spammers using your services for more than a few hours in a row. That means you are part of the problem -- and your opinion against SPEWS is because it inconveniences you and you are apparently too lazy to thoroughly purge them from your systems.

      Not surprising, considering you can't seem to get it together to format a reply.

      No, it really isn't necessary to block 65536 ip addresses to stop spam from one person, particularly when x block of address space being used (in some cases as small as a /30) is swip'd, identifiable, and can be completely isolated from the rest of the subnet. Spews doesn't pay any attention to this at all.

      Non-sequiteur. You are re-advancing the idea that you should try to surgically block spam, i.e. play whack-a-mole and try to block only the spammer until they are disconnected and them rinse and repeat.

      No, SPEWS is out to get clueless, complicit, or malicious ISPs like the ones you work for -- the ones who won't kill spammers root and branch at a high level of priority when they are found. Your ISP is like a restaurant who leaves mayonnaise out -- "Oh, it won't hurt to wait until tomorrow to stop those spammers". Phooey.

    165. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by mckyj57 · · Score: 1
      You've obviously never run a mail server that has actual human customers on it.

      Having run them since 1988 when ucbvax!foosystem!user was still a common form of address, I would have to differ with that. So would the tens of thousands of users who have received and sent mail on systems I have run.

      Ever get one of those rejection messages from Osirusoft and try to figure out what to do next? (answer: there's nothing you can do except repent.)

      No, I have not. I am abuse contact for hundreds of domains, and the number of spam complaints I get per year can be counted on my 21 appendages. I have never had a system listed on a blacklist other than one on ORBS several years ago.

      Now imagine an end user, or a customer getting one of those. This is improving e-mail? And the server admin has no ability whatsoever to fix it, other than to try and convince the jackboots at SPEWS or some other dipshit little club that they've mnade a mistake.

      They rarely have made a mistake *by their criteria*. When they have, they correct it quickly.

      But don't look for sympathy from me. My customers got their mail yesterday, with about 90% of the spam filtered out through more tactful means.

      Guess what? Mine got their email too. I had already removed relays.osirusoft.com due to the ongoing DDoS attacks and changed over to a local DNSBL off of SPEWS data.

      The phones in customer service didn't light up like a Christmas tree, and I didn't have to explain to the CEO why a message from his mother resulted in a cryptic rejection notice. IP blacklisting is for lazy pricks and idiots who couldn't figure out that this was going to happen someday.

      So say you. I had no problems, and my customers had 99% of their spam miss their inbox. At least the ones who are on systems protected by blocking. The *only* spam complaints I get are on the systems which won't run SBL/SPEWS/*proxies* lists, and they go like this:

      Can't you do something about all the spam?

    166. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by zangdesign · · Score: 1

      I was actually referring to the "all or nothing" mentality of the blacklisters. I'm strongly not in favor of spam, but I'm even more strongly opposed to the idea that "collateral damage" is OK. Sure, it's acceptable in war (well, to some, anyway) but in a war situation, you're talking about high explosives and bullets and there's only a certain amount of control that one can exercise of the effects once it's in it's final phases.

      But, and this is a big one, it is possible to specifically target IP numbers as opposed to ranges or perhaps narrower ranges, rather than entire blocks. The blacklisters choose not to, though, instead using a scattergun effect and intentionally (in my opinion) trying to cause as much collateral damage as possible.

      There has got to be a better solution. Unfortunately, and I freely admit this, I don't have it.

      (Actually, I do, but it would violate several state, federal, and international laws and would only give me a fleeting sense of satisfaction since it would only work about once. Plus, I'm sort of a pacifist.)

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    167. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Mine got their email too.

      Yeah... BECAUSE YOU TURNED OFF SPEWS!

      sheesh.

    168. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by BasharTeg · · Score: 1

      I don't agree with everything you've said simply because, you are right in that I have some other options, and obviously I am working on using them, but that still doesn't mean I don't hate on those who force my hand on an issue I am not really related to. Hence my origial "yay, packet SPEWS" post.

      But at least you made an intelligent argument unlike some of these retards with their "WHY DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO EMAIL ME?! (I'm not emailing you, I'm emailing my customers)" bullshit arguments. Kudos for making a decent point.

    169. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by herbierobinson · · Score: 1

      Get the facts straight.

      1. Spamcop is not SPEWS

      2. The Spamcop list is not a block list, it's supposed to be used for sorting, not blocking. This is pointed out in your own poster boy's rant.

      3. I've gotten enough spam from fastmail to recognize the domain; so, your poster boy is blowing smoke.

      Stop stealing other people's time (by supporting spammers) and you will get off the block lists.

      --
      An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
    170. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by herbierobinson · · Score: 1

      > What makes you think they don't? Most U.S. based ISPs don't require anything more than enough complaints with reasonable evidence to shut spammers down.
      That's so wrong it's laughable. It took me over a year and many complaints to get a porno spammer in FL disconnected. It wasn't until I started contacting a large and very straight-laced investor in the ISP that I finally got some action. And that only worked because the guy was advertising porno sites. If they had been flooding the world with 20 billion vitamin scams a day, I probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

      There are large numbers of ISPs who don't want to do anything if it's a large spammer. They are perfectly willing to dump somebody on a DSL in a trailer park, but when the the spammer is buying a T3, they get LOTS of protection.

      --
      An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
    171. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by goldfndr · · Score: 1

      An idea that you might already be pursuing: how about finding a friendly sponsor on another ISP to relay for you?

      --
      Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
    172. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by hypovex · · Score: 1

      If you constantly have to deal with SPEWS BS, that means you constantly have spammers using your services for more than a few hours in a row. That means you are part of the problem -- and your opinion against SPEWS is because it inconveniences you and you are apparently too lazy to thoroughly purge them from your systems.

      "For more than a few hours"? Ahh I see, so ISP's should be psychic as to the activities of what some odd thousand people might be doing at any given moment? You show me an ISP with that much oversight into their network, that also allows their users some basic rudimentary net-freedom and I'll show you a pregnant nun.

      Not surprising, considering you can't seem to get it together to format a reply.

      TELL YA WAHT I WIL EVENS THROW IN SOME SPELIONG AND GRAMMATICALKS ERRORS YOOU CAN POINT OUT TO!

      Non sequitor? If you are receiving spam from a /28 range of x.x.x.x-x.x.x.x, swip'd to john q. organization, and you block that isolated route accordingly, the logical conclusion would follow that you would no longer receive email from that route. No, SPEWS is out to get clueless, complicit, or malicious ISPs like the ones you work for You're an asshat. My employer has an outstanding reputation, I don't need to justify that here though. Bottom line: spews is getting hammered, long time coming, bitch all ya want with the rest of the retards on n.a.n.a.e. I'm laughing all the way.

    173. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by hypovex · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm priamrily talking about home/soho level isps though. If someone buys a t3, they've probably also got a ton of address space assigned to them, that probably isn't a part of a consumer level range. As far as I'm concerned, they can block that all they want. It becomes an issue when an rbl blocks an entire /24, or multiple, to stop someone with maybe 4 ips within a specific subnet. It's like blowing up a house to kill a few spiders. The most ridiculous case I've had to deal with was an individual who was hosting en email address, for someone who used that email address, as an administrative contact on a domain record, for an organization that was somehow associated with spam. I mean, the mails neither crossed, nor reflected any portion of our network, and somehow that merited blocking an entire /20. I couldn't believe that!

    174. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by mckyj57 · · Score: 1

      >> Mine got their email too.

      >Yeah... BECAUSE YOU TURNED OFF SPEWS!

      Apparently you don't read. I am using SPEWS data and have been continuously. I just stopped using relays.osirusoft.com, that's all. Osirusoft != SPEWS.

    175. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by jcr · · Score: 1

      From what I can gather, though, you're trying to classify spammers as "criminal scum"

      That would be because spammers are criminal scum.

      They're thieves. Very petty thieves in any particular instance of their theft of services, but like someone who steals the fractional cents from millions of banking transactions, they're still thieves.

      And what about people who are already on the only ISP that serves their area?

      Might I suggest, a torchlight parade to show them the error of their ways? If you're a disgruntled customer of an incompetent ISP who can't keep themselves out of SPEWS, then show them your dissatisfaction any way you care to.

      In the meatime, I'll be dropping your packets on the floor, because you're trying to connect from a known spam block.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    176. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by jcr · · Score: 1

      I also think the guys running SPEWS could use some lessons in public relations,

      What for? They're not selling a service, they're providing free advice for anyone to use or not use as they see fit.

      As for reputation, they're known to be effective. What more PR could they possibly need?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    177. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by hypovex · · Score: 1

      All of the ip space I control is very much public. When we get dos'd we get the attack filtered. nuff said. BTW, Anonymous posting is for pussies.

    178. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm happy to see you getting what you've had coming for a long time.

      [ Reply to This ] [I will!]

      So, you're happy that others commit illegal acts (DoS attacks) to get rid of something they disagree with?

      You (or your surviving family) won't fault me if I'm happily dancing of your grave when someone who disagrees with you commits an illegal act and blows your head off will they?

      And I see you're still asking for it in another ill mannered follow-up?

      You're an asshat. My employer has an outstanding reputation, I don't need to justify that here though. Bottom line: spews is getting hammered, long time coming, bitch all ya want with the rest of the retards on n.a.n.a.e. I'm laughing all the way.

      My bet: SPEWS will be back and around for some time, you and your employer - WON'T.

    179. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, weren't you listed in SPEWS last year because you hosted on a spam funded network?

      Why, yes, yes you were my whiney little Seanie.

      Too bad it probably took this to get this network to clean up and boot of the pr0n spammers.

      Did you ever ask your hosts why they liked the pr0n spammer's money more than yours?

      (Is it just me, or does every anti-blocklist poster here seem to have a hidden gripe/agenda if one digs deep enough?)

    180. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope SPEWS is pinned by packetting until they shut down.

      So, you're happy that others commit illegal acts (DoS attacks) to get rid of something they disagree with?

      You (or your surviving family) won't fault me if I'm happily dancing of your grave when someone who disagrees with you commits an illegal act and blows your head off will they?

      Lightyear Communications on UUNet? (aren't all the bosses there going to prison?) Care to publish some IP addresses? Some others who disagree with you might find it easier to "pin you with packetting until you shut down" than to blow your head off.

      Me? I'll just ignore you.

    181. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SPEWS and the like are simply wrong headed. Blocking spam is really my responsibility. I do it my trashing all email from sources not in my address book. Pretty simple solution. Huh? So how to you get on the address book "white list"? Call me and ask. Ta da! If you can't find my phone number (duh) I don't want to get your email anyway.

      BTW, I'm on mail groups harvested by spammers. Guess where their emails go?

    182. Re:Why does he think it's spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think before posting.

  2. Blacklists' downfall by Nonac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not condoning this DDoS, but the perpetrator is probably just some sysadmin running a legitimate, secure server that found its way onto some blacklists and got frustrated by all the red tape getting off the lists. This may be his last hope to get off their list.

    I wonder how many people really rely on blacklists anymore. I've tried using them before only to find out that over half of my legitimate email was being filtered and a significant amount of spam was still getting through.

    Bayesian is the only affective method I've seen for significant spam reduction.

    1. Re:Blacklists' downfall by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 1, Insightful
      got frustrated by all the red tape getting off the lists.

      If there is any red tape to get off the list.

      Most spam-blockers seem to have an implicit policy of never unblocking the IPs.

    2. Re:Blacklists' downfall by martyros · · Score: 1
      Hmm, this is like the theory of Saddam & Osama working together. The US is in Saudi Arabia to protect it against Saddam; Osama doesn't like infidels in his holy homeland, so he attacks the US and teams with Saddam, rather than attacking Saddam, so that the US can just leave. (I'm aware that there's no evidence of Saddam & Osama teaming up: I'm saying that the idea of them teaming up is even more strange, since Saddam is the very reason the US is in Saudi in the first place.)

      It seems to me that a better idea for said 'legitimate' sysadmin would be to DDOS all the spam sites, driving *their* bandwidth cost through the roof. But who says angry people are rational...

      As has been discussed much in the previous post about Osirus going down, the purpose of blacklists was never to decrease your own spam, but to put pressures on ISPs to stop hosting spammers. With no 'collateral damage', an ISP has no economic incentive to shut down spammers. With the collateral damage, an ISP can chose between the money from the spammer, or the money from all its other customers adversely affected by the blacklist.

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    3. Re:Blacklists' downfall by MrPerfekt · · Score: 1

      Or that other weird reverse blacklist method... "Whitelisting" works pretty well too. So I hear.

      --
      I just wasted your mod points! HA!
    4. Re:Blacklists' downfall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were looking for the word "effective", not "affective".

    5. Re:Blacklists' downfall by rossz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, the red tape is a bitch. Here's a list of the red tape:

      1. Close your open relays
      2. Kick off known spammers
      3. Stop list washing system admins who complain about spam
      4. Stop making it nearly impossible to submit complaints

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    6. Re:Blacklists' downfall by eaolson · · Score: 1
      Bayesian is the only affective method I've seen for significant spam reduction.
      Except filtering doesn't reduce the amount of spam you receive, just the amount that you receive that you see. Filtering just sweeps it under the rug, and the spammers increase the amount they send in order to make up for it.

      I'm not against filtering, mind you, because it reduces the amount of time wasted with spam. I'm just pointing out that filtering is the least efficient method of dealing with it.

    7. Re:Blacklists' downfall by danila · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This may be his last hope to get off their list.

      And hopefully one of the many ways to get into the federal prison. The whole system of blacklists is completely voluntary and not inforced in any way. It's not like there is cartel of evil ISPs that decided to block some sysadmin from sending and receiving e-mail.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    8. Re:Blacklists' downfall by buffer-overflowed · · Score: 1

      +1 Insightful.

      SPEWS is so strict, and NANAE so abusive to newcomers by nature, that there really is no way of getting off.

      Any admin that uses SPEWS should be shot.

      --
      The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
    9. Re:Blacklists' downfall by lildogie · · Score: 1

      > the perpetrator is probably just some sysadmin running a legitimate,
      > secure server that found its way onto some blacklists

      Perhaps this hypothetical server was legit, but the hypothetical SA stopped being legit when they started slinging zombies around the net.

      A crime is not a legitimate remedy.

    10. Re:Blacklists' downfall by bogado · · Score: 1

      Filters are the only way, in the end only the receiver can actualy separate the spam from good emails. If you use a black list you're actually dening the service of your users.

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

    11. Re:Blacklists' downfall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole system of blacklists is completely voluntary and not inforced in any way.

      Fat lot of good that did a lonely student who needed to contact university administration (only possible through email) to clear mistakes up so he could get his master's degree - and suddenly discovered his ISP being blackholed, with university using the blacklist.

      Yes, his anger should be directed towards university for being so utterly brainless to use the blacklist (and it was), but these blacklists need to make it a whole lot clearer to their customers (which are invariably clueless) that they're blocking a whole lot more than spam, and are actually wanting collateral damage.

      I cheered when Osirusoft went down, and I'm cheering now.

    12. Re:Blacklists' downfall by swb · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many people really rely on blacklists anymore. I've tried using them before only to find out that over half of my legitimate email was being filtered and a significant amount of spam was still getting through.

      Rely is too strong a word. Even Osirusoft's RBL wasn't effective by itself, but we used it where I work (~500 people, marketing industry) and it was flagging 1/4-1/3 of our incoming (~5k messages per day) as SPAM with a scant dozen complaints from end-users and people who tried to mail us (bounces included a "WTF???" explanation URL).

      I used to think that the complaints about RBLs were somewhat valid, but with nearly a year of Osirusoft under our belts I'm not so sure anymore.

      I do agree that they're not wholly adequate, and that a Bayesian screening technique is much better; unfortunately it's not a technique easy to apply to a gateway MTA handling many users.

    13. Re:Blacklists' downfall by lx805 · · Score: 1

      I'm not condoning this DDoS, but the perpetrator is probably just some sysadmin running a legitimate, secure server that found its way onto some blacklists and got frustrated by all the red tape getting off the lists. This may be his last hope to get off their list.

      So, instead of doing something simple or rational like making arrangements to smarthost outbound mail through an unblocked mail server, he's breaking federal laws.

      Yup.

      Makes complete sense to me.

      Like I said in an earlier post, if people would spend a little more time working WITH the blocklist instead of spending a lot of time working AGAINST the blocklist, the Internet would be a much better place...

    14. Re:Blacklists' downfall by lx805 · · Score: 1

      Fat lot of good that did a lonely student who needed to contact university administration (only possible through email) to clear mistakes up so he could get his master's degree - and suddenly discovered his ISP being blackholed, with university using the blacklist.

      If the asshat couldn't figure out to pick up a phone and call someone at the university, he doesn't *DESERVE* a masters degree.

      I'm sure the people responsible for the e-mail system at that university made it very clear to their superiors what the ramifications of using the blocklists would be. Those superiors probably glanced over at the telephone on their desk and said the same thing I just said in the previous paragraph.

      I cheered when Osirusoft went down, and I'm cheering now.

      I'm cheering now because there's more than one way to get SPEWS than through Osirusoft, and I cheer every time I check my e-mail.

    15. Re:Blacklists' downfall by Skapare · · Score: 1

      I've found Bayesian to be totally ineffective in getting spammers to stop trying to send spam to my mail servers. DNS plus private blacklists are so far the most effective. No, they are not perfect as some legitimate mail occaisionally gets rejected. But I'm at around 99.95% spam blocked now, and see maybe 1 legitimate message lost per month or two. I can live with that. I can understand that some other people cannot live with that.

      I do agree that ISPs that choose to use some particular method (i.e. don't let the customers choose) should at the very least tell the customers what method they use, so the customers can make the informed choice to stay or switch to another ISP or sue someone.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    16. Re:Blacklists' downfall by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. It's trivially easy to get off SPEWS. Stop selling network services to spammers. Remove all traces of them from your network. Voila, entry disappears.

      If you are complaining about your ISP's entry in SPEWS, well, then you need to complain to your ISP, not to SPEWS. You (presumably, as a customer) have standing with your ISP.

    17. Re:Blacklists' downfall by buffer-overflowed · · Score: 1

      Yo, come over here into the real world. Hi, how're you doing?

      I work for an ISP with more users on it then most of the NANAE people admin.

      For a while we were blocked by SPEWS because we had the misfortune of being assigned a netblock alongside some spammers when we got a cutrate deal on some lines(GBLX).

      Now, as a business can we afford the premium to buy non-spews listed IPs? Can we afford to register with ARIN and remain competitive? No, would SPEWS budge, No. Would GBLX crumble if we left them, no, spammers make more money for them then us legitimate businesses.

      So, our options are? Oh, right, appeal to the NANAE people, who won't budge. It took an SBC rep to get us off that list, because he empathized.

      --
      The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
    18. Re:Blacklists' downfall by delcielo · · Score: 1

      Bayesian analysis isn't foolproof. To skew the analysis, simply place a large amount of innocuous and seemingly valid text into some embedded html. This causes the filter to analyze that text as well, adding its benign weight to the spam probability.

      No solution is the only way to go. We need a combination of many solutions to stand a chance these days.

      --
      Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
    19. Re:Blacklists' downfall by Master+Bait · · Score: 1
      The collateral damage really, really comes when the volunteers rarely remove 'reformed' ISPs from their list. Hence the fall of Spews.

      --
      "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
      --Tom Schulman
    20. Re:Blacklists' downfall by danila · · Score: 1

      1) If it is an important e-mail, everyone should enable receipt confirmation and/or reading confirmation flags.
      2) In my experience ISPs send "your address/IP/whatever is blackholed/blacklisted/banned/whatever", whenever I happen to be blocked (happened two times so far, both cases were "cross-border" both resolved).
      3) You can use a variety of free webmail services, some of which do not even require subscription to send the e-mail. Unless the recepient's ISP blocked the entire Net, your e-mail will probably come through.
      4) You are right that it was university's mistake. I am more than sure that SPEWS and other blacklists do warn users that false positives are possible. And if you know how to set up a blacklist-based filter, you should have enough clue to understand this warning.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    21. Re:Blacklists' downfall by autopr0n · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that a better idea for said 'legitimate' sysadmin would be to DDOS all the spam sites, driving *their* bandwidth cost through the roof. But who says angry people are rational...

      What are you talking about? How would that in any way be 'rational'? There is no way that a simple DDoS could shut down all spammers, they appear and disappear. And not only that, such a DDoS would need to be 100% effective against all spammers everywhere and it would take months, if not years for all these blackhole listers to realize that spam was gone, and shut down. (yeh right)

      It's doubtfully you'd even be able to hit very many. They move all over the place, and there are tons of them.

      On the other hand, DDoSing SPEWs effectively would immediately solve your problems. Seems pretty rational to me...

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    22. Re:Blacklists' downfall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with the blocklist methodology is that it's like dynamiting fish. It's indiscriminate and tends toward overkill. The list compilers tend to be lazy and whiny (otherwise they'ld spend time making their lists more specific) and the list users are just as bad. The childishness of "blocklisting" the entire internet speaks for itself.

      That said, the only good spammer is one buried to the neck in gasoline-soaked junk mail at a smokers convention.

    23. Re:Blacklists' downfall by rossz · · Score: 1

      Some lists are as you describe, but not all. I use spamhaus.org because the list avoids overkill. I also use a few lists from blackholes.us, specifically the china, korea, nigeria, and rackspace. Rackspace is a big supplier of hosting for spammers so I refuse to accept any of their garbage (I don't think I've ever received a single legitimate email from a rackspace ip address).

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    24. Re:Blacklists' downfall by ysachlandil · · Score: 1

      And then wait 6 months until you are removed from the blacklist...

      Or go out of business before then.

  3. Best defense is a good offense by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 5, Funny

    So when do we get to launch our DDoS against the spammers again?

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:Best defense is a good offense by dewdrops · · Score: 2, Funny

      So when do we get to launch our DDoS against the spammers again?

      Let's send them tons of unwanted emails advertising p0rn and herbal supplements.

    2. Re:Best defense is a good offense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No - it's time to get our guns, baseball bats and pitchforks and hunt down those spammer scum like the beasts they are. Show them no mercy.

    3. Re:Best defense is a good offense by SirLanse · · Score: 1

      Not the spammers, DDOS the people that pay them! Shut down the penis enlarger site and they will not be able to pay the spammer.

    4. Re:Best defense is a good offense by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1

      So when do we get to launch our DDoS against the spammers again?

      As soon as they can do something to get themselves featured in a Slashdot front-page story, they'll feel our bandwidth! All servers tremble in ph33r of the Slashdot Effect.

      But they could always counterattack with a redirect to a certain "hello.jpg". The horror!

      It's Mutually Assured Destruction all over again. Where's Reagan when we need him?

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    5. Re:Best defense is a good offense by sharkey · · Score: 1
      So when do we get to launch our DDoS against the spammers again?

      When the next issue of magazines come out. All the subscriber cards have been stripped from the issues currently on the newsstand.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    6. Re:Best defense is a good offense by Skapare · · Score: 1

      What about the ISPs that let spammers stay connected? And what about the people that pay money to those ISPs so the ISPs can charge the spammers less?

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    7. Re:Best defense is a good offense by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      I keep thinking this could be the answer.

      Consider that most SPAM does contain some kind of legitimate contact information -otherwise they couldn't acutally sell anything.

      Then consider what would happen if even 1% of the recipients of a given message called that 800 number, or called the toll-number collect or found some way to respond directly to the "people" responsible for initiating the SPAM that you're not interested.

      Think they'd be doing any real business that day?

      That's a DDoS attack I'd like to see.

    8. Re:Best defense is a good offense by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      Shit im ready. I just got 355 emails today. I had forgotten how effective the spam catchers were...usually I get about 20-30 legit emails...

      so not only are they DoSsing, but they have upped the SPAM to boot!

  4. It's illegal by mabu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Would someone please remind the federal government that DOS attacks are illegal? Anyone want to encourage them to take action against these people? Can they stop playing golf long enough to do their job?

    1. Re:It's illegal by Popsikle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      See the thing about DoS attacks is that they are normally (at least now-a-days) DDoS. Distrubuted Denial of Service.
      Attempting to find who is launching these attacks (its not right that the media assumes its the spammers) is VERY VERY unlikley.
      The only thing you can really do is filter the attack. You cant really block 1000's of different legitamite, even if they are comprimised, from your services.

      Unless you can find the IRC Bot, which 99.9% of these attacks are controlled from, you cant determine who started the DDoS. Even if you find a IRC hostname, chances are its BNC'd anyway, and what good would that do you.

      Yes it might be illegal, but the internet is still very much like the wild wild west, sherrifs have no control and there are too many wide open spaces to hide.

    2. Re:It's illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's no spammers doing the DDOS, it's terrorists doing the DDOS. Maybe the US government wakes up, if we call our enemies by their name: it's Osama BinLaden, AlQuaeda and all those terrorists attacking our network infrastructure!

    3. Re:It's illegal by The_K4 · · Score: 1

      Well that's also becomming an issue with spam. Spammers use trojans to turn other people's computers into spam machines, now that user (or their ISP) gets blacklisted....and what's that user or ISP's recourse? They are now stuck on a blacklist, and this isn't illegal. I hate spam, but blacklists arn't all good, as many users have pointed out, and they are becomming less usefull as the trojans are used more and more by spammers.

    4. Re:It's illegal by mabu · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A friend of mine who runs an ISP filed a case with the FBI. He had all the evidence, he had $100,000+ worth of damage he could prove. The case was meticulously documented. The FBI felt it was a rock solid case. They presented it to the DAs in multiple juridictions and they refused to prosecute or pursue the case. He even had the perps home address and telephone number and enough evidence to link him to credit card fraud, attacks on major corporations and much more, and the authorities blew the case off and didn't take action.

    5. Re:It's illegal by silentbozo · · Score: 1

      Please tell me that he's planning to give this info to the Wall Street Journal. Sounds like a juicy story, and perfect for giving all of these recalcitrant DAs public black eyes.

    6. Re:It's illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should have said there was a pot plant in his bathroom. He'd be in for life.

    7. Re:It's illegal by antis0c · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I love "A friend of mine.." stories, they're like Unicorns. You always hear about them but never see any proof. :)

      --

      ..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
    8. Re:It's illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or your friend could just say that the guy downloaded kiddie porn. Then he'd be in for long enough to get a shank in the neck.

    9. Re:It's illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you are who i think you are, you are unaware of entire story - you're not far from, but not quite close to knowing truths.

    10. Re:It's illegal by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      The government will gladly take action, as soon as the operators of the blacklists show up at their local courthouse and file a complaint.

      Uh oh, there's the problem. The operators of present generation of blocklists have tried to sheild themselves from lawsuits from the wrongly accused and those pretending to be wrongly accused by trying to keep their identies hidden. If they want to file a police complaint, they're welcome to, but when the case makes it to court they're the people involved are gonna get called to the witness stand. "State your name and address for the record."

    11. Re:It's illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Unless it's something like "A friend of mine borrowed $20 bucks from me and never returned it."

      Those stories are always true.

    12. Re:It's illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > A friend of mine who runs an ISP filed a case with the FBI. He had all the evidence, he had $100,000+ worth of damage he could prove. The case was meticulously documented. The FBI felt it was a rock solid case.

      OK, if the criminal-complaint route is no good, how about a civil case? Sounds like he's got Really strong grounds for damages, and the perp's contact info to boot.

    13. Re:It's illegal by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      Well that's also becomming an issue with spam. Spammers use trojans to turn other people's computers into spam machines, now that user (or their ISP) gets blacklisted....and what's that user or ISP's recourse?

      The solution to that scenario is fairly simple: don't run software that opens your computer up to infection by trojans/worms. If you're an ISP, don't allow your customers to run such software on your network.

      (OK, so maybe that response is like Q saying the solution to some problem is to change the gravitational constant of the universe, but one can always hope, right?)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    14. Re:It's illegal by The_K4 · · Score: 1

      he he he, Yeah i think it is something like that. Too bad I can't (legally) controll what everyone else on my ISP (the one I connect through, I do not own it) runs for software. :)

    15. Re:It's illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously never dealt with the FBI.

      Satan can show up in your backyard and begin sacrificing virgins. You call the FBI and the first thing they do is find out if your great-great-grandfather ever ordered a white-russian in a lesbian bar.

    16. Re:It's illegal by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 1

      Would someone please remind the federal government that DOS attacks are illegal? Anyone want to encourage them to take action against these people? Can they stop playing golf long enough to do their job?

      Would someone please remind the federal government that ^H^H^Hdownloading copyrighted stuff without permission from the copyright owner is illegal? Anyone want to encourage them to take action against these people? Can they stop playing golf long enough to do their job?

      (Uh, for some reason I'm not sure this one will make it to +4 insightful. Funny, that)

      Thomas Miconi
      =============

    17. Re:It's illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put the evidence on the Internet, including the DAs that wouldn't touch it. If it's a "rock solid case", justice will eventually be served.

    18. Re:It's illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a Unicorn in my basement! If you wanted proof i've got it!

    19. Re:It's illegal by Zigg · · Score: 1

      If it were my day, I'd give you points.

    20. Re:It's illegal by mabu · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between civil and criminal violations. The P2P thing is a civil issue. Breaking into someone's computer is a criminal felony, and could even be interpreted under the USA Patriot Act as a capital crime, punishable by execution.

  5. MOD PARENT DOWN. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Althought he presents a valid arguement, WE DONT WANT TO HEAR THAT!

  6. No Surprise Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spam, DDoS attacks, both clog networks, cost businesses money. We already know that spammers would do these kinds of thing so this comes as no surprise

  7. whitelisting or pay for e-mail needed? by pwarf · · Score: 1

    It may be easier to just go to white-listing or have some people go to a pay per e-mail thing (or spend computational time on protein-folding, as suggested earlier).

    1. Re:whitelisting or pay for e-mail needed? by Mephie · · Score: 1
      Pay per email would be pretty interesting. General email at a low cost per message sent, if it crosses network borders. And between hosts would cost, like from msn.com to aol.com, but would not cost if sent to someone with the same host; aol.com to aol.com. It'd be almost like a phone company with local v. long distance calling rates.

      Heck it could even be set up so that someone who sends a lot of mail could purchase a package that includes X number of free emails per month.

      I'd think that would be extremely difficult to effectively set up, logistically, though, and the business world would likely (understandably) have an absolute fit if the idea were ever seriously considered.

      Then again, maybe it'd save enough money in terms of bandwidth that it would be worth it.

    2. Re:whitelisting or pay for e-mail needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...because we all know having to pay postage stopped junk mail and long distance charges stopped telemarketers.

  8. Try as they may... by grasshoppa · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apparently spammers aren't going to sit by and let people try to ignore their unwanted pitches.Too bad my users and I are behind a trained spamassassin, then, eh?

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:Try as they may... by ms1234 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it make more sense using bayesin and other filters on the client side than blacklists which seems to contain a lot of false positives and generate a lot of headache to people/ISP's. At least on the client side the user can go through his spam folder and pick out any false positives and train the filter to become better. Should be hard enough for the spammers to try and work around the filters

    2. Re:Try as they may... by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

      I use bayesin filtering server side, and I tag ( X-Spam-Status ) the messages that don't pass. It's up to the client as to what they do with it.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  9. justice by NetMagi · · Score: 0

    this is rediculous. . . they get away with hitting us with tens of thousands of unwanted CRAP every day and now they can ddos one of the best solutions we currently have.

    Maybe it's time for some vigilante justice.

    Spammers HAVE to have a weaknes. .

    1. Re:justice by grasshoppa · · Score: 3, Funny

      Spammers HAVE to have a weaknes. .

      I find most people, when a hammer is liberally applied to the head, find their weakness to be blunt objects.

      They tend to dislike them.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    2. Re:justice by Graelin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the best solutions we currently have.

      Blacklists by their very design have a HIGH false-positive ratio. How is that a "best solution"? I don't even think it's a "so-so solution." I'd call it a "horrible solution." On top of that, they are easily avoided.

      Content filters are the next level of spam protection. It doesn't matter where the email came from, if you're trying to sell me a 12" dong I won't accept it. This is the only thing that will save us from a large P2P spam network.

    3. Re:justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do... money

    4. Re:justice by sakeneko · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Maybe it's time for some vigilante justice.

      Blocklists are vigilante defense, if not vigilante justice. Vigilante justice is justice meted out by self-appointed individuals or groups. Blocklists aren't, for the most part, trying to punish/mete out justice to spammers. They're just trying to block the flow of spam.

      But they are self-appointed and work according to a set of informal rules that they adhere to voluntarily. That sounds like vigilante to me.

      I'm not saying this as criticism, but simply as a description of what is going on. I maintain a procmail-based spam filter with a fair number of users, and it supports various blocklists. I'm not anti-blocklist, to put it mildly.

      At the same time, I think most anti-spammers would like to see a less chaotic means of fighting back against spam. Most of us are just trying to hang on until various governments wake up and realize what spam is doing to the Internet, and start taking it seriously as a conversion of resources that the spammers do not own. Theft, in other words. :/

  10. Might not be spammers by G-funk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Of course it probably is spammers, but it wouldn't suprise me if some people who've had themselves blacklisted unfairly would like to ddos some blacklist servers into the beyond.

    Personally I don't believe blacklists are the way to go, I think simply intelligent filtering should be installed wherever possible, and eventually spam will die out. I know spammers are smart and work their way around all sorts of blocks, but so are we, and there's a lot more of us than there are of them.

    ObDisc:Don't bother flaming me about "collateral damage" or any of that crap, since I'm not the one ddosing the servers, and I've yet to find myself blacklisted, so I'm not interested.

    --
    Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    1. Re:Might not be spammers by johny_qst · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to flame you or pester you, but could you please change the backround on your site the next time you go through a redesign process... I hate it when you are watching me read about your work.

      --
      Fnord.sig
    2. Re:Might not be spammers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha yeah i will... :) gotta sort out some real-world issues first that might affect where I host :)

    3. Re:Might not be spammers by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      Of course it probably is spammers, but it wouldn't suprise me if some people who've had themselves blacklisted unfairly would like to ddos some blacklist servers into the beyond.

      Whoever it is is an idiot then, because if SPEWS is down, there's now no way for ISPs to update their filters. The current SPEWS listings will remain until they can access an updated list.

      Welcome to your permanent intranet.

    4. Re:Might not be spammers by g_goblin · · Score: 0

      The problem is, they can focus all their attention on how to get around the filters, we on the other had have many hats to wear throughout the day. There simply isn't enough time my friend and the spammers know this.

    5. Re:Might not be spammers by lx805 · · Score: 1

      Finally, someone with a rational opinion! :-)

      The only problem with filtering is that by the time the spam makes it to your filters, your resources (bandwidth, disk space) have already been abused. This works fine if you don't pay for your bandwidth (or if you pay a low fixed rate, like for dialup), but anything more is wasteful.

    6. Re:Might not be spammers by Skapare · · Score: 1

      I have seen very very few networks listed unfairly by blacklists, including SPEWS. Care to go into any specifics?

      What makes you think spam will die out if lots of people use intelligent filtering? Instead, spammers are constantly working on ways to evade those filters, and they do so effectively in some cases. They can, and some now do, make their "ads" look like conversations between people, who just happen to talk about the products really being advertised. Unless they used certain words like maybe "viagra", it can pass the filter. If your filter cuts out every message with "viagra", then even your own friends can't talk about it unless you whitelist them. And even then the spammers can find out who your friends are, if your computer got infected or you participate with them on a mailing list.

      And none of this solves the other half of the spam problem, which is that networks and mail servers are being overloaded by the spam. For many businesses, mail uses more bandwidth than web access, and spam makes a substantial portion of that. They end up having to upgrade their mail server and/or their connection bandwidth sooner than they should have ... sooner than they would have had there been no spam at all.

      The goal I and many other people have is to make it so that repeat/habitual spammers (I'm not talking about people who made the mistake of spamming once and got slapped for it) have no net access at all, and cannot even send a SYN packet, much less make an SMTP connection. Only then are they not stealing my resources.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    7. Re:Might not be spammers by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      Or, until SPEWS provider does the natural thing, which is pitch SPEWS from their servers for being a bandwidth sink. Mail admins will then have to take the initiative of throwing out the old, stale SPEWS list, but then, that's life.

      What goes around comes around, and all the spam/anti-spam games are dubious in varying ways.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    8. Re:Might not be spammers by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      Actually, in this case the spammer is VERY stupid.

      The SPEWS website just offers a direct download text list of its listings, as well as documentation for the listings. Most admins don't use that -- they use DNSbl sites, and those aren't down. The website's presence has no bearing on the ability of an admin to filter based upon current SPEWS listings. In other words, SPEWS is still alive and kicking, even if the website is inaccessable.

    9. Re:Might not be spammers by furballphat · · Score: 1

      Care to go into any specifics?

      here?

    10. Re:Might not be spammers by Skapare · · Score: 1

      Listing Cogent was very fair. Cogent is responsible for harboring a number of spammers. What was SA doing to get spammers out of Cogent?

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    11. Re:Might not be spammers by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, I believe most of the population of the earth wants to live in peace, and let everybody have enough food on the table. The number of people against this idea will be an unsignificant minority, but that does not make it so.

      Currently I am having some trouble from spammers that send mails with just pictures in them, containing the complete message. Try filtering that out. What can I do against that? Have my mail system recognice text in mailed messages? What if it is just a link written over a very large penis (and I am not even making that one up, bah).

      Warper

    12. Re:Might not be spammers by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      I'm getting a lot of those kinds of spam at the moment. Surely the best way to remove them would be to look at the image/text ratio. I never get a non-spam e-mail that's so heavily image laden with no text.

    13. Re:Might not be spammers by Gaxx · · Score: 1

      I agree, I've seen a lot of angry people out there who've been caught in the back-wash of a subnet ban :-(

      Yep, as usual in life, intelligence is the way to go :-) I must admit that I'm pretty happy with my installation of a bayesian filter. It's fast, accurate and I haven't seen any of my 80-220/day spams in the past few weeks. Suprisingly I haven't had any false positives or negatives for over two weeks either :-)

      --
      -- Gaxx
  11. SoBig by ifreakshow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Earlier this week when people talked about the writer of SoBig leasing his virus network for spamming many people said spammers wouldn't want to be involved with virii/attacks. I think the DOSing of black list sites pretty much shows that the people sending spam have little moral problem with invading your computer to break the law.

    1. Re:SoBig by mrex · · Score: 1

      Earlier this week when people talked about the writer of SoBig leasing his virus network for spamming many people said spammers wouldn't want to be involved with virii/attacks. I think the DOSing of black list sites pretty much shows that the people sending spam have little moral problem with invading your computer to break the law.

      That spammers have little moral problem with invading your computer should surprise no one. They already do it, probably several hundred times a day, to every mail server out there. From breaking their Terms of Service agreements to brute forcing usernames on mail servers to hijacking proxies to exploiting copies of the cursed FormMail, spammers have thrived on breaking the law and invading others' systems since day one.

    2. Re:SoBig by stwrtpj · · Score: 1
      I think the DOSing of black list sites pretty much shows that the people sending spam have little moral problem with invading your computer to break the law.

      Not unlike your little moral problem of making accusations against people with no proof.

      --
      Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
    3. Re:SoBig by jcr · · Score: 1

      It's not a matter of morality, it's a matter of feasibility. A spammer who admits to being involved with virus attacks is confessing to a felony.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    4. Re:SoBig by ifreakshow · · Score: 1

      A spammer involved in DDOS attack would also be commiting a felony unless he own/had legal rights to all the computers participating(doubtful)

  12. Solution by alphax45 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why don't we just offer all the main spammers a free seminar on some small island in the south pacific or somewhere where no one will care, then when they all get there..

    NUKE IT!!!

    Problem solved :)

    --
    K Man
    1. Re:Solution by Barbarian · · Score: 1

      Just send them an email.

    2. Re:solution by wmaker · · Score: 1

      Everyone I have ever talked to claims they HATE spam with a passion... So, my question is, Who are the people that are clicking the banners, who are the people clicking the links. It seems to me that there can't be that many people doing it, if everyone hates it.

    3. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ripley: "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit."

      Hudson: "Fuckin-aye."

    4. Re:solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't need a grass root movement to boycott. We need to setup a legal solution that transfers liability down to the people buying spam services from the spammer.

    5. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or somewhere where no one will care

      Like Idaho for example?

    6. Re:Solution by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      Jones: "meow!"

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    7. Re:solution by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      The same people that watch Jerry Springer. Remember - the average IQ is 100. Half of everyone is dumber than that.

    8. Re:solution by wolrahnaes · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you need to completely stop spam to be make it not work.

      Spamming is the most cost effective marketing method available. The cost of sending out millions of spams is near zero. In most cases, if one sale results from the entire spam campaign, they have either broken even or profitted.

      Think about it from a spammer's perspective. You don't care about your company's reputation, you just want money. Run a harvester on a few popular websites, grab a few thousand email addresses, and send your advertisement through an open relay, and wait for a click.

      Many of these spammers also are using the pay-per-impression ad banners, so they make money from anyone who even clicks, without buying anything (or anyone who even reads the message with HTML mail).

      For a larger spammer, the system works even better. They could buy a list of a few million email addresses for a couple hundred bucks.
      ***HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION***
      For this example, lets say they buy 2 million addresses. Out of those, lets say that due to spam blockers and dead addresses, only 750,000 get through. Of those, .01% of the recipients (75 people) read the mail. 25 of those view the site, and 15 actually buy the product, which could be a "Viagra Alternative" for $70 (actually costing the spammer $10), giving the spammer $60x15 = $900 profit.
      All that for 1 minute typing the message, a few minutes building a simple web site on a free host, and a few minutes sending the message.
      If the process takes him 30 minutes plus 5 minutes to pack and label for shipping the product, that is 105 minutes for $900 profit.
      ***END HYPOTHETICAL***

      I pulled all of the above numbers randomly, so they are likely inaccurate, but you get the picture.

      Spamming offers the spammer exactly what many of them advertise, "Make money fast in your spare time!!!"

      The profit margins are even higher if they are not actually sending the product, and jut scamming the idiots who buy their products (as many spammers do).

      P.S. while I have basically just sold some losers on the idea of spamming, I hate spam and think they need to be restricted through both legal limits similar to telemarketers, and through technological systems to prevent faked email addresses (close those relays people!).

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
    9. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Idaho?!?

      U-da-ho, sucker!!

    10. Re:solution by schon · · Score: 1

      The fundamental problem is that SPAM WORKS.

      No, the fundamental problem is that there are morons who believe that spam works.

      Spammers that make money do so by selling spam services to suckers who don't know better. These morons believe that "if spam didn't work, they wouldn't send it", and so happily give the spammers money to spam for them.

      When the morons run out of money, the spammers move on to the next set of idiots.

      It's great. The spammers get paid by the morons to do something that doesn't cost any money, so it's all profit.

  13. Funding and source for these attacks? by rickthewizkid · · Score: 1

    I wonder... Is it the people who are paying for the SPAM also paying for these attacks? I can imagine a campaign among these sleazeballs drumming up support for a DDOS of the spam blacklists...

    Just my act-now-to-get-a-six-foot-penis worth...
    RickTheWizKid

    1. Re:Funding and source for these attacks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno where the money's coming from, but I bet it buys a shitload of Viagra.

      Soon you'll be able to tell a spammer because they'll be walking around like a tripod mumbling something about "spam doesn't work" and "I used the excess stock"...

      Mark my words. Next primaries, look for the dude with the scout tent in his pants. He's the guy with the spam campaign.

    2. Re:Funding and source for these attacks? by The_K4 · · Score: 1

      I would doubt that. If the case where they are paying spamers to spam, all they need to say is "My contract stipluates taht every user must have the right to opt out". If intentional fund a DDOS attack then they would be liable in civil court.

    3. Re:Funding and source for these attacks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, I should have previewed that. -1 for being lazy and trying to save time, and failing.

  14. who says its spammers? by tongue · · Score: 5, Interesting

    what makes you think its spammers? there a plenty of legitimate email users with a beef against these fascists--me, for one. i had a domain on a subnet that's entirely blocked despite the fact that i don't have open relays nor have i ever done any kind of spamming. several of my clients within larger corporate structures couldn't receive email from me because some PHB read in DildoCTO Quarterly that these lists can stop spam--never mind the fact that they can stop any kind of legitimate email use as well. There were a LOT of times i'd wished i had had the wherewithal to undertake something like this; spammers or not, i applaud the culprits.

    1. Re:who says its spammers? by buss_error · · Score: 2, Insightful
      me, for one.

      It's called due dilligence. You didn't do it to check that the IP's were blocked, you didn't do it to check that your ISP was spam friendly, you didn't change ISPs when your mail started to get returned, so you didn't do your job.

      And I'm supposed to feel sorry/agree with you exactly why?

      --
      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
    2. Re:who says its spammers? by rossz · · Score: 1

      So you bought a house in the slums and now discover that you can't get a pizza delivered. Sucks to be you.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    3. Re:who says its spammers? by vegetablespork · · Score: 1
      It's worse--he's renting, and rather than just moving into a good neighboorhood, he's calling the people who supply crime statistics to pizza delivery people rascists/classists/*ists for causing him not to be able to get a pizza.

      Sorry, that analogy was so good I couldn't help running with it.

      --

      Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

    4. Re:who says its spammers? by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      Who is your ISP?

    5. Re:who says its spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My money's on Verio.

    6. Re:who says its spammers? by gorbachev · · Score: 1

      It is most likely spammers, because they are ALREADY engaging in criminal activities. It wouldn't be much of a leap for them to switch from illegal computer hijacking into DDOS.

      It WOULD be a significant leap from a legitimate business owner to all of a sudden to engage in an acticity that would result in a felony conviction, if he would get caught.

      Most of the high volume spammers already have a criminal past (felony convictions for drug trafficking in the case of Eddy Marin for example). These people are perfectly capable, and willing, to break the law at any time. Given that most blocklists also try to mainly target these high volume spammers, it's not that big of a stretch to believe it's the spammers who are doing it.

      Furthermore, blocklists DO work and are extremely effective. That is exactly why spammers hate them so much. It's, in some cases, completely destroying them.

      In some cases, like Traffix, Inc. (grouplotto.com and bunch of other spam factories), they caused half the market capitalization of the publicly traded company to go poof. That's right...$100M+ of the company's worth dissappeared, because they were so thoroughly blocklisted their response rates dropped so dramatically their advertises weren't paying them that much any more. Don't believe me on this? Go read the SEC filings from Traffix, Inc.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
    7. Re:who says its spammers? by rossz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, yours is better than mine (and mine isn't as original).

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    8. Re:who says its spammers? by Skapare · · Score: 1

      If you pay money to an ISP that harbors spammers, then you are part of the problem. The motive in blocking all of an ISP's address space (and SPEWS started small and gradually increased it so the ISP would get the message before a lot of customers were impacted) is to make that ISP realize they have to choose between hosting spammers (whom they could terminate) or hosting legitimate customers (who might be leaving due to the poor reachability).

      Your thinking that the only reason you could be blacklisted is for actually sending spam is your big mistake. If you support spammers, even indirectly, you are part of the problem and in that case expect to get listed eventually (the less direct your support is, the later you are likely to be listed). Customers of ISPs that persist in harboring spammers are not innocent.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    9. Re:who says its spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, real due diligence is tracking down your sorry ass and beating it till you say UNCLE!

    10. Re:who says its spammers? by tongue · · Score: 1

      Do you even know how blacklists work? You dont have to use an ISP or host that "harbors spammers", just make the mistake of having an IP address somewhere in the class A or B subnet that spews has decided is entirely composed of spamhausen. Its the kind of blind logic you present here that's part of the problem. Instead of exercising a bit of initiative in using something like spamassassin or even bayesian filtering along with spam headers, these jackasses, and their idiot subscribers, nuke an entire class of addresses to kill a couple hundred. This is the online equivalent of dropping the Bomb on afghanistan just to be sure we get bin Laden and the remaining taliban. sure, we get those fuckers, but manage to kill a couple million innocents in the process. thank god the morons running spews aren't in charge of our foreign policy (not that bushites are much better, but at least they're a little more selective).

    11. Re:who says its spammers? by nchip · · Score: 1

      He obviously has more knowledge of blacklisting than you have. Or give us an EXAMPLE of spews blacklisting an subnet that isn't on a spemmer friendly ISP. And lumping every blacklist from spews to dsbl.org and spamhaus.org isn't very wise either.

      Even spews doesn't just blaclist entire A/B subnets at glance, unless they obviously belong to a spammer. They start with single IP:s, and ONLY IF the spammer doesn't get kicked out, the block is gradually enlargened.

      It's not blind logic either. Standard whois queries are used to check what IP block belong together and who owns them. If your ISP owns an /16 subclass and doesn't bother setting rwhois up to make people able to distinguish between IP's owned be legitimate companies and IP's owned by spammers, how can a blacklister know what IP's of /16 black belong to the spammer?

      And while boasting spamassassin, remember that it uses blacklists as well. However, using blacklists on SMTP level seems to be the only way bring attention for the spamming problem for the ISP harboring spammers.

      Personally, I don't use spews, but:
      dsbl open relay, open proxy lists.
      spamhaus sblIp network ranges belonging to spammers.

      0 collateral damage so far. Other high-quality blacklists include:

      spamcop dynamic and automatic blacklist that lists IP addresses only WHILE they are spamming.
      njabl probably the best list overall, listing all of them: spammers, proxies, relays, dialups.

      Ofcourse, many insist not using their ISP's smtp servers so dialup ip blocking is risky, and spamcop.net relies on users repoting spam so a group of clueless people may reuslt a wrong IP blacklisted, so the above two blacklists don't suit everyone..

      --
      signatures pending - ansa@kos.to - (dont mail there)
    12. Re:who says its spammers? by Skapare · · Score: 1

      And just where did you get that IP address from? If you got it from ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, LACNIC, etc, then you are the ISP or other network operator. But if you got it from an ISP, then it's your mistake if you got it from an ISP that harbors spammers.

      If you think SPEWS might block a whole /16 just because some ISP with only a /19 is harboring spammers in there, then that's where your ignorance of the process is showing. SPEWS will not expand a listing beyond the business relationships that exist.

      You further show your ignorance of the issues by insisting that everyone use tools that test content. Such tools are a valid choice for those that want that approach, but they do not have any effect, and even make things worse, when the goal is to reduce the costs associated with incoming spam.

      If you think the only goal is to keep spam out of the mailbox at any cost, then you are again showing just how ignorant you really are. If you were the one who had to install hundreds of additional mail servers like they do at AOL just to keep up with the load of SMTP connections which attempt to deliver mail that is doomed to be rejected (more than 60% of what AOL gets will be rejected one way or another, and at great cost if it involves content analysis), then you'd realize that cost is a critical factor.

      And SPEWS has been very effective in turning around quite a number of ISPs. Sadly, many others have decided to ignore SPEWS and focus their business on hosting spammers. Before SPEWS, thousands of networks were doing private blacklisting, and that's where most of the damage was done. The DNSBL approach provided a means to quickly update a central database to show addresses which have been removed and should no longer be blocked.

      SPEWS is very selective. You're just pissed off because your ISP happens to be one which was selected. Next time, switch ISP and you can help encourage ISPs to stop hosting spammers (assuming you are not a spammer in disguise).

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    13. Re:who says its spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were a LOT of times i'd wished i had had the wherewithal to undertake something like this; spammers or not, i applaud the culprits.

      So, you're happy that others commit illegal acts (DoS attacks) to get rid of something they disagree with?

      You (or your surviving family) won't fault me if I'm happily dancing of your grave when someone who disagrees with you commits an illegal act and blows your head off will they?

      Funny how people like bozo here will quickly turn to crime when they feel wronged in any way... "you cut me off in traffic, I'm going to kill you!"

      Advice: Anger management junior.

  15. Wow... by johny_qst · · Score: 0
    This is the silliest thing I ever expected to read in a spam story...
    Spamcop's Haight theorizes that the increasingly sophisticated attacks suggest a link with organized crime, but admits he hasn't a shred of evidence.
    Anyone else have a wilder guess?
    --
    Fnord.sig
    1. Re:Wow... by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Anyone else have a wilder guess?

      Sunspots

      Finkployd

    2. Re:Wow... by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      Yeah only the mob has such sophisticated tools at their disposal, and obviously employ the most fiendishly clever hackers on the planet.

      As others have pointed out, there are a lot of people who hate these little censor lists, their arbitrary and often politically motivated "blacklisting".

      With these folks, the cure is often worse than the disease. Now instead of your company "losing revenue" due to spam, you lose clients due to their inability to contact you.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    3. Re:Wow... by vegetablespork · · Score: 1

      He would know. He already has links with Organized Crime

      --

      Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

    4. Re:Wow... by aliens · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Theory: aliens

      Evidence: Insider information.

      --
      -- taking over the world, we are.
    5. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Jeez. Could you be any more transparent? I knew that was a troll before I even saw your username!

      ~~~

    6. Re:Wow... by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 1

      Actually there could be some credibility to this, as much of the spam is porn-related and organized crime is involved in the net porn industry. Apparently its a good way to launder money.

    7. Re:Wow... by I+don't+want+to+spen · · Score: 1
      System agents.

      Or, like in some short story read years ago (Arthur C. Clarke maybe?) the network has developed consciousness and is doing its own thing.

      Nah, its the Spam company ...

      --
      Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
    8. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes me:

      It's not simply "organized crime", it's AlQuaeda! And all those attacks an viruses will culminate in 2 weeks.
      Our world will stop spinning on September 11th 2003

    9. Re:Wow... by Valar · · Score: 1

      employ the most fiendishly clever hackers on the planet

      Everybody knows that's the Chinese military. Duh.

    10. Re:Wow... by JamesP · · Score: 1

      I would bet in the Al Quaeda, the aliens from planet Zoron or the government of Sb0rnia

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    11. Re:Wow... by starfarer42 · · Score: 1

      It's obviously a conspiracy. The complete lack of evidence only proves just how effective this conspiracy is.

    12. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Anyone else have a wilder guess?

      Why? He knows of what he speaks.

      Two Spammers Shot Dead
      0600 Hrs 02 November 1999

      Two spammers were found dead in New Jersey, USA on October 28th. The murders were reported as execution style killings by CNN. Investigators had not pinpointed any motives or suspects. However the Monmouth County Prosecutor John Kaye was quoted on CNN as saying that the attack likely was at least partly tied to the pair's penny stock Web operation, www.stockinvestor.com, or other ventures. The stockinvestor.com operation was responsible for spamming millions of e-mail accounts. Opinion on www.slashdot.org varied from outright applause for the action to concern for the victims and their families.

      The pair, Alain Chalem and Mayir Lehmann were found face down having been shot in the back of the head. One was shot in the chest and the other had also been shot in the knee. If these wounds were inflicted before the pair were killed, the killers could have been looking for information before killing them.


      Where was Tony Soprano in October 1999?
  16. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is right on target, IMHO.

    Why do the authors of --> EVERY -- submission *INSIST* on inserting their 1-sentence editorial at the end of each story?

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do the authors of --> EVERY -- submission *INSIST* on inserting their 1-sentence editorial at the end of each story?

      Two reasons:

      a) As moderators, they are immune from the -1, troll bitchslap

      b) Where better place to troll than the story itself?

      I am envious of their trolling capabilities.

    2. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically you're saying it's a free-pre-frost-pist?

  17. Distributed blocklists by silentbozo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bad for them. The main reason for creating centralized blocklists was so people who reformed, or who kicked spammers off their blocks, could have their IPs relisted without having to worry that random admins had hardcoded filters into their routers. One central source for listing, one central source for delisting.

    If they succeed in negating the value of centralized blocklists, guess what - admins will go back to blacklisting blocks manually. Those IP blocks will become useless once enough people add them to their blocklists, and there won't be any easy way of redeeming them.

    Anyone who wants to get internet access better get a clause in their contract guaranteeing that the IPs they get weren't abused by someone in the past, or else they might be getting a useless connection.

    1. Re:Distributed blocklists by ifreakshow · · Score: 1

      A simple way to solve this problem is with p2p blacklists

    2. Re:Distributed blocklists by jj_johny · · Score: 1
      You can't trust that a message is from who it says its from. You can't trust the IP that is used. You can't trust the headers. So....

      Just think about the SoBig virus and its expected payload of spambots is just the reason that you can't use blacklists. I agree that every ISP should be require those that setup mail servers on their networks to make sure they are not open relays but blocklists are yesterday's method that suprise the spammers are going to get around.

    3. Re:Distributed blocklists by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

      Digital signatures can be used to sign messages of this sort. You would still want to get your key from a central point; but this would make a lousy target for DoS, since once you had the key you could keep it, or if you needed it you could wait for a break in the attack, or get the key from someone you trusted.

    4. Re:Distributed blocklists by zeromentat · · Score: 1

      "If they succeed in negating the value of centralized blocklists, guess what - admins will go back to blacklisting blocks manually. Those IP blocks will become useless once enough people add them to their blocklists, and there won't be any easy way of redeeming them."

      Umm where have you been, a large part of the problem with SPEWs was that they were placing large IP blocks on the blacklist for no apparrent reason. I personally was involved in a case where they blocked an entire server farm because one server was behaving badly.

      --
      Gotta move .. gotta go!
    5. Re:Distributed blocklists by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      Umm where have you been, a large part of the problem with SPEWs was that they were placing large IP blocks on the blacklist for no apparrent reason.

      The "reason" is that the IP blcoks are owned by spammer-friendly ISPs. Do you have documentation of a listing where this was not the case?

    6. Re:Distributed blocklists by antis0c · · Score: 1

      Yes and then what happens if whoever controls the centralized blocklists has a hidden agenda? Then what? What if its owned 3 times removed by some other company who's in direct competition with a specific ISP. Whats to stop that ISP's IP blocks from entering the blocklist, and then all their appeals denied?

      I'm all for centralized blocklists too but I don't think they're a long term solution.

      --

      ..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
    7. Re:Distributed blocklists by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how Cloudmark's SpamNet is P2P. From what I can see, it's has community features, but it is done through central servers at Cloudmark. Take out Cloudmark's central servers, SpamNet does not function.

    8. Re:Distributed blocklists by Skapare · · Score: 1
      Anyone who wants to get internet access better get a clause in their contract guaranteeing that the IPs they get weren't abused by someone in the past, or else they might be getting a useless connection.

      Maybe this will be the thing that speeds up the transition to IPv6. There has been too little motive (even from those who claim to be pushing IPv6) to do it. The idea of huge expanses of never-abused address space could be enticing. And further, once an ISP gets some space in IPv6, it will be next to impossible to get more, because what they get will be so huge already (enough to run every computer in the world a million times over). So said ISP had better not do anything stupid like let it get blacklisted (which will be even easier to blacklist because it will be a single contiguous block).

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    9. Re:Distributed blocklists by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      Most Internet users could give a flying fsck wether their IP has any potential email server blocked. Most Internet users don't run mail servers. Since the real solution to Spam is shutting down the automatic freedom to run a mail server, and limiting the net to certified/white-listed servers, it's really a moot point. Why the hell should any idiot be allowed to put up a mail server? Why should any idiot NEED to? All it does it make it possible for viruses with built in SMTP capabilities to spread.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    10. Re:Distributed blocklists by ifreakshow · · Score: 1

      Guess you are right! I read about them in an article that said it was P2P but don't actually use the service. I think I will initiate a project to do this.

  18. Spammers? by I+KNOW+MARTIAL+ARTS · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Everyone knows it is Microsoft and SCO working together. The spam sent to the open source community will surely destroy the Linux kernel programmers' productivity. Duh.

  19. Desparation by RevJim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is an act of desparation on the part of spammers that proves the anti-spammers are winning the battle. Fortunately, the next phase of the "war" is moving away from blacklists and focusing on technologies that are user-based and user-specific, such as Bayesian filtering. There is no level of DDoS attack that can stop that battle.

    1. Re:Desparation by McDutchie · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Fortunately, the next phase of the "war" is moving away from blacklists and focusing on technologies that are user-based and user-specific, such as Bayesian filtering.
      On the contrary, spammers love Bayesian and any other kind of filtering because it doesn't stop them from sending their spam. They love it when people "just hit delete" either manually or in an automated fashion through filtering, instead of actively blocking their junk and getting their accounts shut down. They don't mind that you don't get their junk; they will just increase the amount of spam they send tenfold every year so they keep making money on those suckers that are born every minute, until e-mail has been completely destroyed. Blocking - aggressive, massive blocking and boycotting of spam supporting networks - is the only way to save e-mail.
    2. Re:Desparation by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 1

      It's not desperation. It's a coldly calculated strategy.

      Spammers also have their sights set for filters; haven't you noticed that recent SPAM is coming with more and more random word strings ( like klasdflasdf) to get past the filters? The spammers aren't desperate at all, they're winning the battles.

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
    3. Re:Desparation by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Hmmm, curious. I always thought the most effective way of stopping spam was to make it a money losing proposition....

      Blocking mail might do that, but there are any number of ways to stop spam, every last one of them involves making the price of spam a price no one is willing to pay.

      Using Baysian filtering to build a set of IP's which have a threashold (say 90% of e-mail) is spam, then it gets added to your black list (Mailserver or router blacklist).

      Kirby

    4. Re:Desparation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Blocking - aggressive, massive blocking and boycotting of spam supporting networks - is the only way to save e-mail.
      That's true, and it's working very, very well. The spammers are on the run, and resorting to increasingly desperate measures. Once this current wave (infecting random PCs for to create a distributed virus/spamming network) crests, I think the end of email spam will be in sight. The spammers can only escalate so far before they start getting slaughtered by mobs in the streets.

      The ironic thing is that the anti-blacklist whiners are reaping huge benefits from the blacklists, in the form of spam-friendly ISPs going out of business at record rates and surviving ISPs becoming deathly afraid of hosting anything even vaguely spam-related. There are only like 100 surviving spammers in the world, and their numbers are dwindling every day. The problem has become tractable only because there's so much widespread enforcement of anti-spam policies happening, and it's only happening because of the blacklists.

  20. Bad spam by red_dragon · · Score: 1

    ... battering many other blocklist services...

    "Spam, spam, spam, spam. Lovely spam, wonderful... Ow! Ow! Stop that! Bad spam! Ow! That hurts!"

    --
    In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
  21. Impressive by 3terrabyte · · Score: 3, Funny
    "We're usually under attack from 5,000 to 10,000 servers at once," Linford said, with incoming data flows as large as 100 million bytes per second. "They're extremely large attacks that would bring down just about anything." But Spamhaus, with 16 servers scattered through 10 countries, has been able to ride it out, Linford said.

    Impressive.
    Hopefully there isn't a slashdot story linking to them any time soon!

    --

    Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

  22. -1 REDUNDANT IT IS NOT GETTING SLASHDOTTED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fucking karma whores

  23. distributed? by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Might need to move these block lists onto a distributed network. If lists were sent out via a Gnutella- or BitTorrent-like system, using digital signatures to verify authenticity, it'd be impossible to DoS.

    1. Re:distributed? by gclef · · Score: 1

      One of the advantages of a DNS-based system (like the rbl, sbl, etc) is that it doesn't take any updating on the part of the client to keep up with the spammers movements...as long as the DNS server for the Blacklist updates their entries, everyone gets the updates. Any system where you're actually moving a full list around is going to have all sorts of problems with people not getting updates, timeliness of updates, etc.

      Basically, it moves anti-spam to the anti-virus signature model (and we've all seen in the past few weeks how effective that is). I like the idea of DNS blacklists...we just need stronger infrastructure to handle the SOB's who want it shut down.

    2. Re:distributed? by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure I could design a system where blacklist updates would be distributed everywhere, rapidly, probably updating faster than a system which checks a server periodically. The more I think about it, the more I think the Gnutellanet is a good model for the system. For sharing general files it had some serious scaling problems, for for this it would be inifinitely scalable.

      Given someone who can lay out exactly what a blocklist user requires, and a good source for the blocking data, I could probably code such a system in a matter of days.

      Anyone up for it?

    3. Re:distributed? by copterdoc · · Score: 1

      OR, They could mass mail the list to everybody and then whoever wanted to use it could; and those that did not, could just throw it in the trash.

    4. Re:distributed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I was enough of a programmer, or knew enough about p2p and blacklisting, I would drop *every* geek hobby I have to help out.

      P2P blacklist distribution would be great.

  24. MOD PARENT SIDEWAYS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny


    Everyone appears to want to direct mod power today, so why not?

    1. Re:MOD PARENT SIDEWAYS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either you stole this joke or you like telling it, anonymously, over and over.

    2. Re:MOD PARENT SIDEWAYS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...the mod squad then?

    3. Re:MOD PARENT SIDEWAYS by Illbay · · Score: 3, Funny

      I hate "Mods" myself. I've always been a "Rocker".

      --
      Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
  25. Re:Site is becomming slashdotted - heres the text. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1
    Trojan arses
    Ehh? Time to re-read Homer, I think I missed something here.
    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  26. blah by wmaker · · Score: 1

    So, these services figured out how to non-effectively block spam, now they should release something that non-effectively blocks DoS attacks.

  27. solution by NetMagi · · Score: 1

    blacklists might not be the best defense we have. .they sure aren't perfect. .but ddos'ing them is childish.

    The fundamental problem is that SPAM WORKS.

    What we need is soem silly grass-roots movement/boycott to get people to STOP doing business with companies that adverstise with UBE.

    If spam didn't work, they wouldn't send it.

  28. Client-side blocking by jtoker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not too disappointed to hear of these new attacks. Conspiracy theories and the like aside, I'd rather have the responsibility for SPAM-blocking placed on the client side.

    Damnit, if I want a larger penis, then I should be able to read SPAM directed towards that. That being said, I'd much prefer if these SPAM services were forced to be opt-in.

    Unfortunately, client-side filtering doesn't adequately address the massive amounts of bandwidth consumed by SPAM operations. Nonetheless, the idea that an autonymous corporation/whatever can decide what is valid e-mail for ME is just as offensive, in my opinion, as e-mail advertising product/scam/idea X.

    Peas,
    j

    1. Re:Client-side blocking by Robert+Frazier · · Score: 1

      There is another possibility, which is used by my university. They just add a tag in the header saying that the IP is on the list. They also add a Spam Assassin score in another tag. I use these to route potential spam to a special mailbox, which I look at about once a week. It only takes a couple of minutes to clear it.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

    2. Re:Client-side blocking by eaolson · · Score: 2, Insightful
      That being said, I'd much prefer if these SPAM services were forced to be opt-in.

      If it was opt-in, it wouldn't be spam.

    3. Re:Client-side blocking by PhoenixRising · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No one is forcing you to use a blocklist.

    4. Re:Client-side blocking by bandy · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you don't like it, don't subscribe. Nobody's forcing you to use the blacklists. However, the spammers are forcing you to process and store their emails.

      --
      "You might as well get your son a ticket to hell as give him a five string banjo." -unknown minister
    5. Re:Client-side blocking by jtoker · · Score: 1

      Really? That's not what 2 of the ISP's I have used have said. Thanks for making assumptions about my environment, though.

    6. Re:Client-side blocking by danila · · Score: 1

      You want client-side filtering. Most people want server-side filtering. Who are you to dictate them what they should use? If you don't like that your ISP filters your e-mail, let them know, they might be able to disable filtering for you. If they just can't, get a better e-mail service. There are many ways - buy a domain for e-mail and then you can probably demand your ISP to not filter it, or do anything else.

      If the majority of the clients want the ISP to filter their e-mail, it should be free to do so. If you don't want that, tell that to the ISP or connect to another one.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    7. Re:Client-side blocking by jtoker · · Score: 1

      Who are YOU to dictate what people should be using, as well?

      Also, why is it that such a large proportion of Slashdot comments include comments such as "get a better...". That is hardly constructive.

      And, I do have my own domain.

      Oh, and can I see your statistics pointing to "a majority" of people wanting server-side blocking? Perhaps this is what you discuss at Friday-night D&D meetings with you and your d00dz, but it's not something I want. If you had read my post, it would have been obvious that I was speaking for myself, not anyone else. Perhaps you would do well to follow said advice.

      Jarett

    8. Re:Client-side blocking by PhoenixRising · · Score: 1

      Your ISPs are running /mandatory/ spam filtering? That's absolutely and utterly asinine. Is that just for residential clients? What on Earth ISPs were you using?

    9. Re:Client-side blocking by tmark · · Score: 1

      Well then, noone is forcing you to use an ISP that forces you to use a block list.

    10. Re:Client-side blocking by Skapare · · Score: 1

      That is what the blacklists are for, to force the spam blocking on the client side of the SMTP transaction. Or better yet, to even prevent that SMTP transaction at all by having the ISP disconnect the spammer.

      Oh wait, you were talking about POP3/IMAP clients. Oh yeah, that just doesn't work well due to the bandwidth problem you do mention. So how about this: let's shoot all those who send spam to those who don't want it. That way those who do want penis-enlarging offers can get them (then it's not really spam).

      The decision being made for DNSBLs isn't about who is sending what content. It is about who is sending whatever content to people who didn't request it, and doing so only a bulk basis. Spam isn't about content at all; it is about consent. If I ask for penis-enlarging offers, it's not spam to me. If the sender verifies that I really do own the email address before sending it, they can be protected against someone abusing them tricking them into sending to someone who did not ask for it. What DNSBLs blocked are those operations that didn't do the proper sending verifications. It's nothing about content.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    11. Re:Client-side blocking by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen you since highschool, someone gave my your email address, does that mean if I contact you, because its "unrequested content" I am spamming you? No.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    12. Re:Client-side blocking by Skapare · · Score: 1

      If you are not doing it in bulk, then it does not fit the definition of spam. The definition I use is UBE ... Unsolicited Bulk Email. It has to be both unsolicited and bulk to be considered spam. That means if you gathered a list of all the email addresses of everyone at your high school, and sent mail to each one using bulk methods, you would be a spammer. But if you were to manually type each address into your mail program, and manually type in each message personally, then I would not call that spam. There are some in betweens and it might be a fuzzy boundary between what is or is not spam. But sending ONE message to ONE person is NOT spam under the UBE definition since it didn't meet the 'B' requirement.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    13. Re:Client-side blocking by DavittJPotter · · Score: 1

      Except that, as has been pointed out numerous times, not everyone has access to another provider. Many rural areas have exactly *one* provider.

      Oh yeah, fuck them if they don't have a 'real provider', eh? Guess everyone doesn't need internet access.

      Dick.

      --
      "If there's hope, it lies in the proles..."
    14. Re:Client-side blocking by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      Everyone I know, from geeks to complete retards, hates spam. All of them wish they recieved less. I could deduce from that that they wish for server-side filtering to be enabled. After all, if the filters were disabled, they'd probably be flooded with spam.

      Server-side spam filtering is a selling point for ISPs. Do you think they'd use it as a selling point if the majority didn't want it?

    15. Re:Client-side blocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not dictating anything, dumbass. He's making helpful suggestions and you're spitting in his face. FOAD, spammer.

  29. It's whose ears you own... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    [sarcasm]
    Well, spammers has varies "online marketing association" that owns the ears of some politicians in the capital. And the anti-spammers has...?
    [/sarcasm]

    Attack against anti-spammers is a vigilanti action. Attack against spammers is a federal felony.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  30. MOD THE PARENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Just Mod the damn thing.

  31. Blacklists ARE useful by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Because you can reject mail at the SMTP level. I typically get about 70 emails a day to my own server. About 40-50 get denied by a DNS based filter on qmail (rblsmtpd). Which means on average, only 25 get through to Spamassassin, where another 15-20 are deleted due to high spam thresholds. Then I get about 5-8 real emails, and maybe 1 or 2 spams that make it through (which Mozilla mail promptly eats as spam).
    If I had to burn CPU to Bayes-classify all mails, it would bog me down more than I am now (running on Linux on an old PC).
    DNS based BL is useful because it doesn't even let it in the door.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Blacklists ARE useful by ThrobbingGristle · · Score: 1

      I agree... although SpamAssassin has been far more effective than black lists for me I don't like the fact that I now find it easier to just quietly accept all the crap the spammers send out even if the Assassin sorts it out.

      With black lists I can bounce it and say ha! I don't want your crap!

      Still, I used osirusoft.com explictly and as a part of SpamAssassin (along with other blacklists) and I found it to be a useful resource.

      I've never been blacklisted though, so maybe my opinion would change if I had been.

    2. Re:Blacklists ARE useful by lakeland · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, bayes is quite a bit cheaper than spamassassin, and crm114 is cheaper still.

    3. Re:Blacklists ARE useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you running an SMTP server when you only get about 5 legit e-mails a day? Seems like a waste.

      I run Moz with Bayes filtering enabled and I get about 150 e-mails on an average day.

      Moz snatches up the spam faster than it can transfer over SMTP.

      Burn CPU cycles? What a cop-out excuse. I bet you've even got a copy of Seti@Home running on your machine.

      Why not take a look at crypto. Crypto eats more CPU cycles than Bayes filtering and it's far more widely used. Is there limited use of crypto due to lack of CPU power? Absolutely not. A modern machine can handle even a good-sized load of e-mail (say 1,000 or so) in a matter of seconds AT WORST.

      And, if you want a real enterprise solution, someone starts making hardware devoted to bayes filtering just like they do with crypto.

    4. Re:Blacklists ARE useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I typically get about 70 emails a day
      > to my own server.

      > If I had to burn CPU to Bayes-classify all
      > mails, it would bog me down more than I am now
      > (running on Linux on an old PC).

      Bullshit. A TRS-80 could process 70 emails a day. Use whatever makes you happy, but the CPU burning argument is silly.

    5. Re:Blacklists ARE useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus fucking Christ. If you had to process all 70 emails, that would leave you with 60*24/70 = 21 minutes allowable to process each email. A fucking etch-a-sketch can process emails that quickly.

    6. Re:Blacklists ARE useful by McFly777 · · Score: 1
      Why are you running an SMTP server when you only get about 5 legit e-mails a day? Seems like a waste.

      One reason that I can see for running your own mailserver, even for a small number of legit emails, is that you have the opportunity to reject mail based on the envelope sender (blacklist), before the mail has even been delivered.

      I would think that it would be better that the spammer recieved a "user not found" immediatly (as some bulk mailer software might remove bad addresses), rather than my ISP collecting the mail first (thereby confirming that the address exists).

      Note, I don't know if this would really make much of a difference or not. Given the generally sleazy nature of spammers, and the way they resell to eachother, it may not matter.

      --

      McFly777
      - - -
      "What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
    7. Re:Blacklists ARE useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. try a better Bayes engine. My FLEX-based bayes analyzer&tokenizer can process email at 10mbyte/sec. Thats fast enough that there's almost no need for a tranining database. Just have do a training upon startup; 10mbyte is 2000 messages and only takes a second.

    8. Re:Blacklists ARE useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't spare cpu cycles to Bayes-classify 70 mails per day but you can run Mozilla?

      Wow.

      Seriously, Bayesian filtering isn't that cpu-intensive. And you can have it done before the mail reaches your MUA.

      I prefer it because I want to be able to periodically check for false positives (so far, there have been zero).

      The most important thing to me is to avoid any false positives.

  32. Re:Site is becomming slashdotted - heres the text. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "It's the equivalent of having 100,000 people pound the same ass hole, over and over, at the same time."

    Was this text really in the article? Specifically, the part about 100,000 people pounding the same ass hole? Mods on Crack? Again?


    Very clever little troll mr submitter.

  33. Karma Whore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    How can he be whoring for karma if he posted AC?

  34. "Trojan arses"??? by phillymjs · · Score: 5, Funny

    From the article: In a technique called a "distributed denial of service attack," vandals exploit security flaws to plant programs, called "Trojan arses," on thousands of Internet-connected computers. They then order the Trojan arse programs to spew useless data at a targeted machine.

    The mental image of a bunch of Greek soldiers pouring from the sphincter of a huge, wooden butt is just too funny for words.

    ~Philly

  35. This is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The FBI ought to make this a priority. Instead they're probably busy investigating some company's claims to have lost $100k to an intrusion. That kind of damage figure is a gross overestimation 99% of the time... e.g. the IT people weren't going to be overly productive doing something else (rather than investigate the attack) anyways. Instead, here you have tens of thousands of people losing real value. The economic definition of value lost to a nuisance is the maximum amount of money you'd be willing to pay to get rid of the nuisance. I'd personally be willing to pay up to $500 a year to get rid of spam permanently (to anyone but the spammer of course.) Assuming that the average RBL user's a little less sensitive than I am, say, at $100 a year, that's still $1 million for just 10,000 RBL users, and I'm sure there are at least that many mail server operators that use the lists, let alone spam-sensitive users on those servers.

  36. THE POST ALTERS THE ARTICLE'S TEXT, MOD IT DOWN by analog_line · · Score: 0, Troll

    Mod it down. I'd heard trolls were doing this. Boston.com isn't even near being slashdotted.

    1. Re:THE POST ALTERS THE ARTICLE'S TEXT, MOD IT DOWN by Potent · · Score: 1

      Mod it down?

      Hell, this is the funniest thing I've seen all week! :)

      --
      Out of order? Fuck! Even in the future nothing works! - Dark Helmet (Rick Moranis) "Spaceballs"
    2. Re:THE POST ALTERS THE ARTICLE'S TEXT, MOD IT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny, but there's a serious point here. Why didn' the moods RTFP??!!

    3. Re:THE POST ALTERS THE ARTICLE'S TEXT, MOD IT DOWN by Potent · · Score: 1

      Maybe they did ;)
      --

      --
      Out of order? Fuck! Even in the future nothing works! - Dark Helmet (Rick Moranis) "Spaceballs"
  37. Re:Site is becomming slashdotted - heres the text. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well not really that clever, but it serves a socially useful purpose if it persuades mods to actually READ what they are modding! Honestly.

  38. Stating the obvious? by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    Organized crime? hardly. Maybe it's just another group of bored script kiddies...

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  39. The $25,000 Question by overshoot · · Score: 1

    The FBI (who have jurisdiction) don't investigate crimes with less than $25,000 provable damages. Well, that or $25,000 in campaign contributions. Either way, the blocklist maintainers (who all work pro bono publico) can't prove the damages, so the law effectively doesn't apply.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  40. MOD THE PARENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just mod the damn thing.

  41. let them think it's the spammers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seems like a good way to have two problems solve themselves simultaneously, like two panicking people in a pool who can't swim who grab onto each other.

  42. Re:Site is becomming slashdotted - heres the text. by fatboy · · Score: 1

    It's the equivalent of having 100,000 people pound the same ass hole, over and over, at the same time. Such attacks can knock a computer offline simply by swamping it with more data than it can handle.

    Hahaha! Too bad that was not in the real article.

    --
    --fatboy
  43. Mitnick's at it again. by FesterDaFelcher · · Score: 1, Funny

    I bet its Kevin!

    --
    My user number is prime. Is yours?
    1. Re:Mitnick's at it again. by AntiOrganic · · Score: 2, Funny

      No way, it's so obviously Jonny Lee Miller and Angelina Jolie.

  44. Hooray! by Gay+Nigger · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What makes you think spammers are to blame? Spam blocklists are censorware - their (unaccountable, usually anonymous) maintainers are beholden to none except themselves, often block sites for no other reason than to further their own political agendas, and burden innocent bystanders (unwitting customers of an ISP that (might) host spammers) with the cost of doing their job for them.

    Good riddance, I say. I sure won't miss them.

  45. ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Barbarian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Go to nana-e, and they'll tell you that robots from space run SPEWS, and there's no way to get a hold of them. They start with Class C's, then progress to banning class A's. Some of the crazies who post on nana-e even have the whole country of Brazil banned on their private lists. SPEWS had information too on DNS blackholing (i.e. preventing your users from going to internet sites) and on HTTP blocking. If it was anyone else (the government) who was advocating this, people would be outraged.

    1. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by sqlrob · · Score: 4, Informative

      BZZZT.

      They start with the IP, then list class C, then widen the number of class Cs. It takes a fucking lot to get expanded. There is less than 1% of the internet listed by SPEWS (after removing IANA reserved space)

      I have Brazil, Argentina, Korea and China tagged on my server. Number of false positives: 0. YMMV.

    2. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a Class A and Class C? Didn't we go to classless routing, oh, 11 years ago?

    3. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by mrex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Go to nana-e, and they'll tell you that robots from space run SPEWS

      Spammers with unbalanced ethics:lawyers ratios have already attempted to make life hell in court for blocklist owners that they could track down. I know of no instances where the spammers won, but the costs and hassles associated with defending yourself from a lawsuit exist whether one wins or loses.

      Who can blame SPEWS for planning ahead for this? Answer: spammers who are really pissed off.

      , and there's no way to get a hold of them. They start with Class C's, then progress to banning class A's.

      That's the whole goal of SPEWS. SPEWS is not a list of spammers, its a Spam Prevention Early Warning System. Listing individual spammers addresses has not been entirely effective, as spammers simply find providers who are willing to lie for them, thus SPEWS was created to punish ISPs who are unresponsive to legitimate abuse reports. SPEWS exists to counterbalance the profit those ISPs may make from spammers with loss of profits from those who want to use the internet for a legitimate purpose.

      Some of the crazies who post on nana-e even have the whole country of Brazil banned on their private lists.

      I add a very very large score via SpamAssassin to any mail that comes from Brazil, Mexico, China, Taiwan, Korea, and several other nations who appear to be becoming spam havens. What's your point? I have, in many years on the net, never received an e-mail I wanted from those countries.

      SPEWS had information too on DNS blackholing (i.e. preventing your users from going to internet sites) and on HTTP blocking.

      Uhhhh...yes...and? Is there something immoral about administering the ISP you are responsible for in the manner you see fit? It's my business, I can do as I damn please. If I want to filter out every website except my own, that is my right. My customers vote with their business, they do not get a direct say in how I run my outfit. Every business owner understands this concept when it is put into their terms, yet spammers seem to be very against this right when it comes to ISP owners. Gee, wonder why.

      If it was anyone else (the government) who was advocating this, people would be outraged.

      So? Very often it is acceptable for an individual to do something that a government cannot. For instance, if the government tried to convince me to go to XYZ Church, I would be outraged. For an individual to do so is nothing short of normal.

    4. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like 8, but the language is slow to change.

    5. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I too have the entire country of Brasil banned at our company. Why? Because we get NO legimitimate mail from there, never had a reason to, but inexistent or long removed users still have 50-100 mails a day delivered to their /dev/nulls.

    6. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 4, Informative

      Trouble is when you're not a spammer and you're hosting at an ISP and the class C you're on gets listed.

      Yes, some may say "find another ISP", but that's not always easy; contracts may make that impossible for many months and the ISP may otherwise be fine as is.

      If they block anything, they should only block the IP's that cause the problem, not large netblocks.

    7. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Rasta+Prefect · · Score: 1
      Go to nana-e, and they'll tell you that robots from space run SPEWS, and there's no way to get a hold of them.

      /me looks at title of story. Gee, I wonder why they might have this sort of policy?

      Some of the crazies who post on nana-e even have the whole country of Brazil banned on their private lists.

      So what? I don't know anyone in Brazil. I don't speak Portuguese. Nonetheless, I get quite a bit of SPAM from Brazil. Brazilian ISP's almost universally don't respond to SPAM complaints. Why the hell _shouldn't_ I just blacklist the whole country on a private mailserver? I'm not seeing a downside here.

      SPEWS had information too on DNS blackholing (i.e. preventing your users from going to internet sites) and on HTTP blocking. If it was anyone else (the government) who was advocating this, people would be outraged.

      So what? I don't want to do business with spammers. Why shouldn't I have access to this sort of information? It's my network, my equipment, I'll not talk to whomever the hell I don't want to talk to. Yeah, they'd be outraged if the government were doing it, because then you don't have a choice. With SPEWS, I choose not to accept mail from Spammers and their ISP's. If you want to, then don't use the list.

      --
      Why?
    8. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by randyest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So, write down in your day planner, right there on the date that your current contract is due to expire, this simple action item: negotiate next contract duration to be dependent on the provider not being blacklisted.

      Maybe this time it's a decent excuse, but next time you know. And any provider not willing to include a clause that lets you out if they get blacklisted is probably knowingly hiding spammers.

      As to whether the provider is really "fine otherwise", to me that's like saying "my new dog keeps chewing the neighborhood kids' finger off, but otherwise he's fine . . . "

      I'm really sorry that SPEWS has been a hassle for you and others, but it's worth it to me, and I wish more providers used SPEWS or similar (well, if it ever comes back). And, now that you know, you can plan for this sort of eventuality in the future, because it's only going to get more and more common as spam continues to grow.

      --
      everything in moderation
    9. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by undef24 · · Score: 1

      The are attempting to punish the ISP by forcing them to lose business. The whole point is to get the innocent people to find another ISP and put the ISP out of business, OR, force them to have a zero tolerance spam policy.

    10. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by mrex · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Trouble is when you're not a spammer and you're hosting at an ISP and the class C you're on gets listed.

      That's exactly the purpose of SPEWS. To use the common analogy, you live in a filthy crimeridden slum. Trying to send e-mail to my server is equivalent to calling and trying to have a pizza delivered to your house. Knowing that you live in a filthy crimeridden slum is enough for me to know that I don't want to deliver a pizza to your house, whether you think you have the right to buy one or not.

      If everyone stopped supporting that crime ridden ghetto in any way, sooner or later it would either cease to exist or it would be cleaned up. Same with your provider.

      Yes, some may say "find another ISP", but that's not always easy; contracts may make that impossible for many months and the ISP may otherwise be fine as is.

      If you signed a contract that you can't get out of without doing your homework on the company you had decided to go with, that is not our problem. What turns out to be our problem is that you are giving money to support an organization which supports spammers. (Only organizations which support spammers are intended to be on the SPEWS list) We would like you to stop that. We may very well exercise all our rights in an effort to convince you to do so, one such right being a list like SPEWS.

      At any rate, there are plenty of other technical solutions to your problem even if you are unfortunately stuck in a slum. "Smart hosting" is one that immediately springs to mind.

      If they block anything, they should only block the IP's that cause the problem, not large netblocks.

      Why do you say that? The goal of SPEWS is not to list individual spammers, it is to list those who support spammers.

    11. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by EverDense · · Score: 1

      What's a Class A and Class C? Didn't we go to classless routing, oh, 11 years ago?

      Yes, but with the sharp rise in IT work being shuffled off to India, the terminology
      was re-established.

      --
      http://jesus.everdense.com/
    12. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why the hell _shouldn't_ I just blacklist the whole country on a private mailserver?

      Because that makes you:

      A FUCKING RACIST

    13. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 1
      That's exactly the purpose of SPEWS.

      Ok. So your purpose is to get the end-users pissed off at you instead of the spammers.

      Well done. I'm one of them. Your cure is worse than the disesase, you fucking net-nazis!

    14. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      Some of the crazies who post on nana-e even have the whole country of Brazil banned on their private lists.

      If someone never gets anything from Brazil other than megabytes of spam, and you never expect to, blocking Brazil for your own mailbox(es) makes sense. I still get vast quantities of spam from Brazil and I don't believe I've *EVER* gotten a response from the ISPs down there that allow it.

    15. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I too have the entire country of Brasil banned at
      >our company. Why? Because we get NO legimitimate
      >mail from there,

      Sure by now you will never have any legitimate mail more any mail

    16. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Indy1 · · Score: 1

      Crazies? I didnt know being a spam hating BOFH made you a crazy. Yes, i block ALL of south america. Dont like it? Too fucking bad, its MY box. When South america cleans up its act, i'll allow their mail again. Until them, let them eat the ether silence.

      --
      Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
    17. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by cdrguru · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The problem isn't the ISP blocking "their" traffic - it is the ISP blocking other people's traffic. Usually without informing their customers that said blocking is occurring.

      This results in their customers not receiving email. The decision that the sender of that email wasn't legitimate has been removed from the user and the sender and placed in the hands of some anonymous third party.

      In general, the ISP answer to blocking complaints is they simply use the list and do not control the content of it. The blocking list provider - if contactable - claims they just make up the list and the use of it is outside of their control. This means nobody is accountable for blocking.

      The problem with this sort of censorship - and it is indeed censorship - is the user never hears about it. When a business is blocked they quickly discover that blocking has made email unreliable for communications with customers. They can either abandon email for important stuff or they can try to convince the blockers that their commercial use of email is valid. This is extremely difficult. Why? Spammers use email - if you use email commercially, then you might be a spammer. If you get blocked and claim you were blocked in error, you might be lying. Spammers lie, so anything you say can be considered to be a lie. Why should anyone unblock a spammer?

      Either email can be used for commercial purposes, or it cannot. Anti-spam folks want to ban all commercial use of email.

    18. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 2

      Poppycock. It has nothing to do with punishing ISPs who host spammers, it has everything to do with people like myself who don't want their spam.

    19. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Because that makes you: A FUCKING RACIST


      No, it doesn't,

      YOU FUCKING DOPE

    20. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 1

      Or.... Just someone who doesn't like to spend time deleting spam. You might want to look up the definition of racist.

    21. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by dark-br · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well maybe the DDOSers have a newgroup where the blacklist manteiners can post asking for it to stop and be either a) ignored or b) ridiculed. :P

    22. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1
      Trouble is when you're not a spammer and you're hosting at an ISP and the class C you're on gets listed

      Yup, whole class C's eventually get listed, because spam-supporting ISPs like to respond to spam complaints (if they don't ignore them completely) by moving the spammer to a different IP address.

      If they block anything, they should only block the IP's that cause the problem, not large netblocks

      Blacklisting just the actual spam-sending IP addresses was tried for a long time, and it does not work. It just turns into a big game of whack-a-mole.

    23. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by randyest · · Score: 1

      Ok. So your purpose is to get the end-users pissed off at you instead of the spammers.

      Well done. I'm one of them


      And we should care because . . . why again?

      Look, angry one: it works. Better than anything else. And, the few things a few loud voices are crying about are the very things that make (made) SPEWS work. It's really kind of funny to watch the round-and-round: "I don't spam but SPEWS blocked me!", "OK, change ISP's", "I can't", "Why not?", "I signed a contract", "Oh, too bad. Try smarthosting", "But it's not fair", "Yes, it is. Effective too.", "I hate SPEWS", "SPEWS loves you, though. It wants to be your friend. Pick a good ISP so that it can be your friend", "I want to keep my ISP", "OK, that's fine too. We just don't want your emails then", "But that's not fair! You should only block the actual spammers", "No, this way works. We like it this way; it stops spam.", "Well, I don't spam but SPEWS blocked me anyway", . . . lather rinse repeat.

      Moreover, I scanned your posts in this thread and each one I read convinced me a little more that you are, indeed, a spammer who has been caught in the SPEWS net. Of course you're not happy about that. But, also of course, everyone else is. We just wish SPEWS would come back really soon. And I assure you that it, or something very much like it, will.

      --
      everything in moderation
    24. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by autopr0n · · Score: 1

      Uhhhh...yes...and? Is there something immoral about administering the ISP you are responsible for in the manner you see fit? It's my business, I can do as I damn please. If I want to filter out every website except my own, that is my right. My customers vote with their business, they do not get a direct say in how I run my outfit. Every business owner understands this concept when it is put into their terms, yet spammers seem to be very against this right when it comes to ISP owners. Gee, wonder why.

      Well, if I had a service contract with you for IP service, I would definitely sue. People pay for access to the 'net. Not the subset of the net you find personaly non-repugnant.

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    25. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 1
      I read convinced me a little more that you are, indeed, a spammer who has been caught in the SPEWS net Oooh... you "scanned" my posts in this thread. Did you read any of my previous threads? I suppose not.

      But yes, you wield the unlogic of a true believer with a commendable skill: if you are not with us, you're against us. Let's go burn all those witches right away.

      My gripe with you assholes is that you cost me money. Not because I spam, but because I subscribed to a network that got banned.

      "Oh, too bad. Try smarthosting", "But it's not fair", "Yes, it is. Effective too."

      So you are right and everybody else is wrong. Way to make friends net-nazi. Oh, but I forgot. You are not trying to make friends. You are on a mission from the god to save the world - who cares if the world wants to be saved in the first place.

    26. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      So, write down in your day planner, right there on the date that your current contract is due to expire, this simple action item: negotiate next contract duration to be dependent on the provider not being blacklisted.

      That's a great idea. On the other hand, I live in a small town with exactly one feasible ISP that's not a residential cable service with incoming port filters. My options are:

      1. Stick with said ISP, who has excellent service, great staff, and reliable connectivity, even though their upstream ISP hosted a couple of spammers a few years ago and SPEWS hasn't unlisted the whole /12 of us, or:
      2. Explain to my wife that we have to move to a new city so that I can send email to some Slashdot jackass who doesn't understand that some people don't have a viable option to change their service.

      Hmmm. Let me think about that one for a while.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    27. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I saw at least once, a legitimate ISP, that had in fact a spammer hosted with him, posted in nanae that wanted the removal.
      After cleaning up his act (he spent a couple of weeks doing it), spews removed its range, and even in a later date, when someone asked about a provider in Brazil that wasn't a spamhaus, they got mentioned as a "good example" in nanae.
      The whole point is, spews is bad, but the alternative is worse, and yes, they do remove listings, if the proper actions are taken.

    28. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by instantnoodles · · Score: 1

      SPEWS started with a good purpose: to fight Spam by punishing ISPs. Their purpose is good, however the way they go about achieving that is not.

      Getting listed on SPEWS is very arbitrary. And to get off of it is nigh on impossible.

      Smart spammers (top 30 or so send 75% of the spam) are still able to get through, while innocents get shafted.

    29. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by mrex · · Score: 1

      But yes, you wield the unlogic of a true believer with a commendable skill: if you are not with us, you're against us. Let's go burn all those witches right away.

      Uhhhh, what do the salem witch trials have to do with being "with us or against us"? You're mixing metaphors.

      My gripe with you assholes is that you cost me money. Not because I spam, but because I subscribed to a network that got banned.

      Which just substantiates my theory that your position is based not on a well-thought-out analysis of SPEWS premise or functional history, but simply based on the fact that you are a member of that segment of the population who is never willing to accept that they did anything wrong, instead preferring to blame it on others.

      You are giving money to an organization which supports spam. You know what spam is, don't you? It's that half or three-quarters of your e-mail that you don't want: the ads for penis enlargements, low low mortgage rates, and porn. Well, the people who send that crap out need ISPs, and some nasty ISPs intentionally market to spammers who are willing to pay a premium for "bulletproof" service. Your ISP is likely one of those. Why do you want to support such an organization? Is it that you don't realize that your irresponsibility as a consumer is damaging the internet as a whole, or do you realize and just not care?

      So you are right and everybody else is wrong. Way to make friends net-nazi.

      I suppose using the continual stream of name-calling that you have exhibited thusfar in the thread is a better way to make friends?

      Oh, but I forgot. You are not trying to make friends.

      You are on a mission from the god to save the world - who cares if the world wants to be saved in the first place.

      More apt than I think you intend. Most of the people involved with SPEWS (and likely the lionshare of those who use it) are folks who were here before the internet became chiefly known as a commercial resource. In other words, they understand why its bad to piss in the pool, whether you do or not.

    30. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      Well, the problem with this is it's starting to hit the fan. As more people realize that they can't recieve the confirmation e-mail from the site I regestered to because SPEWS has blocked it, they'll look for a provider that does not use SPEWS. So, the boycotters become the boycotted.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    31. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by CrowScape · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To use the common analogy, you live in a filthy crimeridden slum. Trying to send e-mail to my server is equivalent to calling and trying to have a pizza delivered to your house.

      No, it's the equivalent of trying to go from the slum to the downtown area. With your analogy, the city has walled off the slum. Those who live in the slum and want to go into the city have to move out of the slum first. I wonder how well that policy would go down outside the digital realm. Besides, if I recall, the government seems to think that you do have the right to buy a pizza and have it delivered provided you're within a reasonable distance of the establishment that delivers even if you happen to live in a crime infested slum.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    32. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 1
      Uhhhh, what do the salem witch trials have to do with being "with us or against us"? You're mixing metaphors.

      I don't care if I'm mixing the metaphors. You are taking a fanatical stance here. Everything you do is right. You can do no wrong. You really don't see anything wrong with that attitude?

      You are giving money to an organization which supports spam.

      So, give me a surefire way to avoid getting on your witch-list? ISP hopping is not an option and neither is changing my e-mail address and url.

      If you seriously argue that ISP, e-mail and url hopping is my only option, that's just sabotaging my right to use the net in an effortless way. Spammers sure are annoying but they don't make me do that.

      More apt than I think you intend.

      Then why are you causing me more trouble than the spammers? In your holy self-righteousness you are simply absolving yourselves of any collateral damage your little crusade is causing - like someone waging a holy war. You really think you are on a mission from god?

    33. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      Ok. So your purpose is to get the end-users pissed off at you instead of the spammers.
      No. The purpose is to get the end-users pissed-off at their ISP for providing service to spammers.
    34. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 3, Insightful
      No. The purpose is to get the end-users pissed-off at their ISP for providing service to spammers.

      Ok.

      Tell me how an ISP can be 100% sure that the new user application they just received will not be used for spamming?

      That's fundamentally what SPEWS is requiring of the ISPs.

    35. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by mrex · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem isn't the ISP blocking "their" traffic - it is the ISP blocking other people's traffic. Usually without informing their customers that said blocking is occurring.

      No it isn't. If I run an ISP mail server, it is my traffic -- if it weren't it wouldn't be going over my wire to my server.

      There is no effort to hide the fact that blocklists are in use at my ISP, as in a typical installation we explain verbosely why we are rejecting a message. We also provide a web contact form which anyone may use to mail us regardless of their IP, and postmaster is always delivered. This is the method recommended in just about every FAQ on the subject I've seen so I presume it isn't unusual.

      In fact we go further than that, most of our blocklists simply add points to the final 'score' of the message. The decision is left to the customer regarding what to do with messages that score as spam, in addition to giving them the ability to add whitelists and change the score that determines a messages spam status.

      At last check, not a single user had disabled spam filtering. Evidently, this major concern over the right to filter doesn't really exist. We have our share of out-right tin foil hat wearing customers, and not one of them has been uncomfortable with our spam filtering.

      I know of no ISP that makes an effort to hide the fact that they filter spam.

      This results in their customers not receiving email. The decision that the sender of that email wasn't legitimate has been removed from the user and the sender and placed in the hands of some anonymous third party.

      The ISP of the customer is not an anonymous third party by any means. They are the ones who own the traffic thats going over their wire.

      If you were talking about random backbones filtering port 25 traffic going through their networks, I would agree with you. I know of no effort to do this, however.

      In general, the ISP answer to blocking complaints is they simply use the list and do not control the content of it. The blocking list provider - if contactable - claims they just make up the list and the use of it is outside of their control. This means nobody is accountable for blocking.

      The choice to use a blocklist operated by someone else is no less a choice than operating one yourself. Which would you rather ISPs use: coordinated, open blocklists or private, confidential, and individually assembled and maintained blocklists?

      Whitelisting specific IPs within the SPEWS blocklist would defeat the point, to establish lists of bad neighborhoods in order to clear them out.

      The problem with this sort of censorship - and it is indeed censorship

      It's censorship? Then so is painting over the graffiti that someone sprays on your house under cover of darkness.

      is the user never hears about it.

      Again, I know of no service which does not inform the user that they block spam. My service even offers users a page you can go to and inspect each spam that's been caught.

      When a business is blocked they quickly discover that blocking has made email unreliable for communications with customers. They can either abandon email for important stuff or they can try to convince the blockers that their commercial use of email is valid.

      Or, they can change providers to one which does not support spam. Or, they can implement a technical solution such as smarthosting.

      This is extremely difficult. Why? Spammers use email - if you use email commercially, then you might be a spammer.

      If you "cold call" a non-personal communication over e-mail, you are a spammer in my opinion.

      If you get blocked and claim you were blocked in error, you might be lying. Spammers lie, so anything you say can be considered to be a lie. Why should anyone unblock a spammer?

      If SPEWS made a habit of whitelisting "legitimate" IPs, it would be no better than any other blocklist. SPEWS is not a

    36. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by mrex · · Score: 1

      Well, if I had a service contract with you for IP service, I would definitely sue. People pay for access to the 'net. Not the subset of the net you find personaly non-repugnant.

      Uhhh, if you had IP service through me, you would not be given access to my ISPs mail server.

    37. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by WNight · · Score: 1

      No, anti-spam people want to ban SPAM. Is that hard to understand? SPAM, in its current definition, is unsolicited email, of a commercial or non-commercial nature. I've gotten jesus spam that's just as annoying as penis pills spam.

    38. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by mrex · · Score: 1

      SPEWS started with a good purpose: to fight Spam by punishing ISPs. Their purpose is good, however the way they go about achieving that is not.

      How so? I think it's proven its effectiveness beautifully: we're having this conversation.

      Getting listed on SPEWS is very arbitrary. And to get off of it is nigh on impossible.

      Getting listed on SPEWS means you meet a certain set of criteria that I trust, or that a mistake has been made. When a legitimate mistake has been made, I have observed SPEWS fix it in a hurry and apologize profusely. That is not to say I haven't seen them being rude as hell to people who were lying to them, but...so?

      Smart spammers (top 30 or so send 75% of the spam) are still able to get through, while innocents get shafted.

      Logically, if you give money to a company that supports spam, you are not an innocent in the fight against spam. The fact that SPEWS has not been 100% effective as of yet is not really a substantial argument against it -- it has proven massively effective.

      Which is why spammers seem to be making so much noise about SPEWS...there is finally a light at the end of the tunnel.

    39. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by tgibbs · · Score: 1
      No, it's the equivalent of trying to go from the slum to the downtown area.

      Not quite. It's more the equivalent of trying to go into somebody's private home, who says "I'm not letting you into my house, because my neighbor down the street told me that he was robbed by somebody who looked a bit like you." You may not like it, it may even be unfair--but it's still his home, and you have no right to go into it unless he chooses to let you.

    40. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 1

      I know you may not, in many years, got an e-mail you wanted from brazil.

      But i got this e-mail from brazil that had pictures of a naked brazillian soccer team... but other than that... well i guess your right ;-)

      dont forget the naked brazilian soccer team!

      --
      If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
    41. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      No, you're incorrect. If I go through an ISP that is using SPEWS to block e-mails, I do not have the option to 'let someone in' from the SPEWS list if I want to. So your analogy doesn't work. The Slum/City one is better.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    42. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by mrex · · Score: 1

      I don't care if I'm mixing the metaphors. You are taking a fanatical stance here. Everything you do is right. You can do no wrong. You really don't see anything wrong with that attitude?

      There's nothing fanatical at all about my stance. I do see something wrong with the attitude you describe, but I am in no way engaging in it. I have said in other threads that SPEWS does make mistakes, how is that saying that they can do no wrong?

      So, give me a surefire way to avoid getting on your witch-list?

      There isn't one, my personal list is at my discretion. If you don't want to get on SPEWS, I would recommend not spamming and not giving money to organizations that do.

      ISP hopping is not an option and neither is changing my e-mail address and url.

      I'm just confused now. What the hell are you talking about?

      If you seriously argue that ISP, e-mail and url hopping is my only option, that's just sabotaging my right to use the net in an effortless way. Spammers sure are annoying but they don't make me do that.

      Why on earth would you do any of those things? I already told you how not to get on SPEWS, and the only way not to get on my personal blacklist is to avoid pissing me off.

      Then why are you causing me more trouble than the spammers?

      I am not SPEWS, but if SPEWS is causing you trouble, it is because you buy your internet access from a company that supports spam, or you are yourself a spammer. In either of those cases, I'm perfectly OK with "causing you trouble".

      In your holy self-righteousness

      In your redundance...

      you are simply absolving yourselves of any collateral damage your little crusade is causing - like someone waging a holy war.

      Again, collateral damage implies that the damage is unintentional. Indeed, if you support spam or spam yourself, we *want* to damage you in that way. It's a BOYCOTT.

      You really think you are on a mission from god?

      My religious beliefs (...or lack thereof) have nothing to do with my stance on e-mail abuse.

    43. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by mrex · · Score: 1

      [snip silly counter-analogy]

      Besides, if I recall, the government seems to think that you do have the right to buy a pizza and have it delivered provided you're within a reasonable distance of the establishment that delivers even if you happen to live in a crime infested slum.

      You recall incorrectly. Nobody can force a delivery driver to go into a dangerous neighborhood.

    44. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      3. Sign up for an email account with either a free provider (Yahoo, hotmail, what-have-you) or pay a small monthly fee to another ISP to host an email account for you. You can still use your local ISP for net access and to access your email account on another server.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    45. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by mrex · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Ok. So your purpose is to get the end-users pissed off at you instead of the spammers.

      Well done. I'm one of them. Your cure is worse than the disesase, you fucking net-nazis!


      Stop giving money to companies that support spam, you fucking thoughtless-scumball.

    46. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by randyest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, the boycotters become the boycotted.

      And that is perfectly OK! Really. Part of the reason that spam exists is it's largely unregulated environment. It's market-driven, and so SPEWS is a reasonable way of dealing with such a scourge when laws and regulations can't or won't help. Of course, by extension, it's perfectly OK for SPEWS to go away or fade into obscurity due to market backlash against it. It's worth noting that this did not happen. SPEWS was continuing to gain popularity.

      But DDoS is not an OK way to make SPEWS go away. You know that. We all know that. Yet some people here are saying that the DDoS is OK because SPEWS is that bad. I take strong issue with that viewpoint.

      --
      everything in moderation
    47. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Shulai · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, I live in Argentina. Yours is really a fine, senseful advice, madman!!!

      Anyway, blacklisting is a hard bussiness to be in. I know THE blacklist guy in Argentina, its server was in our university datacenter... However he was to move out, as unfortunately the university can't stand three days spans without mails or any kind of remote access.

    48. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're one of them? Then you are the disease.

      Your money helps pay for the spam in my mailbox.

      If you want to hang around a known spamhost and voluntarily act as a human shield, don't be surprised when you get shot at.

    49. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you realize how many people go to nanae and plead, "please remove us, we host no spammers." ??? Then someone actually has to take the time because the poor idiot can't put 2+2 together, looks up the information for the party|parties in question and lo-and-behold, there is at least one hardcore spammer there. The response, "oh, they don't count. We just want out of SPEWS." For some reason, everyone forgets one simple fact: SPEWS is not a verb. It's a noun. It's a body of information. It's doing nothing to anyone. If you happen to be using a service which applies SPEWS data against incoming email, then SPEWS will affect you. And if your provider doesn't use SPEWS, SPEWS means nothing. I fail to understand why people blame SPEWS. It's your provider choosing to use it, not some mysterious cloak-and-dagger group working in the dark. That type of group may be collecting information, but they aren't forcing anyone to use it.

    50. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by mi · · Score: 1
      The goal of SPEWS is not to list individual spammers, it is to list those who support spammers.

      No problems with the goal, it is the execution. There are too many "horror stories" about people being blacklisted without warning nor explanations. SPEWS is notorious for being unreachable. You will be tried in a secret court and sentenced without knowing it, and without a possibility for appeal.

      The ISPs should not subscribe to SPEWS, but many do. This gives SPEWS enourmous power, which they don't always wield wisely. They are overly agressive in their blacklisting, which undermines the good idea they use.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    51. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by RipCurl808 · · Score: 1

      Yes. I got off of SPEWS. How? I moved off of Interland to a more responsible ISP that did not have any IP's blocked. And continues to make sure that they dont get blocked. Piece of cake. No loss in worries. My money no longer going to a spam supporter.

    52. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      No, you're incorrect. If I go through an ISP that is using SPEWS to block e-mails, I do not have the option to 'let someone in' from the SPEWS list if I want to.

      The "owner of the house" is the ISP operator. You can think of yourself as a tenant. You can't tell the owner who to admit, but you can look for somewhere else to live if you don't like the rules of the house.

    53. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Grayswan · · Score: 1

      Your solution is not that hard or expensive.

      Just buy some email accounts from a provider outside your block that isn't blacklisted. Then just pop3 all your mail there. You can even point your domain there. Cheap, easy, reliable, and would even save you bandwidth -- send an email to 5 people, it only goes over pop3 once.

      --
      If you open your mind too wide, people will throw trash in it.
    54. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by NitroWolf · · Score: 1

      I find this so laughable. It's the typical response of the lazy sysadmin who can't be bothered to impliment real spam prevention... so they throw in a blocklist like SPEWS and hope for the best.

      SPEWS is nothing but a crutch for moronic/idiotic system administrators who have no clue how to administer their system(s) in an effective way.

      SPEWS is fine, if it's LEFT UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL user. When you, as a sysadmin, start making that decision for YOUR USERS, you are WRONG. Period. End of Story. It's not your job, duty or right to censor content for your users. You can give them the option to use SPEWS or any other spam blocking method, but when you refuse mail outright off your server, your users are the ones that suffer for your laziness.

      Blocklists are a crutch, I'm glad they are being taken down. I don't agree with the methods, but I do agree with the results. It's time for you shitty sysadmins to step up to the plate and actually do what you get paid to do.

    55. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by RipCurl808 · · Score: 1

      Easy. As with any contract, due diligence.
      there are number of ways
      Spammers are stupid, they will probably use a
      URL/domain name similar to ones they've used before.
      Surefire signs for "phishers" are urls that sound like other companies ( ie Ebayupdates.net ; c2ituserinfo.com )
      Researching GOOGLE's archives for posts of spammer activity.
      SPAMHAUS.ORG -- more than likely your spammer may be one of these guys on the ROKSO list

      This is also great for people looking for hosting/isp who are responsible.

      Use spews to check the IP that the ISP you wanna host with doesn't appear at all. then check to see if they have ANY of their IP's listed.
      Use Google's news archive to research the activity of the ISP you plan on contracting with. Then check their UPSTREAM hoster, and then their UPSTREAM's UPSTREAMS hoster. etc.
      Get a lawyer! Never commit to anything until you have a lawyer go over the contract. Make sure there are stipulatiosn that addresses blocklists.

    56. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      Moreover, I scanned your posts in this thread and each one I read convinced me a little more that you are, indeed, a spammer who has been caught in the SPEWS net. Of course you're not happy about that. But, also of course, everyone else is. We just wish SPEWS would come back really soon. And I assure you that it, or something very much like it, will.

      There is a definite undercurrent of "If you don't like spews you must be a spammer" in this thread, but hey.. if that helps you sleep at night.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    57. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      Tell me how an ISP can be 100% sure that the new user application they just received will not be used for spamming?

      That's fundamentally what SPEWS is requiring of the ISPs.

      They can't, and they don't have to.

      You obviously don't understand how SPEWS work.

      First of all, SPEWS is *** NOT *** a list of spammers. SPEWS is a list of spam-friendly ISPS. You don't get in SPEWS for spamming, you get there by ignoring spamming complaint and keeping the spammers on your network.

      Here is the straight dope:

      1. Spammer gets an ISP account
      2. Spammer spams
      3. Angry spammees bitches at ISP
      4. ISP ignores complaints
      5. Spammer spams a SPEWS spamtrap
      6. ONLY THE SPAMMER'S IP gets blacklisted
      7. Spammer keeps spamming.
      8. SPEWS operatives bitches at ISP
      9. ISP ignores complaints
      10. SPEWS increses the netblock until the whole ISP gets blacklisted. Rinse, later and repeat.
      And so on, until the ISP boots off the spammer. And when he does, within days, the blacklisting is gone.

      If someone spams from an ISP's network, and that ISP yanks the spammer in a timely fashion, he'll NEVER get into SPEWS.

      SPEWS is there to instill fear in the heart of spammer-friendly ISPs.

    58. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you live in a filthy crimeridden slum.

      you fucking punk. You think you're better than me? I'll kick your monkey ass.

    59. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by pebs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look, angry one: it works. Better than anything else. And, the few things a few loud voices are crying about are the very things that make (made) SPEWS work. It's really kind of funny to watch the round-and-round: "I don't spam but SPEWS blocked me!", "OK, change ISP's", "I can't", "Why not?", "I signed a contract", "Oh, too bad. Try smarthosting", "But it's not fair", "Yes, it is. Effective too.", "I hate SPEWS", "SPEWS loves you, though. It wants to be your friend. Pick a good ISP so that it can be your friend", "I want to keep my ISP", "OK, that's fine too. We just don't want your emails then", "But that's not fair! You should only block the actual spammers", "No, this way works. We like it this way; it stops spam.", "Well, I don't spam but SPEWS blocked me anyway", . . . lather rinse repeat.

      Hmmmmm... This SPEWS guy seems like a real prick. No wonder he's getting DoSed.

      --
      #!/
    60. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by SpacePunk · · Score: 3, Funny

      The jackasses are elitists. They are stil upset that the 'unwashed masses' are using their precious internet.

    61. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that logic, eventually no one will send you email, or talk to you. This will be a very good thing.

      On domains (non business ones) where I could get away with it, every time I've run into a false blacklist user not receiving email from one of my users, I've retaliated by blocking those IPs COMPLETELY, including HTTP. Since the normal course of events of this is that the user is blocking a confirmation email from a web site they wanted to look at/join, the results have been gratifying.

    62. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      The "house" is my computer, which I do indeed own. The ISP provides the road, and finding out about who the ISP won't allow on the roads can be like pulling teeth.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    63. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Some of the crazies who post on nana-e even have the whole country of Brazil banned on their private lists.

      If anyone's interested, the Brazil RBL is:
      brazil.blackholes.us

      Other countries I also have filtered:

      korea.services.net
      cn.rbl.cluecentral.net (China)
      nigeria.blackholes.us
      argentina.blackhol es.us

      I use SpamCop to filter anything on these and some other blacklists as well as anything with a high SpamAssassin score, then every day or two I go through everything that was blocked and look for false positives. Any false positives get whitelisted, and everything else gets reported to the appropriate abuse@ contacts. SpamCop is very good at figuring out where to send reports, and "spamvertised web sites" don't get reported unless I approve them first, which I usually don't take the time to do.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    64. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by randyest · · Score: 2, Funny

      Haha, that's a good one!

      Oh, wait, pebs! I know, tell that "SCO from it" joke again!

      That's a great one, especially over and over again!

      Remember how you kept posting that joke, and like, getting modded +5 Funny, over and over again on the same joke, but then you found out that Funny mods don't count toward your karma, and you were all pissed and stuff, because you learned that? That was awesome! Heh.

      --
      everything in moderation
    65. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by iainl · · Score: 1

      "Some of the crazies who post on nana-e even have the whole country of Brazil banned on their private lists."

      So? I have the whole of many countries on my private list; since I don't know anyone in them, I've no reasonable expectation that someone would want to email me from there. I also have most of the webmail places and several major ISPs listed for the same reason.

      Sometimes I think it might be easier to go whitelist, but I've not gone that far yet.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    66. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Isofarro · · Score: 1
      There are too many "horror stories" about people being blacklisted without warning nor explanations.
      Sounds like someone isn't properly monitoring their abuse@ mailbox. That's your problem, not SPEWS'
      SPEWS is notorious for being unreachable.
      You don't need to reach SPEWS. Stop the spam leaving your webserver is all you need to do. Your paranoia is just that - paranoia.
    67. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Isofarro · · Score: 1
      So you are right and everybody else is wrong. Way to make friends net-nazi.

      As long as it is his mailserver - it is his rules. If you don't like it - tough. Unless you have a contract with him that documents that he will accept email from you, you have nothing except his good will. Calling him a net-nazi isn't the most optimal way of getting his good will.

    68. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in China. I get lot of spam. Almost all of it for companies and products from the US and Canada. The relatively unintelligent response is to block China, Brazil, Korea etc.

      Get the companies and you get the spammers. Go after the mortgage provider, the maker of the pills etc. Expose them as associates of spammers and the criminal element. That will have an effect.

      Blocking ISps is a very blunt edged tool. My company email gets blocked as a result of the use some of these lists because "they" made a decision to so so. The offending entity address is upstream - it does not matter who I change to, it will be blocked.

      Has it stopped or slowed spam? Of course not!

    69. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you seriously argue that ISP, e-mail and url hopping is my only option, that's just sabotaging my right to use the net in an effortless way. Spammers sure are annoying but they don't make me do that.
      may they dont make _you_ do that, but im pretty close to having to shut down my website and current business mail address because of your innocent spammer friends. I get so many bounces because of forged mail headers that the mailbox gets full within around 16 hours. Funny, eh? I am going on a short trip for the weekend, so any valid email i would receive on saturday or sunday will be bounced... Now please tell me again that spam is no real problem.

    70. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by wagemonkey · · Score: 1

      No, it would just be nice for the ISP to toss the spammer for violating the TOS/AUP when this is shown to them. No ISP can reasonably vet all usere beforehand. What they can do is act when the user revelas themself to be a spammer. That's all.

    71. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by mcrandello · · Score: 1

      If it was anyone else (the government) who was advocating this, people would be outraged.

      People already ARE outraged, and the more people find out how email that they were expecting is being held hostage, the less support this group has. Or as I thought to myself upon hearing about how the nutball from Osirus decided to 'make the world go away' -

      Anonymous Internet vigilantes with no accountability and a loose grasp of ethics shutting down communications to further some petty agenda. Whod'a thunkit?

    72. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it has everything to do with people like myself who don't want their spam.

      Poppycock. If that's all it were you'd use a blocklist that does NOT use a collateral damage system to punish the people who happen to be on the same class C as someone who at some point were spamming. Please note that this is exactly what SPEWS, noted in the title of this thread, does. They have EVERYTHING do with punishing ISPs and legitimite businesses in the process.

    73. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may as well forget about it. This is the point where they clap their hands over their ears and start repeating:

      "MY SERVER MY RULES
      MY SERVER MY RULES"

      ...etc. Which is fine and I don't think anyone has any problem with that, until someone asks if their users and customers, who incidentally are the ones who keep them employed, want this sort of heavy handed behavior. Then you hear:

      "THEY SHOULD HAVE READ THE AUP
      THEY SHOULD HAVE READ THE AUP" ...Cartooney indeed.

    74. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by tgibbs · · Score: 1
      The "house" is my computer, which I do indeed own. The ISP provides the road, and finding out about who the ISP won't allow on the roads can be like pulling teeth.
      However, it is a private road, not a public one. It's a bit like living in a gated community. If you don't like the fact that they don't let suspicious people in, you have to live somewhere else.
    75. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by pebs · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh wow.. Thanks for paying attention, I forgot about that one.. I didn't realize I got modded +5 Funny or that I posted it a total of 3 times. If it got +5 three times in a row, it must've been funny. Next SCO article I'll have to post it again.

      I have to give some credit to this guy who gave me the idea for the joke.

      BTW I'm well aware that Funny mods don't get karma :P

      #!/

      --
      #!/
    76. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by mi · · Score: 1
      You don't need to reach SPEWS. Stop the spam leaving your webserver is all you need to do.

      Of course. And being accused, means being guilty. Otherwise, why would you be accused?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    77. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Isofarro · · Score: 1
      Of course. And being accused, means being guilty.

      Guilty of ignoring abuse complaints - yep. The evidence is already there. If you are not going to look after your mailserver, its probably best that its blacklisted until you have a change of opinion.

    78. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Lost+Race · · Score: 1
      I live in a small town with exactly one feasible ISP
      ... and that ISP hosts spammers. In other words, you live in a town with exactly zero reputable ISPs. Hurts to be you. Really, I'm sympathetic, it sucks not to have good Internet access available. But sometimes you have to realize that the entire world doesn't revolve around your needs. The fact that you have to live in some dirtbag backwater infested with spammers does not in any way imply that everybody else must share in the sleaze by guaranteeing full connectivity to those spammers.

      Oh, you want SPEWS to whitelist you -- a simple, elegant solution that requires almost no effort. Sorry, whitelisting within spam-friendly netblocks does not work. (And your ISP has proven itself to be very spam-friendly, or there wouldn't be listed netblocks big enough to include you.) The ISP just moves the spammers into the whitelisted block, even if it means moving you out. Sure you could come up with some kind of crypto-signed daily update to the blacklist/whitelist that makes sure you're always clear no matter how much they shuffle you around with the spammers... But apparently people would prefer to avoid that added complexity, even if it means losing mail from you. Again, hurts to be you, sorry.

      Suck it up and hire yourself an MTA outside the spam haven where you're "forced" to live. You can still host all your stuff on the Only ISP In Town -- your website, DNS, MX hosts -- you just have to relay your outgoing mail through someone in a more reputable area. I know, it sucks to pay yet another $X a month that Those Other People don't have to pay, but that's what you get for living in a one-ISP town. Your problem, not mine.

    79. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Lost+Race · · Score: 1
      Either email can be used for commercial purposes, or it cannot. Anti-spam folks want to ban all commercial use of email.
      WTF???

      I'm a pretty rabid anti-spammer and I use email for commercial purposes all the time! Spam has nothing to do with commerce!

      Spam is:
      Unsolicited
      Bulk
      Email

      You see commerce in there anywhere? Ever been spammed by a Jesus-freak or a time-traveller-hunter? It's still spam, even if it's not trying to sell you bigger tits.

    80. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The jackasses are elitists. They are stil upset that the 'unwashed masses' are using their precious internet.

      Let me be clear about this. Speaking for systems admins who block spam and support blocklists, WE BUILT THE INTERNET! WE PAY FOR IT. WE MAINTAIN IT. AND WE MANAGE IT FOR OUR CUSTOMERS.

      We don't pay billions of dollars and spend millions of man-hours of effort so you and your special buddy criminal spammers can harass and victimize our customers and our co-workers. We do that so we can USE it for something USEFUL.

      So, I'll tell you what. You send me a check for all the money I spend on bandwidth, all the time I spend maintaining servers and serving customers. Go ahead and add on the time that my staff and customers spend figuring out which emails are legitimate business and which are fraudulent nonsense.

      I figure that'll be a couple million a year.

      So, you send me that check right now, and I'll let ALL THE SPAM you want to send through to my customers and my co-workers. Send me a check for $2 million dollars and you can spam my servers 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

      Until you do that, then go fuck yourself. Because I'm not spending all this time and money so you can steal my bandwidth, my time and my money to sell fraudulent products and steal people's identities and credit card information and sell it to other criminals.

      Elitists? Fuck you. When you do something other than abuse the Internet and spew forth nonsense and crime, you can have a say. Until then shut the fuck up and let those of us with balls and the intelligence run the damned Internet.

    81. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Snake_Plisken · · Score: 1

      I'll make sure to never get any services through you - how's that?

      --

      Eat recycled food - it's good for the environment, and OK for you.
    82. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      ... and that ISP hosts spammers.

      Wrong. Completely, utterly wrong. The ISP's ISP hosts some spammers in some other part of the country. My ISP's own netblock is not listed in any non-SPEWS blackhole, and is not listed in SPEWS because of their actions or those of their customers.

      I'll say this again in small words that you may be able to understand:

      My ISP does not host spammers.

      Again:

      My ISP does not host spammers.

      Since it didn't seem to get through before:

      My ISP does not host spammers.

      And yet the clueless SPEWS-using sysadmins can't get email from me or anyone else in my city. Frankly, I don't care to transact conversation with anyone lame enough to add such a worthless filter to their servers, but it's annoying to explain to local users that the reason they can't send email to their friends and family is that some formless net.entity is trying to punish a spammer 4 states away.

      Goodbye, SPEWS, and good riddance.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    83. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

      Guess what asshole. I do the same thing that you do. Your a fucking elitist snob. There's nothing in my post that even gives you the fucking right to accuse me of the things you have. So, fuck you, fuck you all the way to hell, and fuck everybody like you. Go back to your self-appreciating circle jerks, and try to get out of your mommy's basement into the real world.

      Balls and intelligence? Ha! You have neither, and if someone handed you any you wouldn't know what to do with them.

    84. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by sfjoe · · Score: 1

      By that logic, eventually no one will send you email, or talk to you. This will be a very good thing.

      It means no such thing. You need to go back and re-learn logic.

      It does mean that I get only the email I want and not the email you think I want (which is what spam is all about).

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    85. Re:ever tried to get off SPEWS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome back chicken. I'll be watching. Keep an eye on those RFID articles. One day you'll understand you were wrong. They, think about what a huge asshole you've been.

  46. The Internet has you!! by ph43thon · · Score: 4, Funny

    the internet has become self-aware.. these aren't trojans and virii that we see.. (well, they are, but) we're seeing the Internot wake up. It's practicing by attacking blacklists.. since they prevent full unfettered emailing. Network Packets have become the flowing nuerons of it's killer Internett brain.. all these random SoBigs and Slammer.Dongs are multiplying to the point where sentient behaviour must emerge!!!!

    HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA@@@@#!!&nbsp ; you beloNG TO THE INTERRRNOTT@@!!

    1. Re:The Internet has you!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      emergent behavior would take a lot more Virii and Trojans than what are currently floating around. But, it'd be neat.

    2. Re:The Internet has you!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i didn't think a person could watch too much zim. you have disproven this notion.

    3. Re:The Internet has you!! by evilviper · · Score: 1
      we're seeing the Internot wake up.

      Woohoo... Go Inter-knot!
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  47. SoBig.F zombies attack!!! by hey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe this is the SoBig.F zombies at work. They have awakened from their "sleeper cells". There was a rummor that they were going to be used by spammers -- but not in this way.

  48. Re:Site is becomming slashdotted - heres the text. by JDevers · · Score: 1

    "Mod up, not down" in action...

  49. Ah, never mind by phillymjs · · Score: 1

    I pulled up the original article, and it looks like the karmawhore who posted the text may have had a little fun with it.

    1. Re:Ah, never mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note the the "karmawhore" and the reply are from the same user.

    2. Re:Ah, never mind by bandy · · Score: 1

      And where do you think the Greeks came out of anyway? I'm sure they loved a good poo joke just like anyone else.

      --
      "You might as well get your son a ticket to hell as give him a five string banjo." -unknown minister
    3. Re:Ah, never mind by phillymjs · · Score: 1

      Erm, no-- I was referring to this post.

  50. MOD PARENT FLAMEBAIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The proof is in the pudding, is it not?

  51. indeed by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even if you happen to like the blocklists and agree with their methods, it's clearly irresponsible to assume they're being attacked by spammers -- there are a lot of non-spammers who would love to take them out.

    1. Re:indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello! De ja vu of parent?

    2. Re:indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost everyone here who are against blacklists, claim to want to get rid of spam also. But they are using the same arguments as the spammers.

      I don't belive there are non-spammers that want to force other people to receive spam. The arguments against (allowing other people to use) blacklists, don't make sense, unless you want to force other people to receive whatever you send to them, no matter that they have chosen to block it.

  52. Go ahead and let them die by RevJim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know it sounds heartless, but as a group, blacklists are becoming less-useful by the minute.

    If they were all to disappear today, it would only speed the adoption of much more valuable tools against spam, namely bayesian-type filters that are far more effective.

    1. Re:Go ahead and let them die by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      Bayesian filters don't offset the bulk of the cost of spamming. Deny filters do.

      A perfect solution would be to track down the individual spammers and kill them. That would end the spam flow once and for all.

    2. Re:Go ahead and let them die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Filtering based upon mail content won't stop one of the biggest issues with spam - the bandwidth cost.

    3. Re:Go ahead and let them die by Indy1 · · Score: 1

      funny, i've found blacklists to be hugely effective (if you use the right ones). I refuse to use content based spam filters due to the high cpu overhead, and the fact i'm still wasting the bandwidth to accept their crap in the first place.

      --
      Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
    4. Re:Go ahead and let them die by doctormetal · · Score: 1

      Filtering based upon mail content won't stop one of the biggest issues with spam - the bandwidth cost.

      Indeed. The pro spam retards claim bandwidth is cheap. That is not the case everywhere in the world.
      For isps spam costs a lot of money.

  53. Yes by FreeUser · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is the silliest thing I ever expected to read in a spam story...

    pamcop's Haight theorizes that the increasingly sophisticated attacks suggest a link with organized crime, but admits he hasn't a shred of evidence.

    Anyone else have a wilder guess?


    Yes. It's Aliens launching a denial of service attack in advance of their assimilation of the human race. This is clear and obvious to the most casual observer, although I don't have a shred of evidence to support this notion.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:Yes by Damn_Canuck · · Score: 0

      We are Spam of Borg. Attempts to resist our continued mission of dsitributing herbal supplements, enlarging your penis, or various types of what you humans call "porn" is futile.

      --
      Given that God is infinite, and the Universe is also infinite, would you like some toast?
    2. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yes. It's Aliens launching a denial of service attack in advance of their assimilation of the human race."

      (ID4) "They're using our own servers against us! They're going to attack!" (/ID4)

      Oh, that was a great movie. So it was corny. It was still great.

    3. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I welcome our future alien overlords. I don't have a shred of evidence that they are welcome, though.

    4. Re:Yes by stwrtpj · · Score: 1
      Yes. It's Aliens launching a denial of service attack in advance of their assimilation of the human race.

      What? You mean it's not SCO?

      --
      Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
    5. Re:Yes by lemody · · Score: 1

      > although I don't have a shred of evidence to support this notion.

      except the increasing power failures all over the world? :)

      --


      class he-man extends man!
  54. Yet another legitimate p2p use... by otis+wildflower · · Score: 2, Interesting

    .. cryptographically sign or hash the blacklist databases, and let mail admins p2p/rsync them..

    Still, the only workable solution is cryptographically-secure signatures, probably with a SSL/TLS set of root certs.

    Hell, sounds like a job for the post office! Keep it relevant in the age of email..

  55. These attacks must be stopped! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 5, Funny
    Otherwise, we are going to be a nation of skinny, refinanced, gargantuan penises that want to show you something on our webcams!

    1. Re:These attacks must be stopped! by Sanga · · Score: 1

      "University educated" penises ... if you do not mind!

  56. Quite a few actually. by AltGrendel · · Score: 3, Informative
    There are many people on both the SpamAssassin and qmail-scanner list that are talking about this. Any software that uses RBLs may have to be reconfigured.

    And depending on just Bayesian filtering is putting all of your eggs in one basket, IMHO (though it is a pretty darn good basket). There are many spammers out there trying to poison Bayes databases by adding random dictonary words to their HTML based emails.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

    1. Re:Quite a few actually. by bogado · · Score: 2, Informative

      Spamassassin does Bayesian and much more. It is the best because it has several baskets in one program alone. You can rate the best basket yourself or simply trusting the default scores. :-)

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

  57. Re:Site is becomming slashdotted - heres the text. by Damn_Canuck · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Maybe it's just me, but looking at the points that he has received for this post (which was interesting since I couldn't access the original)... a +1 mod was received, with a total of only 90% listed below.. what happened to the other 10%? Did the same MIT Mathematicians who SCO hired manage to get mod status here?

    --
    Given that God is infinite, and the Universe is also infinite, would you like some toast?
  58. The Law by dcs · · Score: 1

    At least such attacks are more easily prosecutable.

    --
    (8-DCS)
  59. blacklist or blocklist by David+Leppik · · Score: 1
    Did anyone else notice that this refers to blocklists, when the more common terminology is blacklist?

    Just in case I was missing some new nomenclature, I checked Google. 'Spam Blacklist' yields 63,700 results and a category (Computers > Internet > Abuse > Spam > Blacklists) whereas 'Spam blocklist' yields 3,9600 results. Oddly, it is used at least a little: there's a blocklist.com, for example.

  60. better yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    just turn it into a survival-type tv show, where each contestant has to fight over the use of ONE computer terminal.

    and don't forget to place a lot of weapons caches all around the island.

  61. Re:Site is becomming slashdotted - heres the text. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well this is the problem, isn't it? The mods don't read the posts that they mod. God bless trolls who try to embarrass mods into actually reading posts that they are recommending.

  62. Why wait? by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

    -1 REDUNDANT IT IS NOT GETTING SLASHDOTTED

    So we should wait until a site is completely overloaded before anyone tries to post the content? You do like DoS attacks, don't you?

  63. Whitelist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this kind of stupid attack takes out the blocklists, it just makes the more powerful approach to blocking spam more attractive: Whitelists. Spammers are digging their own grave.

    A few falsely quarantined messages every now and then is a small price to pay for zero spam in my inbox.

    Suprise! I NEVER want to get email from anybody that isn't a friend, co-worker, or critical message from a company that I have a business relationship with (saying my order has shipped / been delayed / cancelled, etc - advertisements are not tollerated).

  64. Who replies to spam? by smcavoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Has there ever been studies on who responds to spam, and why?

    1. Re:Who replies to spam? by AssTard · · Score: 0

      Guys with small dicks, apparently.

      --

      Asses are for crapping, not screwing.
    2. Re:Who replies to spam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who are fat, broke, have a small penis (or no sex drive) and are dying to see the same thing over a webcam...

    3. Re:Who replies to spam? by jqh1 · · Score: 1

      probably about 0.001% of the recipients, which is more than enough. As to whether this is the work of spammers, take a minute and adopt the mind of the spammer...

      [no! take the gun away from your head! this is just pretend!]

      Why would you take on more risk than you already do just to bring down these servers when your work is already so profitable? I really think it's someone/something else.

      --
      who's moderating the meta-moderators?
    4. Re:Who replies to spam? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I see stupid people. They're everywhere. And they don't know they're stupid.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:Who replies to spam? by drewness · · Score: 1

      I don't know of any studies, but I know my boss buys printer ink from spammers. And, surprise, surprise it is really low quality ink. But it's cheap, so he'll keep buying it.

  65. Evolution of a blacklist architecture. by emil · · Score: 5, Interesting
    • Centralization of the blacklist is bad. Therefore, the lists should be p2p.
    • Each blacklist should be signed by the maintainer's private key. The public keys should be kept in several well-known locations.
    • An application, running on a mailserver, should have options to:
      1. Download blacklists from specified upstream sources, preferably by rsync protocol, although even gzip would be an improvement over what we've had.
      2. Apply some or all of the blacklists to inbound messages.
      3. Offer the blacklists for further download.
      4. Automatically announce new blacklists, the recall of canceled blacklists, or newer/faster/replacement upstream blacklist servers.
    • The blacklist application should work with all major MTAs, including sendmail and exchange. It should be platform-neutral, and we should do what is necessary to get MS to package it on the CD.

    I can easily see web content filtering going the same way eventually.

    1. Re:Evolution of a blacklist architecture. by rossz · · Score: 1
      It should be platform-neutral, and we should do what is necessary to get MS to package it on the CD.
      Except that if Micrsoft distributed it, it would only work with IIS, would require you to upgrade to the latest version of IE, and would be suspectible to a buffer overflow granting root access to the system.

      No thank you.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    2. Re:Evolution of a blacklist architecture. by kiolbasa · · Score: 1

      I've considered a system similar to Usenet (NNTP) that would be a way for a blacklist or whitelist "authority" to distribute signed deny/accept reccomendations for IP addresses. Aside from deny/accept "posts", you could also have posts from a single authority recommending several other authorities, building a web of trust. A mail admin can collect posts from his web of trust and build his deny/accept list for his mail server using whatever system he wants (i.e., score each IP based on who says it's good or bad, run whitelist only, etc.). Advantages would be an open, decentralized system that keeps blacklist maintainers honest.

      --

      Beer wants to be free
    3. Re:Evolution of a blacklist architecture. by thogard · · Score: 1

      I've found that if I figure out how "near" a site is to a usenet site that has been listed for at least a year, that is a good metric to witelist with the exception of a few large ISPs. It will take moer research.

    4. Re:Evolution of a blacklist architecture. by einer · · Score: 1

      Well if freenet would ever realize its potential, you'd be able to publish the spammer list there. Persistent data that is nigh on impossible to DDOS. Sounds ideal.

    5. Re:Evolution of a blacklist architecture. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way easier than that.

      Just area caching proxies. Short timeout built in. Distributed by the main BLs. And the BL operators just allow connections from the proxies.

      If the proxy gets too heavy for your net, you turn it off.

      End users just put in a couple of proxies that point to the root BLs they are interested in.

      Since the BL operators are not allowing anyone at all to query, they do not have to list the IP of the root BL.

      Packet sizes are small. Another few seconds of latency will not kill the mail servers (many MTA's are capable of continuing even if the BL does not answer).

      Don't even need to code much from scratch, just mung together code from caching DNS servers and BL servers.

      And the list/delist still stays with the root BL servers.

      Hey, the architecture is already proven: look at DNS!

      megabunny

    6. Re:Evolution of a blacklist architecture. by atarian · · Score: 1

      Freenet would be a good vehicle for this scheme I think.

      www.freenetproject.org for details.

      --
      xGSV Consolation of Dreams
  66. the real way to solve this by Flunitrazepam · · Score: 2, Funny

    If people would only take a few minutes out of their day to READ spam rather than just trying to block it en mass, spammers wouldn't have to resort to this!

    --
    1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
    1. Re:the real way to solve this by polakk · · Score: 1
      "If people would only take a few minutes out of their day to READ spam rather than just trying to block it en mass, spammers wouldn't have to resort to this!"
      few? the amount of time it takes me to sort through the 70-80 email i get everyday that pass my spam filters with stupid headers that look real already takes me 10-15 minutes. Now if i unblocked all those other emails that are coming through I would be looking at roughly 100-150 emails Id have to sort through. My best solution for my personal email account to the spam problem that works almost flawlesly is telling people to include a certain phrase in their emails.. My filter just checks the email for that phrase, if its not there its /dev/null baby!

      ---- Fight crime! Shoot back!
  67. Blame the backbone ISPs by mabu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    People need to understand two reasons why they get spam and DDOS attacks:

    1. The backbone providers make money based on bandwidth consumption. They don't care whether the traffic is legitimate or not. It's in their financial interest to not take action against DOS/DDOS attacks and they don't. Many top-level providers will not even intervene unless a lower-level ISP's pipes are completely saturated, even if they complain about a DOS attack.

    It would be so easy for the backbone providers to implement temporary blocking of DDOS attacks. These types of attacks are identifiable and the whole procedure could be automated and authenticated, but the top-level ISPs make money off spam and illegal DOS/DDOS activity. People need to petition the backbones to start taking responsibility and implmenting measures to shut down networks that have rogue systems consuming illegitimate bandwidth.

    2. The local and federal governments do not effectively (if at all) enforce the plethora of existing computer tampering/break in/attack laws that are already on the books. These attacks CAN be tracked. The law enforcement agencies are either ignorant, unmotivated or unwilling to take action.

    No new laws are needed. There are plenty of existing laws on the books right now to justify criminal prosecution of these attackers, which don't merely attack relay blacklists, but every other network along the way, making everyone suffer, including systems that don't use blacklists.

    We need to hold the proper people accountable for not using the existing legal system to stop this; we need to hold the top-level providers responsible for allowing a majority of the traffic they bill their clients for to be unauthorized and illegitimate.

    Imagine if 70% of the time you picked up your telephone someone else was using it? This is what's happening with Internet bandwidth.

    1. Re:Blame the backbone ISPs by mabu · · Score: 1

      Let me ad one thing on this... In fairness, my feeling is that not enough money is provided to give the District Attorneys and other law enforcement agencies the resources they need to pursue these cases.

      What's ironic is that nobody seems to doubt the potential of the Internet to be a major ground zero in terrorist attacks against the country's infrastructure, but why isn't there more funding being diverted to law enforcement resources in this area??

    2. Re:Blame the backbone ISPs by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      OK point 2 I dont know about either way besides I've had the FBI show up many times investigating hacking attempts. But to ISP's not doing there job blocking DOS attacks I find that nearly ammusing. Every real tier 1 I have worked with in the last 5 years has had an automated method to backhole via BGP comunity groups it's not allways well documented ot advertised but it's there just ask. It's pretty straight forward you just send up routes you dont want to get traffic from this could easily be sourced from your IDS. If your having an issue where you just need to take traffic to a specific IP offline thats also easy via BGP. Beyond what can be done inside a routing table do you expect a Tier 1 to be running firewalling code? Thats a lot of CPU time on older routers. Sure inside a managed datacenter you could reasonably expect them to be able to put some lines of ACl on your port hopeully they allready have some anyway.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    3. Re:Blame the backbone ISPs by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      This is also checkmate to the SPEWS lawsuit-avoidance scheme of trying to keep the identity of the blocklist operators secret. You can't anonymously accuse somebody of a crime in the USA, nor can you sue them in civil court. If they wanna legally complain about being DOSed, they'll have to come out of hiding.

  68. MOD PARENT FUNKY, CRUNCHY, AND DELICIOUS ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    God Damned that was the best post ever, and I hadn't even hit the chewy marshmellow center yet!!!!

  69. Easy there... by AndyMouse+GoHard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's no connection proven yet between the ddos and spammers. That's like the fact that no WMDs being found proves they're there and hidden.

    Where did you learn to draw conclusions, from the president?;)

    Bill

    --
    Upon seeing the box was too small, Schrodinger's Elephant breathed a sigh of relief.
    1. Re:Easy there... by Software · · Score: 1
      >There's no connection proven yet between the ddos and spammers

      I forget the Latin for it, but the phrase is, "Who benefits?". It nicely sums up the proposition that the most likely suspect is the person who benefits from the crime. If a person with a big life insurance policy is murdered, the cops talk to the policy's beneficiary. They don't arrest the beneficiary straightaway, but it's a good place to start asking questions. With the blacklist DDOS, the people who benefit the most are the spammers. We don't know it was them (you're right, there is no connection proven), but they're certainly at the top of the suspect list, especially after the SoBig story.

      And I see no reason why anyone would think spammers have a trace of morals.

    2. Re:Easy there... by HardCase · · Score: 1
      I forget the Latin for it, but the phrase is, "Who benefits?".


      Cui bono (or, as my local radio station says, "Follow the money")


      -h-

    3. Re:Easy there... by AndyMouse+GoHard · · Score: 1

      You know... I agree. Looking at the spammers is indeed a great place to start. And don't worry, I do not think they have a trace of morals:)

      I for one am absolutely sick of their attitudes, tactics and utter lack of respect for others. They have the audacity to hide behind "capitalism" and some "right" to make money in their dealings.

      Sometimes I just like playing devil's advocate.

      Bill

      --
      Upon seeing the box was too small, Schrodinger's Elephant breathed a sigh of relief.
    4. Re:Easy there... by efextra · · Score: 1

      I forget the Latin for it, but ever heard of the word, "Revenge" ? Think of a network admin or an ISP who lost business because of being wrongly blocked.

  70. Whitelisting by Raul654 · · Score: 1

    Also has a major downfall -- it prevents people from contacting you for the first time. So yes, it blocks all spam - but also all legit traffic from people you've never heard from before.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
    1. Re:Whitelisting by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      It doesn't block all spam. It's easy to forge headers.

    2. Re:Whitelisting by Matey-O · · Score: 1

      Not really. I let EVERYTHING into my inbox...there's another folder called 'whitelist'. I peruse my inbox occasionally and add folks/subjects/groups to the whitelist move rule as necessary.

      --
      "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
    3. Re:Whitelisting by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Informative
      poster wrote:
      Also has a major downfall -- it prevents people from contacting you for the first time.
      Blacklist: don't allow anything in from anyone on that list
      Whitelist: allow everything in from anyone on that list
      IFF doesn't meet above criteria, filter it.

      So, it doesn't prevent anyone from contacting you the first time, unleass their email says something like "bigger penis breast enlarger xxx sex goatse.cx tubgirl"

  71. Spammers as cyber-terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Finally this is our chance to make Congress liken spammers to cyber-terrorists, and for a reason politicians fear and know well enough to do something about it: "Now some of the spammers are even building a network of worm-ridden computers, possibly at the fingertips of a madman who is willing to do anything for money, and may only be waiting to turn them into Weapons of Mass Disruption, wreaking havoc to the Nation, the Internet, and e-mail as we know it..." (spooky, huh? ;-))
    Outlaw spammers, put an end to spam. Sometimes it's as simple as that. (And it works: Haven't seen much fax spam for years...)
    Just be "Mr. Concerned Citizen" for once and send articles like this to your congresscritter now. Let them know what spammers have already done "to your kids" (rather omit the "to your p...s" part even if you've ordered their pills and pumps) "and to your computers".

  72. In other news by !3ren · · Score: 1

    ...SomethingAwful claims VICTORY!

    1. Re:In other news by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      And permanently enters thousands of private blacklists. Forever.

    2. Re:In other news by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      Thanks to this attack, SomethingAwful will remain blocked forever, because no one will be able to update their filters from the SPEWS listings should cogentco clean up its act.

      A phyrric victory, to be sure.

  73. In A.D. 2003 by ehintz · · Score: 1

    War was beginning...

    Nothing quite so enjoyable as flogging an expired equine mammal on a quiet Thursday afternoon...

    --
    ehintz
    1. Re:In A.D. 2003 by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      "Nothing quite so enjoyable as flogging an expired equine mammal on a quiet Thursday afternoon..."

      Well, as long as we're doing that.... ...in Soviet Russia, spammers blacklist YOU!

  74. Question for moderators? by jared_hanson · · Score: 0, Troll

    Just how is this comment informative? I mean, let's think about this. I know that we all do not like spammers, but this guy is advocating the mass murder of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people. (I'm hoping he was going for funny, but my beef is with the moderator.)

    I know we live in a time where it seems the answer to everything is to send in firepower. But, let's try and be a little bit more civil on Slashdot. If it's funny, mod it as such. But please don't mod posts advocating killing as informative.

    --
    -- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
    1. Re:Question for moderators? by alphax45 · · Score: 1

      Yes I was going for funny. Of course I don't approve of the mass murder of people, I was mearly making a joke.

      --
      K Man
    2. Re:Question for moderators? by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      I know that we all do not like spammers, but this guy is advocating the mass murder of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people.

      Spammers != "people"

    3. Re:Question for moderators? by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1

      Mass murder, while obviously wrong, can sometimes be less wrong than the alternatives. Considering that spammers are thieves (of bandwidth, CPU, disk, time and other resources), and considering that the appropriate punishment for thieves is death, and considering that we might as well get a laugh out of their demise, nuking an island full of spammers is a perfectly fine idea. It's certainly better than letting the bastards live.

    4. Re:Question for moderators? by Zonekeeper · · Score: 0

      Speak for yourself. I'm alllll for his idea. Really, I am. Serious. I bet you watch Friends and think its all real too. LIGHTEN UP FOR CHISSAKES!!

    5. Re:Question for moderators? by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 2, Funny

      considering that we might as well get a laugh out of their demise, nuking an island full of spammers is a perfectly fine idea

      Plus, we'd get to see that really cool looking mushroom cloud.

      --
      There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
    6. Re:Question for moderators? by MegaFur · · Score: 1
      Spammers != "people"

      That's how the killing always starts. As soon as you start treating a person as an arbitrary object, then it's okay to do anything you want to them and there's no moral consequences. Would you like it if the U.S. Gov'ment went on through with the "equation"
      terrorists != "people".
      geeks ~= (close enough) programmers,
      programmers ~= (close enough) hackers,
      hackers ~= (close enough) terrorists... therefore
      G.W.B. says, "Kill all the geeks and let God sort 'em out."

      Please think carefully before you say that such-and-such group aren't people--even if you're saying it in jest.

      --
      Furry cows moo and decompress.
    7. Re:Question for moderators? by MegaFur · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's a great idea. Next, why don't we kill all the people that talk out of their ass about how great it would be to take a bunch of people to an island and nuke them all, you heartless bastard. Also, I'm not sure I agree that theft is best punished by death. I think you're priorities are way out of whack, and maybe you should go down to your local back alley at midnight and get them realigned by a thug.

      --
      Furry cows moo and decompress.
  75. but that won't work by aurelian · · Score: 1
    adding random dictionary words just means those words become less useful (have a lower Bayesian probability) as non-spam identifiers. The spam still has to contain the spammer's message/product/website whatever, i.e. MAKE XXX MONEY FREE VIAGRA NOW, which the Bayesian filter picks up.

    You can't really poison a Bayesian database this way.

    1. Re:but that won't work by silentbozo · · Score: 1

      Well, if the user is lazy, and stops updating their ham corpus, it does increase the probablity of false positives for messages that contain the random dictionary terms. I think that's what the spammers are hoping will happen.

      Just means that users have to be diligent about submitting both ham and spam to be weighed.

  76. My idea.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our DDoSing, spamming overlords!

  77. Black lists and delisting by raj2569 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As the anti spam officer in a Major ISP in India, I have no problems with blocklists as such. But the people who maintain the blacklists also has a responsibility to correct their mistakes immediatly. They must listen to people who maintain networks and if a machine is wrongly listed they must remove it. The procedure for taking out a machine from blacklists must be documented and verifiable.

    We have a large cable network, and there are 3 4 trouble making customers. We do allow people to run their own mail servers. But that also means that some customers misuse it to send spam. It takes us a day or 2 to shut down the spammer, and by then the C bloc will be listed in some black holes.

    Now de listing it becomes a major pain if the black holes are not responsive. If the procedures are well documented life of ISPs become much easir.

    and no we have not considered denying the freedom of our customers to run their own outgoing mail servers. one or two random spammers cannot force us to deny that freedom to majority of legitimate users in our network.

    raj

    --
    Sarovar.org Hosting for open source projects in Indi
    1. Re:Black lists and delisting by vegetablespork · · Score: 1

      The people who maintain blocklists have no responsibility to you whatsoever. Those using the blocklists are making a choice to deny access to the networks they own to addresses on the list. If it takes too long to get un-listed after a spam run, that's incentive for ISPs to keep the spammers off their networks in the first place--or lose customers to ones that do.

      --

      Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

    2. Re:Black lists and delisting by skookum · · Score: 1

      So what you're basically saying is "I don't want to receive spam, but if one of our customers spams it's okay if we take a couple of days (!!!) to fix it... That's not our fault, it was just a little spam, we coulnd't possibly prevent that." Well, I'm sorry to say, it IS possible to prevent that, and those of us that receive that spam couldn't care less whether or not you had good intentions. The only thing we care about is NOT receiving spam, and in that sense the blocklists are wickedly effective. It's a classic case of "benefit to the group as a whole vs. pain in the ass for a few." I suggest that you install an automated means of detecting spam being sent from your network, and add a "cleanup fees" clause to your contract so that any loser that spams subsidizes your spam monitoring setup.

    3. Re:Black lists and delisting by Lost+Race · · Score: 1
      Public blacklists, whether they have instant accountability or not, are very much in your favor. At least you have some hope of getting delisted, though it may not be quick or easy or convenient. The alternative is thousands of independent private blacklists implemented in complete secrecy by thousands of individual admins, which you have to deal with one at a time, each with all the same problems of an "unresponsive" public list.

      Maintenance of the blacklists is NOT geared toward making life easy for ISPs that host spammers. Sorry, I know you can't help it, but that's just the way it is. It's another cost of doing business for an ISP. Blacklists are a drastic measure, because spam has become a severe problem.

    4. Re:Black lists and delisting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...It takes us a day or 2 to shut down the spammer...

      WTF?!

      Well get off your fat ass, stop jacking to white-woman-dog-pr0n until your nads are dry and shut down the spammers in an hour or 2 if not less.

      Do you have any idea how much spam can be pumped out in a day or 2?!?!

      Better idea: Go and tell your boss you're lame and need to be replaced by someone with a clue - or outsource your position to the US.

      (Gawd - and people wonder why they get so much spam...)

  78. Spam Is Spam by SomeOtherGuy · · Score: 1

    Spam does not bother me half as much as the fact that the true sender of said spam is easily able to disguise the origin of said spam by forging headers and spoofing, bouncing, relaying. (I.E. -- taking advantage of a bad set of protoccols that should not be in use anymore.) The first step to fixing the spam problem should be a mass adoption of protocols that make it imbossible to determine the origin and owner of the offending piece of data.

    Let the spam battles of the future be fought in open view, collesium style rather than a thief in the night shooting you in the back.

    --
    (+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
    1. Re:Spam Is Spam by citizen6350 · · Score: 1

      "The first step to fixing the spam problem should be a mass adoption of protocols that make it imbossible to determine the origin and owner of the offending piece of data" I assume you meant "possible" There was an article on /. a while ago about a proposed email schemea that would enforce accountability: When you send email, the email actually stays on your computer (or your ISP' s) and instead a notification of this email is sent. Then the other person's email client downloads the email directly from your computer/ISP. This doesnt stop spam in and of itself, but it forces spammers to be accountable, since we can tell where the mail is coming from.

      --
      "Sorry Im not more user-friendly."
    2. Re:Spam Is Spam by SomeOtherGuy · · Score: 1

      Yes that is it. Much the same way that if you side swipe my car while I am in the grocery store -- yet leave a note on the window as to who you are, what your phone number is, etc....That is a better situation for all involved than if you sideswipe my car and then just run. (I have no one to argue accountibility with -- and you could be arrested for a hit and run.)

      --
      (+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
  79. Hawaiians more than anyone else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    per capita, they consume the most spam of all 50 states.

    Why do you ask?

  80. "Affective" it maybe but it is also expensive by Pac · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The farther you let junk travel into the system, the worst your problem is. Bayesian is hard to apply at the network level, you must leave it to the individual users, causing a twofold problem: you keep letting the scum of Earth parasite your network (if you are an ISP) and you expand the processing needs of the end user (ever saw Mozilla Mail "think" for a couple of minutes after you mark one or two email as junk?). This is undesirable.

    Lists work pretty well. They ocasionally piss people off, but the cost-benefit ratio is still largely on their side.

  81. A Defensive tool, not censorware by mercuryresearch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm getting a bit tired of people applauding DOS attacks on blocklists. Many of us run small mail servers for ourselves and/or small companies where EVERYONE who recieves email is in agreement that blocking spam is the right thing to do. When everyone chooses to do this, it's not censorship. Seriously -- the volume of spam is overwhelming, and in a small business there is no one delegate managing email to, and it's consuming precious bandwidth. Spam is the problem, not block lists. No spam, no blocklists, simple as that.

    My server has seen as many as 500 spams a day directed at it -- for just two email accounts releated to my business. I had little choice but to elect to use drastic measures and escalate them until the spam became manageable -- and the best defense due to bandwidth issues (we run on just 128K because that's all that's available to us) is blocklists. The problem has been so bad that I maintain an internal block list that uses iptables to simply not route packets from IP blocks (/24) for any email that gets through the first layer of blocklists that sendmail checks.

    Osirusoft in particular was very, very useful to me, because they maintained a number of DNS mirrors of other blocklists, so you could pick and choose how drastic you wished your blocking to be. I will miss their service greatly -- and can already notice it as my spam has doubled since it was removed from my sendmail config.

    Without blocklists, email for my small business at least would be useless. I know that I've lost business using them, but I'd lose more business/time/money without -- there's no friggin' way I'm going to search through (and accept the bandwidth hit from) five hundred messages to find the few legitimate ones and still have time to get real work done.

    1. Re:A Defensive tool, not censorware by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Without blocklists, email for my small business at least would be useless.

      I think what this means is that the blocklists are a band-aid to keep a busted protocol around for a few extra years. Spam prevention needs to be more intrisic in the protocol to be effective, which means tossing SMTP and starting over. From the death of blocklists will hopefully cause something better to rise...

    2. Re:A Defensive tool, not censorware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fallacy of the massive SPAM bandwidth drain?

      With a 128kbit connection you can transfer about 1.3 gigs/day. 500 emails at 20kbyte is 10mb, about .6% of that capacity. Thats not quite losable in the noise, but its close.

    3. Re:A Defensive tool, not censorware by vegetablespork · · Score: 1

      So you won't mind if someone transfers 0.6% of your paycheck from your checking account to his each payday? After all, it's only a minimal proportion of your money.

      --

      Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

    4. Re:A Defensive tool, not censorware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter what protocol you use. You still going to need lists of people you trust and people you don't. They might be signed certificates instead of IP address, but it's the same problem.

    5. Re:A Defensive tool, not censorware by smash · · Score: 1
      Whilst I agree with you 100%, in the meantime, its not feasible for some to simply ditch blocklists while we wait the unknown period of time for an SMTP replacement to be developed and then deployed.

      If a new protocol was released tomorrow that solved all of SMTPs problems, unless it work with SMTP as well, it would never take off. And even if it DID take off, many places wouldn't deploy it for at least 3-5 years...

      We're kinda stuck with SMTP for quite some time I think unfortunately... its just far too entrenched.

      smash.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    6. Re:A Defensive tool, not censorware by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

      The average spam is under 10K.
      500 spams a day, at 10K each is 5Megabytes per day, or less than 500 bps.
      That's less than 1% of a 128Kbps line.

      1% isn't 0%, but it's hardly enough to require "drastic" measures.
      I suggest you look at greylisting - that's about 85% effective, near 0 false positives,
      and it reduces bandwidth more than all but the most draconian DNSBLs.

      -- this is not a .sig

  82. counter attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not create a process that launches at the top of every hour and does 1000 page hits against each collected Spam related URL.

    the combined effect might be sufficient for them to change their tactics.

  83. Waste their time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretend to be interested in the sales pitch and string them along for as long as you find it amusing, then tell them to bugger off. I do this with telemarketers when I'm bored and have nothing better to do.

    If a lot of people did this, I bet spammers would quickly give up on internet marketing.

    1. Re:Waste their time! by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Tell them to bugger off? No! Trick them into the forest and put them out of their misery with a blunt object to the head (see hammer discussion a couple of posts up).

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  84. It may be blacklisted sites wanting delisting by Chatmag · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As the blocklist lists more sites/providers, then it stands to reason those sites will follow the trail back to the blocklist, such as Osirusoft or SPEWS, in order to get information regarding their inclusion in that list, and how to get delisted. (Reference: The "Slashdot Effect).
    I noticed that Joe Jared mentions his other site as a collateral casualty of the DDoS. Now where did I hear the term "collateral damage" before? As a provider of SPEWS blocklists, that would in effect make him as accountable as SPEWS, to use their own twisted logic of "a customer of an ISP is as guilty of spamming as the spammer themselves".
    We do not condone any DDoS attack, nor do we condone the actions of SPEWS. The demise of Osirusoft demonstrates that unaccountable "vigilantism" does nothing to stem the tide of unwanted commercial emails and as stated in previous posts regarding spam, more rational discussion should be forthcoming, with real solutions, rather than the tactics used by the blocklists that would hack down the forest to fell one tree.

    --
    Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
  85. Easy solution to find the perpetrator(s) by Raptyr · · Score: 1

    Invade all ISP's, and hunt down WOMDs (Weapons of Mass DenialofService). If we don't find any, we'll blame it on faulty intelligence overseas.

  86. WAR by hawkbug · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is WAR. Spammers will stoop to any level to get their crap into people's mailboxes, and now the blacklists are giving into their guerilla tactics - I say keep fighting, eventually they will figure out where the attack is coming from, and shut the damn thing down. We must never give up fighting spam, at any cost.

    1. Re:WAR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kill them all, let god sort them out.
      You Nixon lover you. :)

    2. Re:WAR by NineNine · · Score: 1

      This is WAR. Spammers will stoop to any level to get their crap into people's mailboxes, and now the blacklists are giving into their guerilla tactics - I say keep fighting, eventually they will figure out where the attack is coming from, and shut the damn thing down. We must never give up fighting spam, at any cost.


      It sounds like somebody hasn't been laid in a while (ever?)...

  87. Increase your penis size with Bayesian filters! by Anonymous+Spammer · · Score: 0, Troll
    Bayesian is the only affective method I've seen for significant spam reduction.

    As a professional sender of UCE, I just want to tell you slashdotters to keep on playing with your spam filters. As long as you use spam filters on your e-mail, I can continue to reach my real intended targets, those non-slashdotters who do not know better and will buy my products or click through to my client's websites. Your filters really help cut down on the complaints to the Internet service providers I do business with, and as long as not too many complaints come in their marketing people assure me we can do business. Of course, I still waste your bandwidth and mailbox capacity, but you no longer complain to uce@ftc.gov, my access providers, or anyone else who might cause me problems. My yahoo and hotmail and other accounts for replies are lasting much longer before getting shut down because someone complained to these service providers. And my clients are even reporting that they can start mailing out 800 numbers like 1-800-901-3719 again and they will not have you damn geeks set up your modems to keep autodialing them, since you spend your own time and effort to filter the e-mail and only clueless users who might actually call will see the numbers.

    Please don't bother your Congressmen or Senators proposing legislation that might not work 100%. Just keep on filtering the spam I send you, I know you would have never bought from me anyway. That you can filter legitimizes my business and my waste of your bandwidth.

    P.S. To be sure of not getting a false positive, be sure to send all filtered mail to a special folder. Waste your storage space storing the mail until you manually go through every piece to be sure you didn't accidentally filter something important. Of course, this will take exactly as much effort as it would have to just check the e-mail when it first came in, not to mention the extra effort spent in setting up the filters and the extra space for storing your incoming spam folder, but what the heck. If you think that you can scan e-mail for false positives faster this way you are just fooling yourselves, if you are scanning faster e-mail that you expect to be all spam, you will miss the very false positives that you think you are looking for. And any fales positives that you do catch will have been delayed, perhaps days or more. You geeks enjoy wasting time this way, and I certainly appreciate it. It makes the work of all us spammers much easier. After all, slashdotters like Moderation abuser tell you that Bandwidth is cheap, disk is cheap, CPU is cheap , which is good, because at the rate spammers like me waste it the costs still adds up. I am gald I never pay for it, and I would just as well that everyone else takes the additude that all of the resources I waste are cheap than band together and pass laws against us. No one should care about spam because Bandwidth is cheap, disk is cheap, CPU is cheap and it is your job to filter it.

    Think you've seen this before? Don't complain. Just go through lots more work to set up special filers on your computer so that you will not see it again. Crawl into your holes, let us attack the real problems we have in getting our spam to the clueless marks that will respond. You should have to do that. It's the true geek solution, and I would really like it if you did.

    --
    No Karma is given if one is modded up "funny".
    1. Re:Increase your penis size with Bayesian filters! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up!

    2. Re:Increase your penis size with Bayesian filters! by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      Damn I wish I could mod you up. By far the most insightful post on this article.

  88. To be consistent... by tmark · · Score: 1

    Since an article here yesterday pointed out that viruses are actually good for us, I suppose we must now conclude that spamming is good for us too, because it helps strengthen our anti-spamming ability.

    Now I feel much better.

  89. Blacklists and Spam by DLG · · Score: 3, Informative

    I personally HAVE been blacklisted (by ordb.org) and once I cleared up the problem (some ability to relay) I was let out. This took 2 hours total, so I feel comfortable USING ordb.org myself, now that I am responsible for protecting a large network from spam. I also use spamassassin, quarantining and a number of other methods to prevent false positives, and we do notify once you get past spamassassin.

    If I did not use SOME rbl though, I would be sending out 6000 spam blocking notification messages a day mostly to people who aren't there or are not the real sender. Since I block things prior to getting through postfix, I am able to send them back a clear informative message on the blockage, DURING the transmission.

    In any case, I have heard of lots of bad stuff about SPEWS and all but my experience with spamhaus and ordb are that both help block alot of mail, and are responsible with their efforts.

    In any case, it is my business (and my company's business of course) how we handle our incoming stream. If we choose to use a blacklist that is our right. As it waspointed out, we could always create our own (It is pretty easy to create a dnsbased one even to share with a few friends or whatnot)...

    No one is going to be able to stop ALL blacklists, but by attacking the large centralized ones, it does not IMPROVE the ability to get taken off an RBL. It just makes it harder really.

    1. Re:Blacklists and Spam by entrigant · · Score: 1

      I cleared up the problem (some ability to relay)

      I have to assume from this that you had an open relay running, and if so then good for ordb for blacklisting you. Open relays are one of the biggest problems.

  90. An open challenge to spammers by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 1

    If you will present me with your name, address and phone number, I will find you and we can settle this whole spam problem mano a mano. Any takers? ;) I suggest that the rest of the Slashdot community follow my lead.

    1. Re:An open challenge to spammers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you will present me with your name, address and phone number, I will find you


      You mean you have the 3133t sk177z to find someone using only their name address and phone number. I ph33r U.
  91. Anyone else observer a huge dropoff in spam? by rayvd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This morning around 6:30AM MST, the spam levels on our work server dropped from ~800 spam/hr to ~35/hr. They'd been hovering at the 800 level for more than a week (most are not actualy spam, but "bounces" from SoBig.F faking our domain as the From address). It's staying right around 35 still about 7 hours later..

    Not complaining, but very strange nonetheless!

  92. Perhaps it's not the spammers ... by dougmc · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Perhaps it's not the spammers ...

    Perhaps it's Something Awful that's doing it?

    Fark seems to think so.

    (Ever feel like you're writing for memepool or Everything2? I sure do!)

    1. Re:Perhaps it's not the spammers ... by taustin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Perhaps it's Something Awful that's doing it?

      In their wettest dreams. Buncha wannabe script kiddies.

  93. Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs! Re:"Trojan arses"??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lame Joke...

  94. They are fighting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... for freedom. Those who controll the blacklists can make sure that certain messages other than spam do not reach their destination.

  95. Read above by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    A quote of an earlier comment:

    " Go to nana-e, and they'll tell you that robots from space run SPEWS, and there's no way to get a hold of them. They start with Class C's, then progress to banning class A's. Some of the crazies who post on nana-e even have the whole country of Brazil banned on their private lists. SPEWS had information too on DNS blackholing (i.e. preventing your users from going to internet sites) and on HTTP blocking. If it was anyone else (the government) who was advocating this, people would be outraged."

    i.e. no matter how hard one tries, there is still a great chance of getting screwed by these vigilantes.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    1. Re:Read above by jcr · · Score: 1

      Vigilantes are people who come and grab you, and hang you from a convenient tree branch.

      People who advise others that you're coming from a known spam host are NOT vigilantes. They are reporters.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:Read above by Basje · · Score: 1

      It's a service. People can use this, they don't have to. But people choose to use it because living with it is better than living without it.

      If you are so against these services, why not talk to the users? Are you a spammer? Fat chance they'll listen to you. Are you legitimate? Then find another ISP, one that acts ethical, and takes action against spammers.

      --
      the pun is mightier than the sword
    3. Re:Read above by buss_error · · Score: 1
      Go to nana-e, and they'll tell you that robots from space run SPEWS, and there's no way to get a hold of them.

      Only spammers and people lying need to talk. People that remove spammers from thier network only need to post that they have done so to be removed from SPEWs.

      They start with Class C's, then progress to banning class A's.

      That is not factual. They start with the assignment of the spammer, and it grows as long as the ISP doesn't remove the spammer.

      Some of the crazies who post on nana-e even have the whole country of Brazil banned on their private lists.

      And this is relavent to SPEWS how? SPEWS is not Nana-e, Nana-e is not SPEWS. Second point, thier server, their rules. Deal. If the owner of a server doesn't want traffic from .BR, that's up to them. BR can firewall out those that firewall them.

      SPEWS had information too on DNS blackholing (i.e. preventing your users from going to internet sites) and on HTTP blocking.

      And you are upset why? If your ISP supports spammers, then I don't want you scraping my webpages for email addresses. Counterwise, I don't want my users going to a bulker site and buying software to abuse my networks. It's against the AUP.

      If it was anyone else (the government) who was advocating this, people would be outraged."

      NEWS FLASH: 1st admendment only covers acts by the government, not the private sector. If the owner of private property wants you off his property, he can enforce that right absolutely up to and including use of deadly force to remove a tresspasser (for a homeowner) if needed.

      You don't need to talk to SPEWS. SPEWS listens, they don't talk. If you say you removed the spammers, then they will remove your block. If you are colateral damage because of a spammer, post that you are moving, your current IPAs, your new IPAs, and the date. You may get a hole punched in the block for you. Don't whine that moving is too expensive. You got cheap hosting so the ISP can use you as a human shield. Getting trapped like that is stupid and shows you didn't do your due dilligence, but understandable. Staying with a spammy host makes you part of the problem and subject to blocking for supporting spam.

      --
      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
  96. I blame SomethingAwful.com! by 1_brown_mouse · · Score: 1

    Not that I disagree with them.

    http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=160 5

    Very funny.

  97. Let's send em to... by switcha · · Score: 1
    --
    You know what? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!
  98. here's an article... by dolface · · Score: 2, Informative

    on that.

    --
    http://www.baarbd.org - bay area adventure racing
  99. Am I the only one who did not have this problem? by junkgoof · · Score: 5, Informative

    I took over an SMTP server that was an open relay. Spam had been relayed, so the server was blacklisted. I secured the server, contacted the various blacklists, and the server was removed from the blacklists. I had no problem with any of the blacklists, and had no problem getting the server removed. Of course I was polite, and I went through the appropriate channels...

    The volume of spam is sufficient without removing the blacklists.

    --
    You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
  100. There is a weakness by Beta+Moo · · Score: 1

    Stop trying to enlarge your penis, spy on your neighbors, or accept business advice from a Nigerian!

  101. Im sick of it by polakk · · Score: 1

    Personally im just really sick of spam as Im getting it shoved down my throat in exceedingly excessive volume everyday.. There should be vigilanty action against spammers, just like what they (or someone on theyre behalf) is doing to us.

  102. Re:It is illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IANAL, but I'm told that you can sue the government to prosecute a case.

    Perhaps you need to retain better counsel?

  103. My guess is that that too has to do with $ by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    Put it this way, if the blocklists were properly funded, I'd bet they could pay people to actually check each business out, and respond quickly. Therefore, it would seem to me that the following methods should be available:

    (1) Pay $$$ to get reviewed immediately. That money shouldn't be small either. As an ISP, you pass this on to the customer, by making him post bond if he wants his own email server. That bond equals the money it costs to get you removed quickly.

    (2) Don't pay $$$, and get reviewed at leisure.

    If you suggested that, I'm pretty sure the blocklists would respond.

    That said, I strongly suspect that this is the spammers, and they are going to win this round. They won't win long term; nor will those who sell them spam facilities.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  104. Re:Site is becomming slashdotted - heres the text. by vegetablespork · · Score: 1

    The mods are expressed in percentages to obfuscate editor modbombing. The post of doom showed hundreds of moderations that made it obvious that unlimited points were being used--and the editors learned their lesson.

    --

    Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

  105. Think globally, act locally by dcavanaugh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We use Spam Assasin on Sendmail. We have Sendmail configured so that when a message is positively identified as spam, we automatically update our local access file to blacklist the entire class C of the relay host.

    I have been watching this closely for several weeks. Originally, I thought there would be trouble -- surely we would nail some legitimate networks and have to unblock them. But NOOOOO! Every day we reject more and more via the local blacklist and it's always the evildoers. I don't think anyone needs a DNS-based blacklist, all you have to do is harvest the power of the spam data you already have.

    1. Re:Think globally, act locally by shird · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of people who are sharing the same class C as spammers. Also, if this becomes common place, spammers will DoS you by setting up a HotMail account and sending a spam or two to get HoTmaiL blacklisted so that you abandon the scheme. Not to mention virii and chain letters coming from innocent people which SpamAssassin may pick up on and blacklist that block. Plus, some class C networks sometimes span different ISPs which would cause you to block some email coming from a different ISP.

      --
      I.O.U One Sig.
    2. Re:Think globally, act locally by dcavanaugh · · Score: 1
      Considering how many people are blacklisting entire B blocks, I am on the conservative end of the spectrum. No doubt about it, the people who live in the same C block as spammers are in for a world of hurt. With or without my automatic blacklist, they will simply have to move (I sure would!). In my experience, the spam-friendly ISPs are either REALLY bad (giving C blocks to each spammer), or they are practical enough to keep the spammers confined to a limited number of "slum" C-blocks, knowing those will be blacklisted. UUnet/MCI is well-known for having upset customers who end up as "collateral damage" in the war on spam.

      I have some sympathy for customers who unwittingly inherit a C block that is blacklisted from here to Mars, but the ISPs are major contributors to the problem. Let them figure out how to deal with address space that is the equivalent of toxic waste. Maybe I could auto-purge the blacklist; eliminating those C-blocks that have sent no spam for a few months.

      I can easily defeat the spammers who might try the Hotmail ploy by whitelisting Hotmail. To be honest, it's been a while since I have seen spam from Hotmail. Usually its just the hotmail.com name forged into the header (which fools nobody).

      I have never seen a C block that cuts across ISPs. I suppose it could happen.

      You have a point about messages from a virus, especially if the SoBig victim PCs become a giant spam network. If anything makes me reconsider the strategy, this might do it.

  106. spam by smatt-man · · Score: 1

    How about new new virus that replies to all the spam in your inbox and asks the spammers if they want to add inches to their penis? SoBig.P?

    --

    ---
    Lousy rotten karmic retribution.
  107. does osirusoft's list still block everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Sent: 2003-08-28 14:01
    Reason: Spam warning
    The message was received from a host that is currently on a spam list.
    Additional info:
    The sending host was: XXXXXXX.XXXXXXX.com
    The SLS service was: relays.osirusoft.com"
    Called and tried to tell them not to use osirusoft and got a "we are recieving email just fine thank you spammer" speech.

  108. Admins beware by vgaphil · · Score: 1

    If you are retrieving a blacklist from a site that is that is down, remove it ASAP. When I first started as net admin here I was getting a lot of complaints about people not being able to receive email from other companies. After learning how our mail server worked I realized that the smtp daemon was getting blacklists from a big list of servers. What I didn't realize was that more than half of those servers where down. This was making the smtp daemon take forever to respond, which caused a lot companies mail servers to timeout when they connected to us. Removing the servers that were down fixed the problem.

    "The Internet is a fad."

    --
    A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein
  109. Re:Am I the only one who did not have this problem by nearlygod · · Score: 1

    I was polite about it in (the beginning) as well. When this whole ordeal began I was a fan of blacklists and thought that they were great. However, the problem is that in 6 months, I have not received a single communication from them. For all that I know, the e-mail link on their page is broken. I followed the instuctions on their site exactly and still nothing. Perhaps it is just this Blacklist that is the problem, but it has been a nightmare for me. YMMV. Anyway, my opinion of black ists has shifted dramatically. They just are not the answer to the problem.

    --
    The Tools Of Ignorance wanna be a tool?
  110. Class C? A? by dholm · · Score: 1

    What are these classes you speak off?

    OH. You mean those things we used back before CIDR was implemented in the mid-nineties?

  111. I would fire any admin that uses blacklists by GreenCrackBaby · · Score: 1

    I hate spam with a passion, but I feel equally about any mail admin that looks to blacklists to do all their work for them. If you happen to run your own mail server, and you are the only one expecting mail through it, then do whatever you want. But if there are people at the end of your mail server that are expecting mail to pass through and you are blocking it "on their behalf", then I hope you lose your job.

    Don't expect people to pat you on the back when you have to tell them that the mail they're expecting isn't coming through because you happen to be blocking IPs in a particular range.

    Good riddance, I say.

    --

    "The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
    1. Re:I would fire any admin that uses blacklists by Indy1 · · Score: 1

      well its your server,and your right to do with it whatever you want. On a practical note, if your not using SOME sort of dnsbl, you will get flooded with spam. I run a mail server that has about 50 or so users over about 5 domains, and we get an average of 200-300 spam attempts per day. Between agressive firewalling and using a combination of 10 or so dnsbl's, the actual spam we get is about maybe 3-5 per week, with no loss of legit email (we whitelist people as needed).

      --
      Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
    2. Re:I would fire any admin that uses blacklists by MrMickS · · Score: 1
      Suggest an alternative then.

      It's no good just to berate the use of blacklists because it may block legitimate email. Any system that filters email may block legitimate email. Virus filters, SPAM filters, all block email and all run the risk of blocking messages that shouldn't be blocked.

      A good admin would assess the merits of various systems to block SPAM, viruses and other unwanted emails, and use those that provide the best solution with the smallest risk of false positives. Combine that with intelligent messages being sent out when messages are blocked, including details on how to make contact without using email, and you have prudent management of an email system that prevents unwanted emails getting through.

      Of course you can always advocate what you appear to be. Any filtering is wrong so leave it to the users to filter through the large amount of chaff to find the message that they want. If they miss it because they can't find it it's their own fault. Who cares about the extra cost to business of the fatter pipe and larger email systems needed to process this and the amount of money burnt in people time processing their email.

      --
      You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
  112. You're a goddamn moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why nerds should never be allowed out of their cages to speak about anything other than their narrow specialty.

    1. Re:You're a goddamn moron. by Skapare · · Score: 1

      The network the nerds built was an excellent one. It's the MBA morons and spammers that came along and ruined it.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  113. Partial Reliance on Blacklists by SpyderFan · · Score: 2, Interesting
    We use Spam Sleuth Enterprise from Blue Squirrel which only partially relies on IP blacklists. It allows you to assign points for a blacklisted IP, but more importantly, it also lets you assign points for a bayesian analysis (good or bad), a invalid SMTP server, a invalid MX record, profanity, bad words, good words, blacklisted e-mail addresses, regular expression power filters, etc.

    A malfunctioning IP blacklist will give a message more points, but only a fraction necessary to send the message to dev/null

    Thought of in another way is that the decision of whether the message is spam or not is distributed among lots of "decision makers" The weight of those decision makers is determined by the number of points they are allowed to assign to a given message.

    We also use Spam Sleuth Enterprise to protect our server from SoBig.F. We just look for the text "X-MailScanner: Found to be clean" and set it to enough points to delete the message. It takes the load off of our internal servers.

    Hope this helps somebody.

  114. Spam is essentially a DDoS attack ... by marko_ramius · · Score: 1

    ... against our mail servers.

    They are eating up resources that we, or our customers / users, should be rightly using.

    How do you stop a DoS attack? You block the offending IP's.

    That's what the block lists allow mail server operators to do.

    1. Re:Spam is essentially a DDoS attack ... by marko_ramius · · Score: 1

      Ach, forgot to finish it.

      As good as mail filter are (I use SpamAssassin), they have one significant failing ... they are reactive, not pro-active.

      Personally, I like to be able to filter out some of the spam before it even hits my server.

  115. Maybe it's time to DDoS spam-advertised sites? by lightspawn · · Score: 1

    Whenever you receive spam promoting a web site, just (automatically) hit that web site, downloading the home page, all graphics, follow a link, repeat ad bandwium. Maybe some kind of distributed system can be set up so that when many people detect spam for a certain web site, it's automatically "visited" by everybody. Distributed slashdotting!

    1. Re:Maybe it's time to DDoS spam-advertised sites? by Chatmag · · Score: 1

      I love the ones hosted on Geocities. Doesnt take much to go over their bandwidth!

      --
      Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
    2. Re:Maybe it's time to DDoS spam-advertised sites? by taustin · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should look in to Project Pandora

  116. Canadian Spammer Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Here is the contact information for a Spammer in Canada (Toronto).

    Bill Rapanos
    85 Thorncliffe Park Dr.
    Toronto, ON
    M4H1L6
    416-467-6585
    416-467-8986
    express4676585@yahoo.com

    Here is his reference on Spamhaus.

  117. didn't you read that Wired story by Heywood+Yabuzof · · Score: 1


    You know, the one about the customer list of a business selling stuff via spam?

    Scary stuff, and it just indicates how bad the problem is - all kinds of people actually do click on those links in the spam e-mails and actually do buy stuff. Scary. There's no way to prevent dangerously insane gullibility, although that would be a good first step towards fixing the spam problem.

  118. at least you can be removed. by siskbc · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Umm where have you been, a large part of the problem with SPEWs was that they were placing large IP blocks on the blacklist for no apparrent reason. I personally was involved in a case where they blocked an entire server farm because one server was behaving badly.

    Unfortunately, spammers are like bad apples - when they find a spam-friendly ISP, they tend to conglomerate. Second, you don't think that individual SysAdmins will do worse? At least with centralized blocklists, you can be removed. Try that with a ton of individual admins.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  119. What can't it do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, folks, P2P and PGP save the day again!!!

    Can someone please come up with a solution to a problem that doesn't involve one of these two? /. is beginning to look like a script from Star Trek:

    "Captain, a Klingon Bird of Prey is de-cloaking off the starboard bow."

    "Sound red alert! Encrypt shields with a public key and stand by to share files."

    1. Re:What can't it do? by emil · · Score: 1

      Actually, the system that I just described bears far more similarity to NNTP than a Napster or Kazaa protocol.

      NNTP predates most p2p by a long time, and seems to have been resilient in maintaining basic connectivity.

      Do you have a better idea?

    2. Re:What can't it do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Do you have a better idea?"

      Well, no I don't, but that never stopped anyone posting to /. before :). Besides, you were the one who mentioned P2P...

      To be fair, your idea seems well thought out and quite workable (to a buffoon such as myself, at least). I am aware NNTP predates what is now called P2P (and can remember when it was new; want to buy an Osbourne 200 baud acoustic coupler modem?), though I can't see why a P2P arrangement couldn't be as resilient as NNTP, since it would allow mail servers to consult each other for signed blacklists; though this may be a security risk in itself, hence the need for trusted servers (which may still be prone to DDoS attacks, thus defeating the purpose of making the system P2P in the first place; zero bandwidth is still zero, whatever port you're using). Anyway, I'm fairly certain that an idea like yours could be implemented using a protocol such as KDX quite rapidly.

      Perhaps an easier option would be social engineering: any mail admin with the capacity to do so should be asked to host a mirror of their favourite web-based blacklist, with all official mirrors listed on the original site. There is the posibility of abuse, naturally, but by cross checking the content of a number of mirrors (if the original isn't available) it would be possible to identify old lists or malicious modifications; such mirrors could then be blacklisted. As you rightly pointed out, centralizing the blacklists is a bad thing, but I personally think a cross check and verify model of security is better than a trusted source model.

      What set me off (and I hope you didn't take my comment as an attack on your actual proposal) was the use of the expression P2P: reading /., it is almost impossible to avoid the conclusion that every geek thinks P2P (and/or PGP) is the cure for every technological, commercial and even socialogical problem in the world. it isn't, any more than "dotcom" was in the '90s; it's usually just a catch phrase which (as it turns out in your case) is not always appropriate or accurate.

    3. Re:What can't it do? by emil · · Score: 1

      No, I didn't take your comments in too negative a light.

      There are some activities where a centralized approach makes sense. Napster was technically a better system than Kazaa.

      However, in this case as in Napster, any centralization will be the focus of an attack. A blacklist system should be designed to make an effective attack extremely difficult and expensive. I can't think of a better way to accomplish this, although it brings to mind the dreaded "p2p" word.

  120. Expensive E-mail by ripetersen · · Score: 1

    I think the solution is to make e-mail more expensive. A simple way to do this is to have the remote host work a difficult problem and respond with the correct response. A difficult problem could take the form of a brute force attack against a secret that has been encrypted using a small key. For example when the remote host connects to my machine I would respond with something like
    220: sdiofuowqihr8o23nisdfhoqwienroqwerinqweo
    Then I would wait for something like
    SCRT this was the secret
    My server would know the secret it sent over, the remote machine would require a reasonable amount of resources to decrypt the secret, making such transactions undesirable to spammers. I could even have a "white list" of sorts where I use a shorter key for IP address I trust and a longer key for IP addresses that are new to me. Just my $.02

  121. Re: dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't be a spelling pedant unless you are 100% correct.

    instruction is spelled properly.

  122. Re:Am I the only one who did not have this problem by Thuktun · · Score: 1

    This is the web. Publicize it and draw attention to the problem. Advocate not using that particular blocklist.

    Without spamming, of course.

  123. Should have by phorm · · Score: 1

    posted his personal info on slashdot. The last few times I've seen it happen it's gotten some amusing results.

    Give us the home mailing address of the spammer, our response will be "in the mail" in no time!!

    1. Re:Should have by Skater · · Score: 1

      I wonder how long it'll be before someone posts the address of someone they don't like, and then all the slashdotters will go after the innocent person...

      --RJ

  124. there's already a whole list of them by alizard · · Score: 1
    The ROKSO List.

    Including names and addresses. The list claims that these 200 spammers create 90% of the world's spam.

    Have fun.

  125. infantesimal returns returning exponentially by Zarf · · Score: 1

    Here's an interesting problem. The spammers spam because in a billion e-mails one or two people give a positive response... that's enough to justify trillions of e-mails. The blocking of a paltry billion or so e-mails is enough to justify trillions of packets in a DDoS attack.

    So one positive response in a trillion negative or null responses is enough to justify the wrath of a trillion DDoS packets on hundreds of servers.

    How do you remove the desire to perform such a futile and repugnant act as spamming when such small positive reinforcement causes such profound tenacity for spewing forth volumes of wretched bile on innocent masses merely seeking to expunge said bile?

    The crux of the problem is that communication is now so cheap that it is easy to waste. If communication were more valuable people would spend more time on it. If you had to pay for each e-mail in some way you wouldn't recklessly waste them.

    I propose we start charging the sender for each e-mail... but not money. I propose we charge each sender for each e-mail they send a percentage of their soul.

    Each e-mail you send would slowly drain away your soul until you were nothing but a dried out husk. Sort of like Slashdot.

    --
    [signature]
  126. Brazil by Skapare · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, many have the entirety of Brazil blocked. And for good reason, too. Doing so cuts out a huge chunk of spam and reduces the costs on the receiving mail servers and networks noticeably. It works.

    The problem is that most of Brazil is served by one big telco monopoly that is operated entirely incompetently. That doesn't necessarily mean each person in that company is incompetent, but those that are not are surely aware of their inability to do the right thing and stop the spam.

    Some people even blocked all of 200/8.

    Now I don't actually agree with the actions those people did. What I did was scan those networks for patterns and figured out specific domains to block. I'm getting most of the effectiveness without the false positives. I do have almost all the cable modem and dynamic DSL lines blocked as best as I can.

    But the real goal is to get spammers disconnected so they can't even send a SYN packet, much less make an SMTP connection. You have a better idea that meets those goals that what is being done now? If so, post it.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  127. CanIt by vandan · · Score: 1

    We have been using Roaring Penguin's commercial Mimedefang & Spamassassin combination, called "CanIt" for around a month now. ( Interestingly enough, Roaring Penguin seems unreachable at the moment. Hmmmmmm... )

    It's incredibly effective. You can set up custom rules for identifying spam ( regex supported ), and the whole thing has a nice PHP-based interface. It was pretty easy to convince management that we needed it - typically management get the most spam anyway. And it's good to support a company pushing open source software :)

    Previously I was using blacklists and my own ip-address list with iptables, but it just became too much, and this has dropped our spam from ridiculous levels to basically nothing.

    Well worth a look...

  128. Spammer Contact Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Here is the contact information for a Spammer in Canada (Toronto).

    Bill Rapanos
    85 Thorncliffe Park Dr.
    Toronto, ON
    M4H1L6
    416-467-6585
    416-467-8986
    express4676585@yahoo.com

    Here is his reference on Spamhaus.

  129. Its about time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am glad someone finally shutdown these holier-than-thou smartasses running those F***ING Blacklists. I hate those people with a passion.

    I have had mail servers blocked a couple of times, and all I get from them is attitude and absolutely no help in actually fixing the problem. I don't want to be a host for spam, and I would love to fix the problem, but most sites act like they are so goddam smart becasue they know how to configure their servers but the best advice they offer to the blacklisted is "Read your documentation".

    If you really want to help out the Internet, use your knowledge of spam and email to help out, don't just block the email and tell them to "read the documentation". They could at least send an email to let you know you have been balcklisted instead of waiting until your CEO screams at you because he can't send out the quarterly report.

    All I can say to those "unfortunate" blacklisters is- dont't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out....

  130. The DEATH PENALTY by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    will put a stop to this shit.

    No repeat offenders. Public hangings, broadcast on ALL television stations. Cable, OTA, satellite, whatever else there is. Mandatory viewing. Interrupt ALL programming, including little childrens cartoons, porno movies, PPV's, everything. FORCE everyone to view these executions and I assure you that less than a dozen will have to be executed before all spamming comes to a dead halt.

    Also, vigilante justice should be the rule of the day. Catch a spammer (and hackerz) in person, terminate him (or her) right there.

    The public executions will be reserved for those spammers that the official law enforcement agencies catch.

    Law abiding citizens should carry handguns and should SHOOT TO KILL lawbreakers as the need arises.

    Quit crying about crime, arm yourselves and fight back..

  131. It's death-by-ten-million-tiny-pricks time. by dbirchall · · Score: 1
    Okay, so let's say the blacklists go away.

    What happens then?

    Individual systems and networks administrators block spammy networks.

    This unfortunately means duplication of efforts, of course... but if it's what has to be done, it will be done.

    And then, when Joe ISP's customers complain that their mail is bouncing or being blackholed, instead of having to do the legwork to get off a few large, well-known blacklists... Joe can go around to thousands or millions of individual sites that have his network blocked.

    Frying pan, fire, etc. I pity the ISP's.

    1. Re:It's death-by-ten-million-tiny-pricks time. by KagatoLNX · · Score: 1

      Hey, just because you don't like people with their own blacklists, doesn't mean you need to call them "ten-million-pricks".

      We may be heavy handed, but pricks we are not!

      --
      I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
  132. Outrage over SPAM??? by 9mind · · Score: 1

    Personally, I don't care what steps they take to stop SPAM. If people took the time to inform spammers to just add a mandatory remove list to each spam (THAT WORKED!) I would say SPEWS are unnecessary. However, with the amount of junk I receive and have to filter everyday, I think SPEWs are doing what is necessary to wake spammers up. The fact that they bulk with fake accounts and are genreally sending you unwanted adsthem no sympathy from me. They didn't ask me if I wanted their bullshit... so why would I care if SPEWs persecute them on the highest level.

  133. This Extremism Needs to Stop by globalar · · Score: 2, Informative

    Spam really brings out the worst in everyone - both those who recieve it, those who fight it, and those who send it.

    But there are some mature Internet users who do not believe the way to solving things is running a DDoS against a party or blocking subnets carelessly. I do not know how many are on /. belong to this group, but I would include myself.

    There is no panacea for spam. Sorry.

    It is very unresponsible of any maintainer of a blacklist to target large IP blocks. There is no possible way to maintain such a list accurately without targeting innocent parties. Collateral damage is understandable, but it should also be looked down upon and avoided at great cost, not accepted. Imagine IPv6 blacklists.

    Admins need to take the responsibility to make use of blacklists which are strict in the conservative sense (i.e. very specific). We can all understand this is not as effective as blacklisting the entire Internet.

    This is really ridiculous and childish, except with adult repercussions. On the one hand, we have virtual fascism with blacklists. On the other, we have DDoS attacks to end them. And what does this do for the users? Nothing. More bandwidth wasted, more time diverted from the real issue, and disruptive communications.

    The Internet is not a playground anymore. Some people actually use it for business, important communication, etc. We need to get serious, not extreme.

    1. Re:This Extremism Needs to Stop by 9mind · · Score: 1

      Business? How much business is gained from SPAM? 90% of it is PORN or Drug Advertisements for penis enlargement, viagra, etc. The other 10% of it is stuff like Illegal black boxes and mortgages, refinancing etc. The same idiots that use the businesses that come from SPAM mail, are the same idiots fallign for chain letter scams etc. 90% of SPAM is nothing I need or would want. So I should receive 10 to 20 emails a day for stuff I ahve no need for? Where is my moral right, not to open up an email and all of a sudden see soemoen getting blown? If it's not me on the receiving end why should I care. If 90% of SPAM was good business most people wouldn't care... but it's usually PORN, SCAMS, Illegal business, and then what is left over might be useful. It's like Block all the bastards and let God sort em out.

  134. What is DDOS really? by Distan · · Score: 1

    From a spammers point of view, these blacklists are just another form of DDOS aimed directly at them.

    DDOS = Distributed Denial of Service.

    Distributed as in there are multiple computers involved, all coordinated by some central host. Denial of Service in that it inteferes with a desired activity.

    If you are a spammer, any distributed sytem that blocks your ability to send email is a denial of service that should be dealt with using whatever resources are at your disposal. This DDOS is best dealt with by decapitating the central host (blacklist server) instead of by trying to deal with all the zombies (mail servers) involved.

    The resources available to a spammer are limited. They don't have the ability to get a court order to force the blacklist server offline, they can't have Network Solutions yank the blacklist server out of DNS space, but they can launch a retributional DDOS attack back at the blacklist server.

    Adapt or die, no? These blacklist servers are interfering with the ability of spammers to conduct their business. Any solution that stops this interference is going to be worth considering.

  135. You can kill my black lists... by winkydink · · Score: 1

    ...but good luck touching my Bayesian filters.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  136. I think it's cool... by ryanvm · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think this is cool. An epic battle between good and evil rages on the Internet. It's sort of like a Lord of the Rings for geeks. Oh wait, Lord of the Rings is for geeks.

  137. Re:Site is becomming slashdotted - heres the text. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure what you mean, what lesson did the eds learn?

  138. Yet Another Plan for Spam by zaad · · Score: 3, Interesting


    I used to use dnsbls. When it was clear that blacklists weren't sufficient, I used them in conjunction with filtering. Then I had trouble with false positives of various dnsbls to the point where I'm now only using the filters. Of course, simply filtering doesn't solve the network and computing resources problem. So I had hatched Yet Another Plan for Spam a while back (had mucked around a bit with implementing it but got distracted).

    The plan is essentially to use bayesian analysis of incoming mail to detect "open relays" and maintaining a personalized dnsbl. Initially every piece of incoming mail is analyzed. Upon being tagged spam, the connecting IP is added to the dnsbl preventing additional relaying of messages.

    Pros:

    1. No external testing/probing is required. All blacklisted IP's have been known to be an originator/relay point of spam.
    2. A copy of the spam message can be retained in case of any dispute.
    3. It's a personalized dnsbl so that it is generally immune to becoming a target by spammers (either ddosed or litigation).
    4. A false positive does not impact systems not directly under your control.
    5. Corrections to the dnsbl can be made as urgently as your time would allow.
    6. Saves network and cpu resources due to rejection of additional messages from blacklisted IPs.

    Cons:
    1. Bayesian filter requires training and maintenance.
    2. Personal dnsbl also means personal attention. More time and resources required to manage.
    3. Not immune to false positives (actually amplifies the effect).

    I'm sure I've missed some points on both the pros and cons, but it's a start.

    Additional details of the plan had included a web interface for the blacklisted IP's delist the IP. The scheme works on a token system. Each IP is given a configured number of tokens per a configured period. Each delisting requires a token and is subtracted. Hopefully, this will minimize manual effort as it's trivially easy to get delisted (only requiring the blacklisted admin to visit a page and click on a button). However, if the problem is not fixed and the same IP continues to get listed and runs out of tokens, then my plan was to have the blacklisted party to purchase more tokens (something like the same webpage generating a tracking number linked to a paypal account). That way, there would also be financial incentives for the admin to fix their open relays.

    My intention with the personal dnsbl was to reject future SMTP relay attempts based on IPs that have been known to relay spam. It doesn't exist to identify every open relay or proxy, but simply to deny those hosts the opportunity to send me more spam. I could careless if someone is running an open relay as long as it doesn't send me spam. So my plan is to only reject mail from people that have actually spammed me, and not in theory of being capable of spamming me. And the reason to use the connecting IP instead of any content in the email is to prevent junk data (too easily spoofed).

    Anyhow, that was my YAPS. If enough people used such a system, it would probably put a decent dent in spam and open relays.

    Any volunteers?

  139. In a word.... by dnaSpyDir · · Score: 1

    good!!! hate'em, hate'em all.... as a matter of fact, i hope they all....

    OOH, shiny thing....

  140. SoBig not a culprit????? by brainchill · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I run a mail system for a regional isp and in the last week or so I have seen my average mail load rais exponentially. Right now I am processing more mail in a 24 hour period than I had previously been in over a month. There are alot of people that are using these blocklists that didn't have the good sense to set up their own and mirror that data. So if every incoming message represents a query to the dns serving the data and the mail load on a typical isp server has increased literally by 10,000% it stands to reason that sobiga-f certainly did create most of this problem.

  141. Re:Am I the only one who did not have this problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they're not getting your emails because you're blacklisted? :P

  142. Cyber terrorists? by JThaddeus · · Score: 1

    Why can't the Justice Department just brand these guys, SPAMmers, and the like cyber terrorists? Then (based on what they seem to be doing to other terrorists) they can lock them up, throw away key, and civil rights be damned.

    --
    "Love is a familiar; Love is a devil: there is no evil angel but Love." --William Shakespeare ('Love's Labors Lost')
  143. Re:Am I the only one who did not have this problem by LostCluster · · Score: 1

    Having a system that works 99% of the time will still lead to that unlucky 1% being the victims of the system. Blacklists have to be accurate in what they list or some bystander is gonna get caught...

  144. Something Awful wins! by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    I'm actually a little surprised they managed to pull this off. Good for them :P

    And don't give me this "I should be able to decided who I receive mail from". You should, but that's not what this is about. This is about power-tripping admins deciding to prevent people under their power from receiving mail that could be more effectively filtered by things like Bayesian filters and the like.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Something Awful wins! by smash · · Score: 1
      And don't give me this "I should be able to decided who I receive mail from". You should, but that's not what this is about. This is about power-tripping admins deciding to prevent people under their power from receiving mail that could be more effectively filtered by things like Bayesian filters and the like.

      So, when you're unable to do anything useful with your connection, because your ISP's link is completely utilised by sending pr0n spam, viruses, and letters from nigerian millionaires who find themselves with money they need to offload, you're not going to complain, right?

      This is about admins identifying the source of garbage, and ensuring that either the problems at that site (that allow the spam to propogate) are rectified and they decide to play nice with the rest of the net community, or they're excluded from it. Filtering on the receiving end does not fix the problem of paying for someone elses garbage.

      They're dealing with it in whatever way they choose, its their perogitive. Part of the choice that goes with being an admin.

      If you don't like your ISP's policy, go buy some bandwidth wholesale, set up your own mail server, run it your way.

      smash.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  145. From some of the "collateral damage" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In recent days, I've found I couldn't email my sister, my brother, my CPA, and my best friend - because 1 ISP decided to use OsiruSoft (and I happened to send email as OS was blacklisting the universe) and because 3 other ISPs blocked port 25 access for "dialup" IP blocks.

    But my domain's mailserver isn't on a dialup. I'm a small, but completely static and strongly anti-spam, /29 domain.

    In each case I've had to spend a lot of time and get my ISP to send email saying I'm a small piece of a big static block - all my inside hosts NAT'ed and MASQ'ed onto the private IP blocks. I don't know, but I suspect there are *lots* of other small operations out there having very similar problems.

    This, IMHO, is not the way to stop spam. Blacklists fail and, in some cases, are irresponsibly maintained. And if an ISP decides to arbitrarily block great hunks of the IP spectrum, they could at least get it right.

    It's very frustrating being on this side of the phenomenon. I wasn't given a choice in the matter.

    Please, somebody, fix SMTP!

  146. Re:Site is becomming slashdotted - heres the text. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    They learned to hide the modbombing, so they couldn't be called on it anymore.

    ~~~

  147. These attacks are not for spams only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, why these servers have been blacklisted? Sometime or another, they might have sent spam.

    We all know that spammers look for open mail servers to send their email. So can the virus writers.

    Imagine if we didn't have blocklists, of any kind. Open relay servers are numerous, and can be used to distribute worms.

    The worms writers are smart. They want to take away central locations which can block their worms, so new worms will spread easier.

    It's like AIDS. It takes your defensive systems and some other disease kills you.

  148. Dude, if you saw the size of your penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you'd reply to SPAM too, ..er, wait.., you do!

  149. Well, do whatever you want by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    But it gets ridiculous when people in charge of large ISPs start blocking whole countries or other large blocks of the net from their customers because they 'just don't like' those sections.

    There was an article on salon a while ago about a woman who's email was basically made worthless because a lot of the people she was working with had been blocked by her ISP (roadrunner)

    Lots of people do get screwed over by this. And a lot of people don't run their own mailservers.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Well, do whatever you want by sqlrob · · Score: 1

      You're quite right, a lot of people get screwed over.

      Now, a lot *MORE* people get screwed over by the bandwidth and time eaten by spammers. How do you propose that ISPs that refuse to boot spammers get treated by the rest of the net, without causing said ISP's customers (other than the spammer) any pain? Keep in mind that blocking only the spammer's IP has already been tried.

  150. Re: dumbass by yerfatma · · Score: 1

    It sure is. Except most people would have written "instructions". You're right about not being pedantic unless you're 100% sure of yourself. Otherwise it can bite you in the ass.

  151. Email verification by Gunfighter · · Score: 1

    Personally, I currently use TMDA to protect some of my accounts. It's a challenge/response system that uses whitelist/blacklist technology and sends a challenge to the unknown senders. This is quite effective at combatting spam since the challenge to a spam message usually ends up bouncing anyways.

    The only problem with TMDA is that some people consider the challenge/response method to be quite rude (click here and do a search for "gunfighter" to read the responses to my comment(s) about TMDA). TMDA, and similar technologies, definitely place the responsibility for ensuring message delivery in the hands of the sender and receiver. In addition, there are other considerations such as the additional overhead of the extra messages. There are even cases where people who haven't properly configured such technologies end up getting into confirmation loops and screw up by sending a challenge to a legitimate mailing list.

    To overcome these problems I've actually concocted, in cooperation with a fellow developer, an automated means of verifying the authenticity of an email message. While this may not stop spam cold in its tracks from the get-go, it will definitely be a step in the right direction. Instead of blocking entire IP blocks (or even individual IP addresses), companies, ISPs, and individuals will soon be able to compare against blacklists of individual users.

    By using this technology in cooperation with a challenge/response-type filter, only individual senders flagged as potential spammers will be a) blocked or b) flagged as possible spam or c) receive a challenge/response. This will completely obsolete any and all current methods of dns or IP based blacklist(s).

    Time-to-market is up in the air right now, but hopefully we'll have a prototype ready here in the next month or two. Hope to see you then.

    -- Gun
    --
    -- Stu

    /. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
  152. No, this message is not offtopic! by TheMidget · · Score: 0, Troll
    at least not to the thread at hand.

    Here you go: trojan arses

  153. Hahaha by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    Someone has got to mod that up :P

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  154. I laugth AH AH AH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm very happy.

    They first blacklisted all dynamic IP's and then the smtp of my provider (because some people were trojaned by spammers).

    I never spammed anybody, I suppose they (theses stupid blacklist maintainers) also never spammed but now we are both blocked. I hope they will learn something of this experience.

  155. It's basicaly by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    Like the way curfew works in The west bank and gaza. If there's a terror attack, people in certan cities are put under '24 hour curfew'. Often times hundreds of thousands of people just to get at a few.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  156. Nonsense. by frost22 · · Score: 0

    YOU just don't get it.

    "Inconvenienced ISPs"... pfff ... Absent meaningfull regulation, the ISPs are the only wall we have against the spammers. Therefore any ISP who hosts spammers is as guilty as sthe spammer himself. The ISP is a criminal against The Net, a defiant one, at that, and I would support absolutely every legal means taken against him, even if those means would include physical attacks, killing, torture, whatever.

    Would these ISPs behave, we'd have no spam problem. They would have draconian TOS contracts nailing every spammer immediately, and they would do what it takes to enforce them.

    As it is, the Spammer attacks the communication of mankind itself. This is such an enormouzs crime that most singular issues pale against it. He is, therefore, beyond redemption or humanity, has voided whateveer right to decency, compassion or respect he might have had, and should be attacked by all means available.

    So. Spammer-Friend, go and spew your irrespon-sible drivel somewhere else.

    And go to hell.

    --
    ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
    1. Re:Nonsense. by CrowScape · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So yes, let's block the entire nation of Brazil. Those people in Brazil who want websites will just have to use another ISP... you know, the one that doesn't exist. Hell, if they don't want to support the spammers they should all move to another country! Plus, it's not like ISPs have vastly different capabilities. It should be increadibly easy for sites that upload terabytes of information to find another ISP that blocks spammers the nano-second they are informed. Also, those same sites obviously have no long term contracts with their ISP, so their shouldn't be any severe monetary, let alone logistical or legal, penalties for them to switch.

      It seems to me that, in fact, it is YOU who just doesn't get it. Not to put this on the same level or anything, but the exact same attitude was used to justify 9/11.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    2. Re:Nonsense. by asscroft · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      One day I'll go a full 24 hours without hearing 911. One day I'll go without hearing someone compare something to 911. I'll go a whole day whithout seeing a 911 bumber sticker or a sig line. I care about 911. I lived through 911. I mourned with the country on 911. But somehow I can't fuckin wait until that day comes and I make it 24 hours without hearing someone bring up 911.

      --
      because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
    3. Re:Nonsense. by CrowScape · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Well, unless you had someone reading this out loud to you, I'm not to blame for you not going 24 hours without hearing 9/11. You know, if I had a history of bringing 9/11 into every conversation, I could see it being reasonable to complain. As it is, this is the first time I've even mentioned 9/11 on Slashdot, so a happy "screw you" to you sir.

      One day I'll go a full 24 hours without seeing the word "fuck".

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    4. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've gone a whole day without "fucking". Does that count?

    5. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a damned shame that you and your asshole buddy commie, Kucinich, didn't die on 9-11.

    6. Re:Nonsense. by Pete · · Score: 2, Interesting
      So yes, let's block the entire nation of Brazil. Those people in Brazil who want websites will just have to use another ISP... you know, the one that doesn't exist.

      First of all, it's sending email that is the problem for people on an email blocklist/blacklist. Not receiving email. And certainly not hosting websites.

      And there's nothing difficult about paying someone to provide an email "smarthost" for you somewhere else, in unlisted netspace. Though you should of course bitch incessantly at your network provider for forcing you to take that option.

      And of course, you should always remember while you're feeling sorry for yourself about being on an email blacklist, that there are a large number of people in the world with problems much worse than yours.

      (I'm going to have to find out one day exactly why it is that Brazil apparently only has one ISP. It seems quite bizarre.)

      Pete.
    7. Re:Nonsense. by asscroft · · Score: 1

      I never implied that you brought 9/11 into every conversation. I understand the importance of remembering it, like the alamo. My point is that I've got 9/11 overload. I don't know about you, but my experience isn't related simply to slashdot. 9/11 is on TV every hour of the day. 9/11 or something based on how we're going to deal with 9/11 is on the radio every hour of the day. Even on slashdot 9/11 comes up quite a bit. Everytime there is some story of the PATRIOT act, everytime there is a story on some monitoring device or cameras in every city or DARPA's next big plan. Everytime someone says "in light of the new world since 9/11 we feel this is necessary blah blah" or someone else will say "if it can prevent another 9/11 I don't mind giving up this freedom". I'm sick of it. 9/11 has ruined many lives. The reprecussions of 9/11 haven't even come close to stopping. It's a terrible tragic day that continues to ruin our world. I'd like to go a whole day without hearing it not because I'm a commie as the anonymous coward said, and not because I'm tired of hearing you say it, but because when I do go a whole day without hearing it we will have healed quite a bit as a nation. I still hear about it every day because people are still dealing with it every day. Someday it will come up as often as 12/7. It will no longer be an open wound on the psyche and hearts of this great nation and at that time we will be much more healed. I hate hearing about it because I can't wait for that day. so quit being such a sensitive clod.

      --
      because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
    8. Re:Nonsense. by asscroft · · Score: 1

      another thing dickwad. If you are justifying the DOS attacks because it isn't fair to blacklist the only isp in brazil...aren't the DOS attacks more like terrorism than blacklisting? isn't that like blowing up buildings because you think you have a beef with the US. Seems to me YOU are the one with the exact same attitude that was used to justify 9/11. So fUCK OFF. Using 9/11 to help make your point is lame. It's bullshit and I'm tired of hearing people do it. it's too easy. it's like my point....something about 9/11...and then POW instantly to disagree with me would be a disgrace to the memory of the victims of 9/11. FUCK That Shit. You are a disgrace to the memory of 9/11 if you are gonna go around using it to help support your point in entirely unrelated conversations. They didn't die so that you could win a fuckin debate on slashdot about spammers and isps in fuckin brazil. Take your guilt trip 9/11 tie ins and shove them up your ass.

      --
      because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
    9. Re:Nonsense. by asscroft · · Score: 1

      Is that a death threat? Perhaps I should get a subpoena for your IP from slashdot. If you read my reply to *crow* you'll see that I'm not a commie. you jumped the gun as so many people do. You are the living breathing example of why people like crow use 9/11 to beef up their arguments. People like you will instantly think..oh he tied it to 911. to disagree would be unamerican. and anyone who does is a liberal commie traitor. it's not that simple. you can disagree without being a liberal or a commie or a traitor. Believe it or not, "with us or against us" is not the way it really is in the real world. small minded people like yourself may like it better that way. You feel safer if someone else tells you who to hate (blacks, gays, the french, feminists) and who to love (business owners, baptists, fat white men (like yourself?)) but the rest of us use our brains. We think for ourselves. We make our own opinions. A smart person would have said "why are you sick of hearing about 9/11" instead of calling me a commie and wishing I was dead. by the way. in wishing more people had dies in 9/11 are you not in some way giving your support of the attack. Couldn't I, if I were a talk radio host, turn your words around to be something like this: A.C wishes more americans would have died in 9/11. He wishes that not only would an innocent slashdot poster have dies, but an American Congressman as well. Perhaps this AC feels that the attacks of september 11th didn't go far enough. Perhaps he wished that the whitehouse would have gone down too. Or capital hill. it's terrorist supporting assholes like this A.C. that are tearing apart this country...blah blah. I wonder if I got you to hate yourself. YOur weak minded enough that you might have fallen for it. Now, for 10 seconds, try to use you fuckin head and think that maybe I'm sick of hearing people desecrate the memory of 9/11 to push their own personal agenda. Surely even a ...coward like yourself can understand that. can't you? think before you make a knee-jerk death threat next time.

      --
      because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
    10. Re:Nonsense. by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      Uh, I'm not defending DOS attacks, where are you getting that from? I'm attacking the premise that it is OK to cut off an entire group simply because one or two may be doing something you don't agree with. Apparently they didn't die so that people could read either.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    11. Re:Nonsense. by wheany · · Score: 1

      And of course, you should always remember while you're feeling sorry for yourself about being on an email blacklist, that there are a large number of people in the world with problems much worse than yours.

      And of course, you should always remember while you're feeling sorry for yourself about being on an email spamlist, that there are a large number of people in the world with problems much worse than yours.

    12. Re:Nonsense. by asscroft · · Score: 1

      lol.

      --
      because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
    13. Re:Nonsense. by Tukla · · Score: 1

      I've begun to think that "9/11" should be added to Godwin's Law, along with Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and Al-Queda.

      P.S. Sorry to mention it. My bad.

    14. Re:Nonsense. by kallek · · Score: 1

      I guess you will have to cope with more 9/11 talk the following week. With the 30 years memorial coming up.

  157. We are the Borg. by The+Revolutionary · · Score: 1

    We are the Borg.
    You will be assimilated.
    Resistance is futile.
    Your cam whores and enormous penises will be added to our own.
    Your credit cards will adapt to service ours.
    Your inbox, as it has been, is over.
    From this time forward your hot teens will service us.

  158. Down the List by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 1

    I was a 'Collateral Victim' once. It wasn't fun, but I changed ISPs and have had no problem since. To say there was nothing you could do about it when you had problems is silly.

  159. Better solution than black-listing - gray listing by kellman · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Read about a project here [puremagic.com] to implement a grey list at the MTA level.

    It basically involes inspecting the sending ip, sender envelope, and recipient envelope. If the receiving MTA has never seen this particular combination of the three before, it does not accept delivery of the mail piece with a temporary failure message. The vast majority of spam would then be ultimately rejected because it is often sent through open MXs and not a valid MTA with valid sender and recipient envelope information.

    It is designed to be a compliment to other anti-spam measures without being as inflexible and cumbersome as black/white lists.

    Along those same lines, you could also do a quick reverse check to verify reply-to addresses at the MTA level.

    The battle against spam is not totally lost, and we shouldn't cut off our nose to spite our face the way blacklists do.

    --
    I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed...
  160. No you ass by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    Very likely, this person is trying to send email to people who are his customers, or his friends, or whatever. And they arn't able to get it because someone with power over their connection is censoring their incomming mail. If the only people using these filters were the spam nazi's themselves, it wouldn't be an issue. But they are making decisions for lots of unsuspecting people who probably care more about getting mail from people they know then punishing people for doing bussness with people who do bussness with people who once ran an open relay.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:No you ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you could get a non-filtered account if you agreed to pay extra for all the spam.

  161. virtual McCarthyism perhaps by bandy · · Score: 1

    But rather than one powerful figure and his buddies compiling secret blacklists, it's known people giving methods for their lists [both to add and remove].

    Nobody's forcing you to use the blacklists. Nobody's not forcing you to use the blacklists.

    Those of us who use blacklists accept that there may occasionally be collateral damage. Too bad. If it keeps one porno spam out of my daughter's mailbox, then I am one happy father.

    --
    "You might as well get your son a ticket to hell as give him a five string banjo." -unknown minister
    1. Re:virtual McCarthyism perhaps by globalar · · Score: 1

      As a private user, you can filter whatever you want (and you should). There is nothing wrong with a blacklist. Misuse is not an issue for the end-user.

      I directed my comments at those who control the access of many users, for whom they do not play authoritative social roles (such as a parent). These individuals have a responsibility to maintain their networks and service, not limit it.

      "Those of us who use blacklists accept that there may occasionally be collateral damage."

      Agreed. But it should not be the job if your ISP admins to decide that a given subnet will be blacklisted without sensible evidence (i.e. they should have reason, not merely suspicion). It is further irresponsible of them to allow a blacklist to make this decision for the customers.

  162. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thas was funny dude!!!

  163. The ends do not justify the means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hello Randy.

    As an employee of a large (very large) ISP I can tell you that we'd rather side with the spammers than with you. You are largely seen as renegades who've embarked on a campaign of "vigilante justice" (as evidenced by your words: "It works. Better than anything else"). For your sake I hope you do know that vigilantism does not work.

    The ends never justify the means.

  164. Draconian Measures by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 1

    To keep out hundereds of spam e-mails a day, I'm quite willing to resort to 'Draconian' measures. I use several blacklists. I didn't use SPEWS because it was too restrictive for me. I suspect for many, however, it was appropriate for their situation and so they used it. What I am hearing in this thread on the opposing side - anti-SPEWS folks - is they think they have a right to send me e-mail and that I must accept that e-mail. I quite disagree.

    1. Re:Draconian Measures by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 1
      anti-SPEWS folks - is they think they have a right to send me e-mail and that I must accept that e-mail.

      Nope. I hate spam myself, but since my personal SPEWS incident is has become a lesser nuisance. A bit like getting verbally abused by an angry drunk on the street becomes a lesser nuisance after you've been seriously beaten.

      they think they have a right to send me e-mail and that I must accept that e-mail. I quite disagree.

      Ever heard of whitelists?

    2. Re:Draconian Measures by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 1

      As I said earlier, I went through the SPEWS Blacked the IP Block I'm on panic. I mainly run forums on vBulletin so it was not just a little thing to me. I changed ISPs and that was the last of it.

      I have a business web site so whitelists are not my answer.

      I'm not a programming pro or IT person like most of you. My business has absolutly nothing to do with either. I know enough to keep my site online, keep relaying turned off and have since 1995, which most folks would characterize as 1/2 dangerous.

      I took to SpamCop a couple of years ago. I was in LA on business and went for e-mail the first night there. All the hotel had was a dialup. It took almost an hour to get over 150 spam e-mails plus my regular ones. From when I took the action I did, to pay a company - in my case SpamCop - I have been blessed to see spam e-mails get through drop to from 0 to maybe, on a bad day, 10 spam e-mails.

      For almost a year I checked 'held mail', too. I was paranoid of loosing the one really important e-mail. Rarely was there a false positive. I rarely even look at them any more - they're dumped. Nor have I ever had a customer call or write and tell me something like "You know, I tried to e-mail you but I (or my company) was blocked" or "Hey - you never answered my e-mail".

      I did try adding the SPEWS blacklist check in my SpamCop preferences once for a couple of days and saw a lot of false positives. So - I turned that blacklist off. No big deal. It did not suit my needs. For me SpamCop and the blacklists it uses that I have checked are perfect. An added bonus is I don't have to train a filter or keep a filter trained or any other nonsense.

      As a last, somewhat related comment: If all the spam was stupid products I would have less hostility towards them. Most, however are for 'penis enlarging pills', 'cheap drugs on the internet', pornography come-ons and other similar useless 'products'. I have a daughter who turned 15 today. She's had her own computer since she was 2, for all intents and purposes. I didn't want her pounding on my Mac so I bought her a used PC to play her games on. She has had e-mail since she was about 4 or 5 which she and I first used for communicating with the grandfolks. Of course she's way past just the grandfolks now. I'm not a prude and I'm not a religious person. At 53 I'm probably best described as a laid back 1960's hippie who missed the original Woodstock.

      I could deal with getting my daughter used to what was trash and what wasn't over the years. There were conversations about why a man would want a big penis and why men like to see naked girls. And it might have even helped as she learned early in life about a lot of topics. None the less, I would have rather followed a more drawn out approach introducing her to the real world as she grew up. She's a straight A student with potential for two athletic scholarships already and she definitely knows what sex is about. My point here is no family should have to receive that trash. If I was only on the internet as a family person rather than as both a family and business, I'd have SPEWS checked in a New York second. Often I am personally revulsed by some of the spam that does get through.

      If I was only on the internet as a family person, I would definitly go to the extreme of Challange-Response. Anyone I want e-mail from will be friends and family where Challange-Response makes sense.

      Draconian measures? If that's what meets your needs.

  165. Except perhaps.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    economics and geography.

    Christ, do you people ever step foot out of your own private little /. world?

    1. Re:Except perhaps.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently he hasn't set foot in your little private world, which apparently is the only world that matters. Of course the world revolves around you and your needsl everything is always about you. Everybody must set up their MTAs such that mail from you and everybody on your ISP and your ISP's ISP always gets through, because mail from you is more important than anything else.

  166. Huh? by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    If you do all that stuff, you will not be removed from the list unless the people who run the list KNOW you've done it. If you can't contact them, how will they know? They won't. You'll still be on the list.

    And sometimes you end up in situations where you just have a similar IP number even though you have no actual relationship.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  167. Maybe this is NOT even a DDoS attack at all by Skapare · · Score: 2

    Maybe this is NOT even a DDoS attack at all. The SoBig.F virus includes its own SMTP engine, and so, is bypassing the smart host mail server at each of the various ISPs the infected machines are served by. It is now making SMTP connections to various MX hosts all over the network directly from that access IP address which probably never was used that way in the past by most people. DNSBLs are, or were, scalable because the queries done by the receiving MX servers to verify each sending IP address would be cached by the DNS server there for usually at least a day or two. That caching is effective when the number of connecting SMTP clients (the sending role) is small. What SoBig.F did was greatly increase the number of different IP addresses being SMTP clients. This could be immensely greater, many times the number originally seen. That would mean the resolving DNS server at the MX server site would be missing its cache much more often, both due to the more diverse queries being done, as well as the increased volume of mail. My theory is that this alone, if the increase factor is high enough, could overwhelm the authoritative DNS servers for the DNSBL zones and appear like a DDoS attack.

    DNSBLs might have also be configured in more servers as a result of the SoBig.F virus going around, too, to help block it.

    How to verify this would be to examine the range of source addresses hitting the authoritative servers. If the range is about the same as before, or generally represents the resolving DNS servers those MX servers are using, then I could be right. Still, it is possible for a real DDoS attack to fake exactly that so as to look like this theory holds.

    If the attack has source addresses that are not functioning as resolving DNS servers, then the theory would be wrong. But resolving servers, when run separate from authoritative servers, are usually blocked from outside usage. So simple testing would be inadequate to show that they are not real DNS servers.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  168. There's another option by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Sign up for e-mail with another service provider.

  169. Sorry, In Your Rightous Anger You Missed the Point by DonnarsHmr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As usual (for a pro-SPEWS poster), you've twisted the parent post to fit your facist world view. If you read carefully and without bias, you will find out that Fastmail.fm actually is extremely aggressive in killing spammers, often within seconds. Does some spam get through? Yes, up to 100 spams per account. Why? Becasue Spammers don't set the Evil Bit when they sign up for an account. So the spammers have to do something that identifies themselves as spammers. As soon as that happens, bammo! This is what I would call a zero-tolerance for spam. The statistics about valid:spam emails aren't to justify the spam that does get through. As you should have seen, Fastmail.fm kicks spam in the ass. They statistic is supposed to show the harm that the reactionary blocking lists are causing.

  170. Someone's *only* way to communicate? by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 1

    It makes one wonder when someone's *only* way to communicate with a university administration is through e-mail. No telephone, eh?

  171. Re:Am I the only one who did not have this problem by RajivSLK · · Score: 1

    Did you email them from an IP in your blocked class C? Maybe they are using their own block list and never recieved your email.

    Now that would be some mighty fine irony.

  172. Apparently... by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

    If the spammers can't take the hint (WE DON'T WANT YOUR SHIT IN OUR MAILBOXES, HINT, HINT), then I think they will have little choice *but* to take the hint when someone shoots up Boca Raton. No, seriously. These people aren't going to take a subtle hint like massive blacklists. It will take either someone sniping them one by one, or a massive lynching mob converging on Boca Raton.

    But the best case scenario doesn't usually happen. So we're left with either A) Requiring that all E-Mail be authenticated (meaning a massive violation of the anonymity it offers), B) Draconian spam filters that drop anything not found in a dictionary, or C) Requiring that you take a TEST before being allowed to use a computer.

    Personally, I vote for the test. What keeps this human trash in business is Complete *ucking Morons (CFMs) who probably also genuinely believes everything Miss Cleo says, and take the horoscope quite seriously. These CFMs are the ones who will believe anything you say, and are destined to recieve either a Darwin Award or the Dogbert Gullibility award in the future.

    If you can't recognise spam, or don't know the difference between a hard drive and floppy drive, then I honestly don't think you should have your own computer, which no doubt will end up with every known virus and worm on it, along with a hidden directory set up by crackers to serve child porn over your unfirewalled internet connection, along with several spybots and spambots that feed everything you do to a spammer.

    Ever notice that you start seeing all these problems on a large scale when computers became idiot-friendly enough for idiots to get to the internet?

  173. So I Bought an Assualt Rifle Today... by DonnarsHmr · · Score: 1

    ... and walked onto OSU's campus, closed my eyes, and started spraying bullets around everywhere, because hey, some of them were the rioters we've all heard so much about. Yeah, I killed a few non-rioters, but, hey, it'll just make the famlies of the students I killed ask for harsher punishments of the rioters. And I didn't decide to kill anyone, ballistic physics did!

    Obviously, that example is WAY over the top, but the idea is the same. Black lists are a form of informational terrorism, no more, no less. The DDoS attacks aginst the lists are a form of informational terrorism, no more, no less. Both sides of this conflict are using the same tactics to achieve the same goal (obliteration of the opposing viewpoint). Both the DDoSers and the listers are trying to sensor someone, and the people who get hurt are the people who can't do a damn thing about it and never wanted to be bothered by it in the first place.

    1. Re:So I Bought an Assualt Rifle Today... by tgibbs · · Score: 1
      Black lists are a form of informational terrorism, no more, no less.

      The term "informational terrorism" is an idiotic oxymoron, and trivializes the sufferings of real terror victims such as those who died or lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks. Nobody is terrified--placed in fear of life and limb--because some individuals and firms have access to information regarding suspected sources of spam.

    2. Re:So I Bought an Assualt Rifle Today... by mckyj57 · · Score: 1

      ... and walked onto OSU's campus, closed my eyes, and started spraying bullets around everywhere, because hey, some of them were the rioters we've all heard so much about. Yeah, I killed a few non-rioters, but, hey, it'll just make the famlies of the students I killed ask for harsher punishments of the rioters. And I didn't decide to kill anyone, ballistic physics did!


      You are logic-impaired.

      If you used a spam blocklist, you refused a call
      from someone with a caller ID that indicated they were representatives of your local Mafia fence.

  174. Blocking Brazil by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If I don't know anyone in Brazil and don't expect to, why should I not block Brazil when all I get from Brazil is spam?

  175. Distributed RBL by chuckw · · Score: 1

    So the obvious solution is a distributed RBL. Just how to do that is a whole different story. A lot of persnickity problems to work out. Looks like a lot of fun. If you're interested, drop me a line. Add my username to the domain in my URL above for my e-mail address...

    --
    *Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
  176. Yes, because YOU WERE NOT ON SPEWS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you had been on spews, simply fixing YOUR system would not be enough. They rely on collateral damage.

    Or rather, did rely. In Non-Soviet America, collateral damage relies on SPEWS!

  177. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sarcastic Insight! I love it!!!

    The yahoo who modded him a troll ought to be forced to read all of MY spam!!!

  178. Yeah, proof please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the contrary, spammers love Bayesian and any other kind of filtering because it doesn't stop them from sending their spam.

    Correct, it just stops us from seeing it.

    They love it when people "just hit delete" either manually or in an automated fashion through filtering, instead of actively blocking their junk and getting their accounts shut down.

    If smart filtering were heavily applied they would make less money and go out of business naturally.

    They don't mind that you don't get their junk; they will just increase the amount of spam they send tenfold every year so they keep making money on those suckers that are born every minute

    Thereby increasing the number of people using smart filtering to help ignore the spam and make it less profitable.

    until e-mail has been completely destroyed

    Too late.

    Blocking - aggressive, massive blocking and boycotting of spam supporting networks - is the only way to save e-mail.

    And you think this why? Has the aggressive blocking that has already taken place helped the situation AT ALL? Spammers are still out there, still getting through the cracks. Except for me... I don't get spam, it's smart filtered away, and my false positive ratio is TINY, almost zero.

    You can't say that about shitlists like SPEWS.

    1. Re:Yeah, proof please? by schon · · Score: 1

      If smart filtering were heavily applied they would make less money and go out of business naturally.

      I see you know little of what you speak.

      Spammers don't make money by selling things to the spam recipients, they make money by selling "opt-in targetted direct contact marketing" services to people who don't know any better.

      Spammers don't care if nobody buys the crap in the spams, because they know that there are thousands of suckers willing to hand over their cash. All these people who say "well, it must work, otherwise people wouldn't do it."

      You can't stop them by attrition. Just one more thing spammers and cockroaches have in common.

  179. I won't shed a tear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...if SPEWS and it's ilk disappear tomorrow. Overzealous blacklists have contributed more to degrading the usefulness of the internet than spam ever can.

  180. Do it to the Anti-Virus sites by Supp0rtLinux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since the latest virii do DDoS attacks against the MS update sites and anti-spam sites, the really good virus writers would DDoS the anti-virus companies sites so that people couldn't get new definition files. Just imagine... if all the anti-spam sites were DDoS'd off the net and the next virus did the same to the update sites for MS and Symantic, McAfee, AVG, Skywalker, etc... the only choice would be to just turn off all the infected machines. Who knows how long it would take to get updates.

  181. DonBlackholes by Goo.cc · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't have a problem with people keeping a list of IP-ranges that has spammers. What I don't like is having my e-mail filtered for me by my ISP

  182. spammers probably not to blame by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    How much you want to bet this is someone, not a spammer that got blocked by these blanket lists?

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  183. OK by me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't like babies.

  184. Next up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A/V vendors "update" sites. The natural progression is to DOS them.

    Each are well published, easy to identify, and would absolutely shit the pants off of Microsoft Large Customer X, Y, and Z.

    The advantage here is not your typical /. post about Linux Rox! It's "Linux is distributed." I know 100 sources alone for updates to samba vulns, etc. Can you say the same for mcafee, symantec, Trend?

  185. SPEWS is still in business by crucini · · Score: 1

    You can query SPEWS at spews.bl.reynolds.net.au

  186. SPEWS effectiveness by crucini · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While SPEWS's tactics may appear "doomed to failure" in your eyes, they are having a noticeable effect on spam-friendly ISPs. If you read nanae you regularly see ISPs that have ignored all spam complaints for months or years finally start dumping their spammers in response to a SPEWS listing.

  187. Alaska! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alaskans eat a lot of it too.

  188. moral spammers? by MegaFur · · Score: 1
    I think the DOSing of black list sites pretty much shows that the people sending spam have little moral problem with invading your computer to break the law.
    (emphasis mine)

    No. I think the fact that the people sending spam are sending spam shows that they are morally bankrupt. The inference that they may also be DDoSing a bunch of blacklists is just extra evidence over the top.

    --
    Furry cows moo and decompress.
  189. too slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it takes me 10 SECONDS to shut down a spammer.

    why does it take you DAYS?

    1. Re:too slow by julesh · · Score: 1

      Probably because they have a contract to provide service to the spammer. The contract will have a clause saying that if you send spam we can terminate your account, but in order to make that term fair (which is a legal requirement on contracts in many countries) to the consumer you would have to provide notice and allow the consumer a reasonable time period to contest the decision before terminating the service.

      This is the only legal way of dealing with it from the ISP end, and I think, unless you have experience of running an ISP, it is a little unreasonable of you to complain about things you obviously have no idea about.

  190. Big, Powerful ISPs???? by bob_calder · · Score: 1

    OOOOOOOOOOH! Lions and tigers and bears, Oh My!

    Spamhaus.org is a nice convenience to have, much like a toilet. It should have police powers. Imagine, if you will, what fun it would be. An automated policeman much like Orin Hatch imagined, but for spammers, and VERY mobile, agile, and hostile.

    Yes, they are dangerous, but so are a lot of other ree-taards. Somebody has to live next door to them.

    --
    Any preoccupation with ideas of what is right or wrong in conduct shows an arrested intellectual development. (Wilde)
    1. Re:Big, Powerful ISPs???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Spamhaus.org is a nice convenience to have, much like a toilet.


      You mean if you lose it, you don't give a shit?

  191. The only way to make SPEWS go away by RipCurl808 · · Score: 1

    ...for good? STOP THE spam. Get ISP's to listen to abuse@. Act to get spammers off their network. Work with the General public and not the "$$$" marketers. Boycott those who use spam to sell their services ( i've stopped shopping at several stores because they chose to spam ). Boycott ISP's who knowingly host spammers. Vote with your wallet.

  192. It wasn't political by theolein · · Score: 1

    If it had been political, such as the case of the 20 year old with a link to a bomb making site, they would have gone at it like a pack of wolves.

    In any case it does at least serve to give you a sense of your true worth to the government.

  193. Umm... the problem is *sending* email by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    A mailbox at pobox isn't going to help you there, you still have to send via your local (blacklisted) ISP.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Umm... the problem is *sending* email by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      Yep, and I won't bother to mention the problems with "sending email through pop3". Even if a mail provider offered SMTP service, why should I have to jump through special hoops to use a service that would be more expensive and arguably less reliable than my own server? Furthermore, what would happen when I moved all of my accounts to Yahoo! or similar, and they get blacklisted for not doing a 100% perfect job of blocking outgoing spam? Or when the commercial ISP I moved my servers onto gets blacklisted because their upstream's upstream ISP hosted a spammer and hasn't been removed from the blacklist yet?

      Nope, I'm not playing that game. It's stupid, counterproductive, and expensive to the people who didn't do anything more wrong than signing up for Internet access.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  194. Erm... Mods? by theTerribleRobbo · · Score: 0

    > (Score:2, Informative)
    > This wouldn't be a problem if everyone just
    > started setting the "Evil bit" on their spam
    > packets....

    I want some of what the mods are having.

  195. No, you cannot by Paul+Bain · · Score: 1
    I'm told that you can sue the government [in order] to [force it to] prosecute a case.

    No, you cannot sue the government (either federal, state, or local) in order to force a prosecutor to either file a suit (either criminal or civil) or bring a case to trial. Prosecutorial discretion is amazingly broad. Different rules apply to judges -- they can sometimes be forced to take action.

    --

    A lawyer & digital forensics examiner. Also an expert on open source software (OSS).
  196. Penis pills by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    What else was on the ingredient list?

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  197. Speak for yourself... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...every computer in this household is also its own mailserver. With PostFix it's easier to do that OOtB than to configure various things to use a single external mailserver.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Speak for yourself... by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      I had sendmail running on all my Slackware 3.2 boxes back in the day, when I was fooling around and learning TCP/IP networking. It was amusing for a time to send email messages from box to box on my network of cheap 386sx systems (cheapest Linux boxes I could afford back in the day).

      It was only amusing up to a point, though. These days with security-concious Linux default installs not enabling stuff like sendmail, it's just no fun at all.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
  198. My ISP runs blocklists *and* filtering... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...and it seems to be mostly effective for those accounts mailboxed there.

    My oldest email account isn't filtered at all and gets maybe 200 spam and 2 useful messages per day. Not a happy ratio.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  199. Here's what we use. by gnuguru · · Score: 1

    In no particular order

    cihost.blackholes.us
    turkey.blackholes.us
    comc ast.blackholes.us
    att.blackholes.us
    nigeria.blac kholes.us
    russia.blackholes.us
    argentina.blackho les.us
    brazil.blackholes.us
    japan.blackholes.us
    cn-kr.blackholes.us
    hongkong.blackholes.us
    taiw an.blackholes.us
    china.blackholes.us
    he.blackhol es.us
    rbl.mail-abuse.org
    rr.blackholes.us
    qwest .blackholes.us
    wanadoo-fr.blackholes.us
    rogers.b lackholes.us
    mexico.blackholes.us
    dynamicpipe.bl ackholes.us
    media3.blackholes.us
    spamsources.fab el.dk
    relays.ordb.org
    sbl.spamhaus.org
    verio.bl ackholes.us
    level3.blackholes.us
    blackholes.easy net.nl
    proxies.blackholes.easynet.nl
    dynablock.e asynet.nl
    dnsbl.njabl.org
    bl.spamcop.net
    list.d sbl.org

  200. Blocklists should go P2P by rdean400 · · Score: 1

    The first thing I'd like to see is a mailserver plugin that uses a peer-to-peer blocklist sharing client to mitigate the damage done by DDoS attacks against one server. If not this, then an Akamai-type setup needs to be done.

    The second thing I'd like to see is for ISP terms of service to change such that if the computer takes place in a DDoS attack due to a patchable bug in the operating system (coughWindowscough), they lose their access until they can prove the patch has been applied and the virus/trojan/worm removed.

  201. Distributed Spam List by rahlquist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ok we have all this wonderful file sharing technology avalible, why not put it to good use. Why not build a distributed black list. One that is shared over an automated file sharing network similar to Napster or Kazaa. DDOS only works with a target, with 100 or more geographically diverse machines sharing it I wish them luck. Make being able to access the list depend on your willingness to share it out too. Of course someone would have to figure out the infrastructure but this would rock.

    --
    Sick of stupidity? http://www.patentlystupid.com
  202. Spam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is the favorite buzzword of the newest victim class. Any unwanted email is spam--evil incarnated. I manage a number of websites for small sporting goods retailers in the NE US, and I also manage their email advertising, and in the process send out ~3000 copies of their email newsletters every two weeks, but only to the legitimate customers of my clients. Indeed, most of the recipients HAVE ASKED to recieve my clients' newsletters. Occaisionally someone requests to be taken off the list, and we do so immediatly.

    Apparently that's not good enough for some people, because lately we have been getting bouncbacks that mention "mail-abuse.org". Apparently someone 'dropped a dime' because we've been blacklisted! I checked their website and it exhorts visitors to 'fight spam' & suggests that visitors "report spammers"

    Isn't that special!! Under our Constituion, the accused have a right to know their accusers; & are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

    I guess that doesn't apply to spammers!

    1. Re:Spam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't apply to "mail system administratiors" I found out. They "own" their machines you have no right to use their network even if you are the one paying for it apperently. If you complian you will be blocklisted/blacklisted in spite. You have no rights. it's "private property." You rights don't apply.

  203. Censorship of Stupidity by m0rphm0nkey · · Score: 1

    Seriously, the tactics you support (SPEWS et. al) are identicle to those used by totalitarian military states. "What? He doesn't crack his eggs on the big end?!?! Kill him and every one he knows!" Or more common nowdays: "He's gay? Let's beat the shit outta him and his friends 'cause he might have infected them!"


    So you feel like blacklisting is similar to gassing kurdish children or hate crimes? Give me a break. You've dismissed yourself from intelligent conversation about the matter. Wipe the spit off your chin and go see a movie or something.

    It's censorship allright, censorship of STUPIDITY. I've never setup a mail server in my life, but even I would know to make sure it wasn't a relay. Anybody that can't telnet ip 25 and check shouldn't be allowed near sendmail or any other mail server. Anybody that sets up an open relay needs to...

    a.)Be blacklisted for a while.

    b.)Hire a real admin to set it up.

    For most "accidental" open relays (small companies, guys with a t1 and an employee that knows "all about" exchange), Getting out from under it is as simple as getting another domain and or IP address. Anybody that can't figure that out needs to...

    a.) Be blacklisted for a while.

    b.) Hire a real admin to set it up.

    One ISP I worked at decided to run their own relay checker and shut down their own customers who had open relays. With very little effort they were able to prevent blacklisting. They did it because they hated SPAM (and were responsive to their customers who felt the same), it was easy to do, and they hated STUPIDITY, not because they were scared of ORBS.
    The company I currently work for didn't bother to police their own network and was blacklisted by both AOL and RoadRunner (or at least whatever service they used) at one point. If it hadn't been for the blacklists my company wouldn't have bothered to get it under control (which they did, then got off the lists). So what happened was...

    a.)Got blacklisted for a while.

    b.) They got a real admin to take care of the problem.

    c.)Started enforcing the fines they already had in the user agreement.

    I LOVED sending those people to billing to pay their 500$ fine. HAR! In that way the blacklists (which are completely optional, and can be dropped at any time, and in all cases this is done in response to customers excercising THEIR freedom to take their business somewhere else) have increased ISP responsibility. That was sure the case here. Spam is the ultimate waster of bandwidth and storage space (besides my slashdot posts and the blaster worm) and needs to be dealt with.

    What about your right to choose? Choose another email address. The list keepers and listusers are in business to make money and blocking spam is an attractive selling point. The fact that Shawn Atkinson was afraid for his life should give you some idea what a selling point it is. Maybe you want/need all that email about fat butts and small wieners. I don't. Well... maybe I NEED it but it hurts my butts feelings (yes my butt is so huge that it has feelings of it's own). Spam is not the price anybody HAS to pay so YOU can feel "free".

    What about the "vigilante" method? I mostly liked the way Shawn Atkinson was dealt with, but realistically that doesn't happen often enough to be the only way of dealing with the problem. Granted there needs to be better notification and ease of remittance in some cases, but it doesn't kill any kurdish kids, may actually SAVE the lives of some homosexuals (less hate-spam), and makes me feel better about having a really huge butt and a small wiener.

    "sensitive me: These pants make my butt look HUGE!
    realistic me: No dude, your butt IS huge."

    me

    1. Re:Censorship of Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking about SPEWS and collateral damage (filtering of non-spammers and non-open relays to punish ISPs), not open relays and ORBS. Pull your fucking head out of your ass if you're going to enter the conversation moron.

      BT

  204. Gotta ask by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

    our company's T1 is provided by a company (Lightyear) that gets their upstream from a company (UUNet), that supports spammers.

    So what exactly is stopping you changing your ISP?

  205. spamhaus.org by bob_calder · · Score: 1

    What I use it for is my own business, JUST like a toilet-like device.
    Nobody tells people how to use it.
    Nobody can deny that, eh?

    I wish they would sell Upper Canada here but it is natural.

    --
    Any preoccupation with ideas of what is right or wrong in conduct shows an arrested intellectual development. (Wilde)
  206. Property rights by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    As soon as something hits MY property. I choose whether I want it or not. No one has a right to enter your property. It's a privilage you grant them that you're free to revoke at any time for any reason.

    The spammer only has a right to send spam from their computer on their connection as far as the ISP allows them to use their property for such a purpose. He doesn't have a right to utilize my connection and my resources to get to me or through me to someone else.

    If you're my neighbor you can drive all over your own lawn all you want but you have no right to drive on my lawn to get to my front door and you certainly have no right to drive through my lawn to get to my neighbor on the other side.

    This whole spam issue should be handled with existing property laws.

    I personally don't care if SPEWS or whoever else is shut down. ISPs should be generating and maintaining their own blacklists. Or forming and maintaining a common list between trusted ISPs to prevent abuse and make it easier for customers to request additions or removals.

    I have my own blacklist for my mailserver which is added to on an "as needed" basis. If I'm not getting tons of spam from Asia I don't very well need a thousand IPs to clug through looking for matches everytime an e-mail comes through.

    Ben

  207. Use of blacklists in a non-destructive way by owlstead · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I generally do like blacklists, but I do not trust them to get everything right.

    My ISP has multiple POP boxes for each customer though. Currently all the spam gets into one box and the (presumed) legit mail gets into my normal mail box.

    Now and then some legit mail gets into the spam pop account. Now and then I check this account for messages that are non-spam. Until now, only some mailinglists have been incorrectly identified as spam (ironically, mostly from IT security companies).

    There is still an amount of spam in my inbox too, but some rules take most of that out as well.

    I would not want my ISP to throw away all the mail they think as spam; they should never do that without my consent. But blacklistst do not have to be a 0 or 1 (or black or white :) for mail.

    Warper

    0 - evil bit

  208. Bayesian filter sharing? by jcr · · Score: 1

    On the contrary, spammers love Bayesian and any other kind of filtering because it doesn't stop them from sending their spam.

    Does anyone know of any work going on towards sharing the filters? IOW, if the training of a bunch of users' filters could propagate up to their ISP, and ISPs could aggregate, then any particular spam message would rapidly find less and less of the MTA's willing to let it through.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Bayesian filter sharing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, that'd just be another thing for the "collateral damage" whiners to bitch and moan and file lawsuits about. "That guy listed me in his public filter set!!!!! He's CENSORING me!!!!!!!! That's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!!!! He's exactly like HITLER!!!!!"

  209. Do you even know what a Fascist is? by jcr · · Score: 1

    I'm sure you enjoy your overblown rhetoric, but your history is a little spotty there. If the real fascists had simply published a list of people they didn't want to listen to, then about twenty million people who died in the 1940's would have lived a normal lifespan.

    SPEWS doesn't turn off your net connection. If you're in the SPEWS list, then they're just telling *me* that I might want to drop your packets on the floor if I don't want to be recieving spam. I don't have to listen to you, and neither does anyone else. If you don't like that, tough.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  210. Is the U.S. that Screwed Up? by Nishi-no-wan · · Score: 1

    - That's a great idea. On the other hand, I live in a small town with exactly one feasible ISP that's not a residential cable service with incoming port filters.

    Has the U.S. become so backward an nation that one is forced to have a choice of one provider? In Japan, even out where there are nothing but hills and rice paddies, if you've got a phone line, you have a choice of providers - and broadband providers at that.

    Maybe it's your representitive or the FCC that you need to be complaining to. They're the ones allowing these monopolies to grow and fester.

    My Mom and Dad keep trying to convice me to move back to the U.S. with their only grandchildren, but between what I see on CNN and what I read here about the backward state of ISPs over there, I don't forsee ever moving back.

    SPEWS appears to be the least of your problems.

    1. Re:Is the U.S. that Screwed Up? by fanatic · · Score: 1
      Maybe it's your representitive or the FCC that you need to be complaining to.

      The FCC is run by Michael Powell, a peckerhead with only 2 qualifications:

      1. He's a son of the Secretary of State
      2. He's not selling out faster to big Business because it's impossible to do so.
      God I hate Republicans, even more than I hate the Democrats.
      --
      "that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
    2. Re:Is the U.S. that Screwed Up? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      Has the U.S. become so backward an nation that one is forced to have a choice of one provider?

      Nope. When I lived in a larger city (250,000+ vs. 20,000+), I had plenty of choices. I could pick from several national dialup providers if I wanted (although that would completely rule out the web/mail servers I run), and end-user customers would probably be happy with the local cable modem service. The "problem" for me is that there is almost no competition for "power-user" service. I'm not hosting big colo servers, but I wanted a static IP and unfiltered inbound connectivity. There would be roughly zero incentive for a new company to attempt to compete for that niche market in a town of this size.

      It has nothing to do with the government. It's just simple economics.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  211. My only question... by Tidal+Flame · · Score: 1

    ...is when it'll be legal for me to hack the shit out of anyone who spams me.

  212. IT'S NOT SPEW!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the Society for the Promotion of Elvish Welfare ;)

  213. Re:It may be blacklisted sites wanting delisting by Chatmag · · Score: 1

    Since posting our original comment earlier today, other facts have come to light. In our Opinion posted on 24 May 2003 we outlined who we believe is responsible for SPEWS. Since then, certain details have changed, in particular the registration information for Wewak.net, which has been alluded to in the NANAE group as the host of SPEWS.

    --
    Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
  214. had to ask by lemody · · Score: 1

    whattahell is tubgirl?
    and no, i dont wanna google it at work :)

    --


    class he-man extends man!
  215. Who the hell are YOU? by efextra · · Score: 1
    You don't want to block e-mail from Nigeria? Fine. Don't use nigeria.blackholes.us. You don't like SPEWS listing criteria? Don't use them.

    How can you decide if others want to receive email form Nigeria or not? If you are running a private server for yourself, then fine, do whatever, nobody cares.
    1. Re:Who the hell are YOU? by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      How can you decide if others want to receive email form Nigeria or not? If you are running a private server for yourself, then fine, do whatever, nobody cares.

      If you use an ISP-provided server, then choose the ISP which provides filtering that best meets your needs. Some people would pay a premium to be able to receive e-mail from Nigeria while others would pay to block it. That's the beauty of the open market. If there's enough demand for a service, it will be offered.

    2. Re:Who the hell are YOU? by efextra · · Score: 1

      then choose the ISP which provides filtering that best meets your needs.

      Hmmm... which ISP lets the customer choose blacklists they use to block email? Heck, most of them don't even disclose the black lists used by them!

    3. Re:Who the hell are YOU? by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... which ISP lets the customer choose blacklists they use to block email?

      None that I know of, but I've been looking into creating just such a service.

      Heck, most of them don't even disclose the black lists used by them!

      If they won't disclose, then go to someone who will. Or use an e-mail service provider that discloses what you need to know. ISPs need to sell their services and what filtering they use is key to determining if the service is the right one for you.

  216. I say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we hate spam right? When we catch one of these motherfuckers in a large city, we should be able to get 100-500 geeks together and lay the smack down on where ever these guys go. Pester the fuck out of them. It'll be fun. Yeah!!

    1. Re:I say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn straight! Everyone grab your automatic pencils from your pocket protectors! Attack! (poke poke poke!) (ow! Stop it! Ow!!) (poke poke poke)

  217. THE PLURAL OF VIRUS IS VIRUSES ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please learn speaking English.

  218. God What a waste. by RevSmiley · · Score: 0, Troll

    Another clueless lament by blocklist worshipers decrying the "obvious attack by spammers." To yet another blocklist.

    Please allow users to decide what is spam and what is not. I can take care of my own email filtering and spam filtering.

    If you claim I am a spammer because you disagree with me you better be able to prove it. You can't I am not.

    The solution to this problem is end to end ip tracking not blocklists.

    --
    As you can see I don't care about my karma.
    1. Re:God What a waste. by RevSmiley · · Score: 1

      A perfect example modding to -1 of pointing out a fact that disagrees with these weenies who are religous in their beliefs that only they have the answers.

      The solution is end to end ip tracking not blocklists/blacklists.

      fucking elitist pigs.

      --
      As you can see I don't care about my karma.
  219. I love this idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Awesome. Thanks for sharing.

  220. Errrr. Just how many 'entire C-blocks are there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From reading the postings already, all I see is 'my ISP's entire C-block' was black listed... So how many 'entire C-blocks' are there out there?

    Anybody know of any that are not blacklisted?

  221. News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anti-spam technogoligies DON'T WORK! {SHOCK-HORROR}

    it's really taken people this long to work this out? I'm stunned with amazement.

  222. Blacklists aren't the problem. by MLC2012 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The real problem is large ISPs/backbones like UUNet/MCI, Cogent, Comcast, Level3, China Netcom, AT&T, Brasil Telecom, and Above.net (among others) who flat-out refuse to do anything about the spammers to whom they provide connectivity.

    Complaints sent to any of them are promptly auto-acked and then /dev/nulled (if they don't bounce) and so the spammers keep on spamming, most likely due to ephemeral pink contracts and the crooked marketing/sales departments that agree to them, who then put pressure on abuse personel and network admins to ignore complaints about the contracted spammers.

    Because of this, those large ISPs and backbones end up on blacklists, DNS blocklists, and a wide variety of other filters. For them, the money they make off the spammers seems to be of greater concern than the money they make off legitimate customers, i.e. those who end up with their netblocks on every blacklist because of who their providers are.

    If it weren't for rogue ISPs and backbones, there would be little use for blacklists or blocklists. However, those reprehensible companies do exist. And because of their policies on spam, they continue to be blocked. Money gained from spammers guarantees the blacklists' continued existence.

    It's all just cause and effect. As much as it sounds like a conspiracy theory, I truly believe that it isn't, after fighting spam, one email at a time, since 1997.

  223. FUD Spreader!!! by elvey · · Score: 1

    This is false. They don't typicaly start with Class C's. Do go look at SPEWS listings yourself and see. Don't ask nana-e posters for more hearsay.

    Frankly, the slashdot moderation is stumbling, IMO, many of the +5 posts on this thread are active misinformation designed to discredit DNS blacklists, precisely BECAUSE they work. (This was discussed on N.A.N.A.BL a while ago.)

    This crap about the attacks probably not being from spammers is just that. Who else would would break the law to do so? (These attacks are illegal.)

    Please mod 5.

    --
    Make 'em pay! http://Payola.org #include "stddisclaimer
  224. Apparently the Washington Post Agrees by asscroft · · Score: 1

    Bush cites 9/11 to justify everything... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A574 56-2003Sep10.html so there.

    --
    because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre