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.

53 of 797 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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?
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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...
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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?

    12. 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!
    13. 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....

    14. 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
  2. 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!?
  3. 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 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.

    2. 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'
  4. MOD PARENT DOWN. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Althought he presents a valid arguement, WE DONT WANT TO HEAR THAT!

  5. 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!
  6. 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!
  7. 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.

  8. 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
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. MOD PARENT SIDEWAYS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny


    Everyone appears to want to direct mod power today, so why not?

  13. 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

  14. 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.
  15. "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

  16. 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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?
  17. 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@@!!

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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
  22. 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!

  23. Who replies to spam? by smcavoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Has there ever been studies on who responds to spam, and why?

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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
  27. 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.

  28. 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
  29. 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.

  30. 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.