Slashdot Mirror
Paul Graham Describes Dangers of Spam Blacklists
CRoby writes "Paul Graham posted an essay describing the danger and corruption of the main spammer blacklists today. It discusses MAPS and the SBL, the blacklist created to try to alleviate the abuses of MAPS, and suggests (maybe) another blacklist's creation."
I really get sick of this sort of whining.
Yes, innocent users get hurt when their ISP chooses to host spammers. There's no way around that, unfortunately, except for users to become more choosy about their ISPs.
But when an ISP gets blacklisted for hosting spammers, this is not abuse or corruption - this is exactly what a blacklist has to do to be effective, and exactly what those of us that use blacklists expect and desire for them to do.
You can play whack-a-mole with spammers day in and day out for years, and have zero or very near zero effect on them. I know, I've done it. By the time you report a spamming IP, the run is done. The spammer isn't going to come back there, he's going to come back from a different IP for his next run. If you want to have any significant effect at deterring spam, you have to do more than whack-a-mole, you have to get them where it hurts. They can send out a million emails from one IP, then never use that IP again. But they have to have someplace more stable to take the money from the handful of morons that go ahead and click on their links.
If an ISP allows spammers to host on their network, they should be blacklisted. I don't want to carry their traffic. And if that means I'm turning down traffic from their other, non-spamming customers, that's a shame, but so be it. Maybe if their customers complain they'll get rid of the spammers. If not, I suggest their customers vote with their wallets, and find a new ISP. That is, if their purpose in having an ISP is communication with those of us that don't want spam. If they're happy being able to connect only to the fraction of the internet that welcomes spam, that's fine too. But it's up to them to make a choice.
All the blacklists do is allow those of us that DO NOT WANT traffic from spam-friendly networks to implement these blocks. Trying to spin an informational service as 'vigilantism' and 'abuse' and 'corruption' because it doesn't work the way the spammers and spam-friendly hosts want it to is abuse of the language, and insulting to the readers intelligence, IMOP.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Gee whiz. That's great for you and your little PHP blog that you use to write stories about your cat and host pictures of last week's bbq. However, that is not such a simple solution to someone who has 6 cabinets packed floor to ceiling with 1Us.
Yeah. Whatever. Fuck off.
How charming. Yet you would deny the users of RBLs the chance to say "Fuck Off" to spammers? Here's a free clue for you - I will decide who gets told to "fuck off" on my own system. Whine all you like, it's my decision.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
1. If the blogger doesn't allow comments, it's not worth reading.
./, but at least on this forum we can comment on the dubious nature of his self-serving propaganda. He won't allow anyone to question his statements on his own site.
If you want to slap stuff up and not give anyone the opportunity to comment or correct your work, chances are you're not really interested in being truthful or accurate.
Paul Graham's "essay" is a mean-spirited vengeful attack on RBLs because he's been caught in them. And ironically, he shows he's a total hypocrite by claiming the RBLs are abusing their power, all the while he abuses his own power and influence by writing a one-sided wholesale condemnation of RBLs.
I agree, his lame diatribe probably isn't worth mentioning in
Hear that sound? That's whatever's left of Paul Graham's credibility being flushed down the toilet.