Slashdot Mirror


Recovering the Slums of the Internet?

turtleshadow writes "Brian Krebs of the Security Fix Blog analyzes the McColo Spamming one year later and asks an interesting question: 'How does one renovate and recoup the lost trust to the slums of the Internet and reclaim back all the domains and IPs that have been blacklisted?' Indeed, the economic benefits abound when a huge swath of illegal and annoying activity ceases — but given the basic design of the Internet, what happens over the long run to IP space and DNS when hosting companies come and go and vary in their trustworthiness? So too, now Geocities is dead [as a business], but does that still live in your filter list? It still appears in OpenDNS under several policy categories. How, in a few years, will I tell if some Hosting/Colo sold me Whitechapel Road/Ventura Avenue for Mayfair/Boardwalk prices, and no one is going to accept my mail from a former slum? When do you, if ever, roll back the blacklists and filters for 'dead' threats and spammers?"

218 comments

  1. I like the Ras Al Gul approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Burn them to the ground.

    1. Re:I like the Ras Al Gul approach by xmorg · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Once a spammer always a spammer. BURN!

    2. Re:I like the Ras Al Gul approach by AnEducatedNegro · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My problem with that is when you get reassigned IP space from a spammer. My host aquired a block from ARIN, which used to host russian servers. Well these russian servers were apparently spambots because I just recently found out yahoo does not accept mail from any of my servers. This is a major problem and jumping ship to another host does not guarantee this problem will go away. I had no clue who to contact and ended up requesting new ip space from my provider... but that caused a world of pain for my customers.

      I used to think my old boss was crazy when he said he never wanted our antispam solution to rely on any blacklist provider and it didn't really sink in until I was on the opposite end of the spectrum. Blacklists are bad.

      aEN

    3. Re:I like the Ras Al Gul approach by peragrin · · Score: 0, Troll

      hey wanna by a formerly popular domain? hear geocities is available.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:I like the Ras Al Gul approach by tempest69 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I like the blacklist... i have a quarter million addresses in mine. if you're on one, you need to pitch the address and get fresh one. because you're never getting clean internet access again. The addresses are tainted for at least a decade. I don't even let blacklisters surf my sites.

      though I would like to see ARIN report a list of freshened addresses (with purchaser approval of course), with digital sig and time stamp, so I could fix my blacklist.. I dont see any easier feasible way to proceed.

      Storm

    5. Re:I like the Ras Al Gul approach by Bob+Ince · · Score: 2, Informative

      It will be nearly impossible to get delisted, too, and for good reason. For years the Russian malware gangs played silly buggers with changing names, corporations and hosting providers to pretend to be different unrelated entities whilst still engaging in the abuse.

      So “but I bought this netblock from someone else, I'm not a hacker!” is, unfortunately, something we've already heard many times from the hackers.

    6. Re:I like the Ras Al Gul approach by Jared555 · · Score: 1

      It appears that there are registration date and update date fields in at least some whois records. I don't know who is actually responsible for these though, and if the block is from a major company that is just reassigning ips between servers then there is only a small possibility of the record being changed (some providers let you set part of the whois record yourself)

    7. Re:I like the Ras Al Gul approach by Trolan · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean something like http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-issued/?

      Not digitally signed, but it's easy enough to validate the source from the source IP and headers anyway for this kind of thing. The main item of note would be the deletes, as they indicate a return of address space.

    8. Re:I like the Ras Al Gul approach by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      It goes the other way, too. I used to own a Quake site back when the game was popular (my site was too, by the metric of the time), but lost interest and let it lapse.

      A few years ago someone emailed me and asked why I'd turned it into a porn site. Why someone would want a url of "thefragfest.com" for a porn site is beyond my comprehension.

    9. Re:I like the Ras Al Gul approach by AnEducatedNegro · · Score: 1

      people buy expired domains and sit on them so when the original owner wants them back they sell it at 1000x mark up. the domain parker just happened to go with porn. you can see a fine example at bookface.com

      aEN

    10. Re:I like the Ras Al Gul approach by AnEducatedNegro · · Score: 1

      that's fine. but now these russian malware gangs keep jumping ship over and over. a host provider gets a malware gang, catch it and disable them within 24 hours, but by then so much spam went out they were blacklisted. when does that ip or netblock get removed from the blacklist? most likely never. and that is the problem i have with blacklists.

      aEN

    11. Re:I like the Ras Al Gul approach by Larryish · · Score: 1

      Off-topic: Did you ever play Battlezone on the public servers?

    12. Re:I like the Ras Al Gul approach by tempest69 · · Score: 1
      um, yea..
      that's awesome.. I'd mod you up, if I didn't alreaddy post to this conversation.. thanks,

      Storm

    13. Re:I like the Ras Al Gul approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, blacklists are not bad. Some current implementations may be. I'm a hospital in the midwest united states. With the exception of our "admin" email address no valid unsolicited communications - web or smtp will be coming from outside the US. ( Yes I know about the global economy but surgery and blood really don't travel well ) so if you send me something I am automatically going to either block you or give you a couple of negative points right off the bat.

      What is your Internet ACL ? block all except that which you like - and then only permit certain ports from those that you like ?

      Thats a blacklist ....with whitelisting as well and we support that too.

      Most blacklists support a removal if you are being target incorrectly - can you tell me one that does not ?

  2. Solution by blakelarson · · Score: 2, Informative

    IPv6!

    1. Re:Solution by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That will prevent us from running out of unblocked IP addresses, but it does nothing to aviod being bitten by filtering rules based on a previously bad domain name (like geocities.com).

    2. Re:Solution by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Funny

      Simple. Do not call your web site goatse, or geocities. If someone registers that domain name, because he's too young to remember, or whatever... He'll figure out pretty quickly that things don't work for him, so he'll pick a different domain name, like goatsrus, geotowns, geomegacities, or whatever.

      Frankly, I think that there are more pressing problems to think about.

    3. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Simple. Do not call your web site goatse, or geocities. If someone registers that domain name, because he's too young to remember, or whatever... He'll figure out pretty quickly that things don't work for him, so he'll pick a different domain name, like goatsrus, geotowns, geomegacities, or whatever.

      I'm going to start a free hosting service for shock sites called Goatsecities...

    4. Re:Solution by Ragzouken · · Score: 1

      And God knows we can't even consider solving a problem properly when more pressing problems exist.

    5. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this would be a pretty good idea for someone with the resources to create an online filter list that can be updated perio... oh wait.

      Using static filter lists is bad. :(
      People should be contacted to make them consider changing over to a dynamic list.
      Websites get flagged, then if the owner of the site changes, the filter is put on probation for a period.
      If after a certain time (decided on how severe the site in question was) passes and nothing bad has been happening, it is removed.

      Or it could be on permanent probation since the owners could have just changed the names, waited for the probation period to be up and go crazy again.
      This would be more ideal than say, having to check out the new owner via some detective work.

      Personally i would prefer the entire system to be completely changed since there is so much abuse.

    6. Re:Solution by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why geocities old IP addresses would be a bad location? Why was geocities.com filtered?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    7. Re:Solution by sentientbeing · · Score: 2, Funny

      It was condemned due to an infestation of Noobs.

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    8. Re:Solution by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      And never try to use any domain that has doubleclick as part of the name. Only a fool or someone intent on evil would do that.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  3. OMG WTF PONNIES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    OMG WTF PONNIES!!!

  4. who's on first? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

    did not Godaddy get its start registering pr0n sites?

    --
    - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    1. Re:who's on first? by tacarat · · Score: 2, Funny

      So did everybody else, no? I'm happy for URLs. Back when you could only connect by knowing the correct IP, 69.69.69.69 was pretty much the only porn site on the web... well, strand.

      --
      "Common sense will be the death of us all"
    2. Re:who's on first? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > did not Godaddy get its start registering pr0n sites?

      So what?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:who's on first? by tubeguy · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's still the coolest IP on the net.

    4. Re:who's on first? by bragr · · Score: 1

      69.69.69.69 isn't really that interesting. Embarq owns 69.68.0.0/15 so the "coolest" thing that you could do would be to ping someone's DSL modem off of the face of the earth.

    5. Re:who's on first? by secolactico · · Score: 5, Informative

      nslookup -q=ptr 69.69.69.69.in-addr.arpa

      Non-authoritative answer:
      69.69.69.69.in-addr.arpa name = the-coolest-ip-on-the-net.com

      Well, I'll be... I honestly didn't expect that. Duh...

      --
      No sig
    6. Re:who's on first? by bipbop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My favorite IP is 4.8. I often ping it, just for the joy of, well, pinging 4.8! I can't really describe it. You'll just have to try it to see what I mean.

    7. Re:who's on first? by rockNme2349 · · Score: 1

      What gives you that idea?

      --
      Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
    8. Re:who's on first? by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It makes me sad that it points to a link farm...

    9. Re:who's on first? by aussie_a · · Score: 3, Funny

      You see porn is bad. Because it has naked people in it pretending to have sex. Which is bad because sex isn't fun, its a terrible thing that must be endured for the betterment of society. Or something. I dunno, don't ask me hard questions. Its in the bible, right after god said to go forth and multiply...

      Sex = bad! Stop questioning things!

    10. Re:who's on first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks! You really did make my day.

    11. Re:who's on first? by Doug+Neal · · Score: 1

      Nice.

      I'm a big fan of 192.88.99.1...

  5. What slums? by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought they'd switched off geocities already?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:What slums? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, but if someone tries to create a new Biosphere and call the project "GeoCity", a website about the project will find itself needlessly blocked by filter rules set years ago and were never removed.

    2. Re:What slums? by Arancaytar · · Score: 2, Funny

      What filter rules? I mean, okay, that light on dark text and background midi and blinking marquees were annoying, but still, you could just not visit...

    3. Re:What slums? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can still access geocities.com pages.

      And GeoCity will not match a geocities filtering rule, unless the rule is for geocit*

    4. Re:What slums? by socsoc · · Score: 1

      Yep, cause the last Biosphere project worked out so well with their pseudo-science...

    5. Re:What slums? by MoellerPlesset2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, but if someone tries to create a new Biosphere and call the project "GeoCity", a website about the project will find itself needlessly blocked by filter rules set years ago and were never removed.

      Well, it still wouldn't hurt their reputation as badly as if they'd called it Bio-Dome.

    6. Re:What slums? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one could always use non latin characters now that iana supports them, maybe using the turkish undotted i.

  6. Easy solution: by eln · · Score: 3, Informative

    Stop relying on blacklists as your primarily (or only!) filtering mechanism. There are far more sophisticated filtering solutions out there these days. Filtering based solely on blacklists is antiquated, ineffective, and vulnerable to massive issues with false positives. If you only use blacklisting as a very small part of your overall filter scoring, you won't have problems when the IPs in question get turned over to non-spammers. Sure, they'll still end up with a non-zero "spam" score, but not a high enough one to be blocked.

    And, of course, you should regularly be looking at your entire setup, including filtering, on a regular basis to make sure the solution you have is still the best one for your situation. Technology, and the Internet, changes too rapidly to take a "set and forget" attitude toward anything, especially filtering.

    1. Re:Easy solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Stop relying on blacklists as your primarily (or only!) filtering mechanism. There are far more sophisticated filtering solutions out there these days. Filtering based solely on blacklists is antiquated, ineffective, and vulnerable to massive issues with false positives. If you only use blacklisting as a very small part of your overall filter scoring, you won't have problems when the IPs in question get turned over to non-spammers. Sure, they'll still end up with a non-zero "spam" score, but not a high enough one to be blocked.

      And, of course, you should regularly be looking at your entire setup, including filtering, on a regular basis to make sure the solution you have is still the best one for your situation. Technology, and the Internet, changes too rapidly to take a "set and forget" attitude toward anything, especially filtering.

      Ok, thanks mom. I will do that from now on.

    2. Re:Easy solution: by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Stop relying on blacklists as your primarily (or only!) filtering mechanism

      The people with the problem (the new owners of the IP address space) are not the people who can make the problem go away by your suggestion. Yes, it might be nice if everyone did make this change, but it is also highly unlikely.

      I have seen even worse use of blacklists -- for example I came across one company that was rejecting email if a blacklist was matched anyhere in the "Received" lines, and their set of blacklists included lists of dynamic addresses so you could not send them an email from most residential IP addresses, even if it was relayed by a normal non-spammy source (for example an ISP's outgoing mail relay)

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:Easy solution: by value_added · · Score: 1

      Stop relying on blacklists as your primarily (or only!) filtering mechanism. There are far more sophisticated filtering solutions out there these days. Filtering based solely on blacklists is antiquated, ineffective, and vulnerable to massive issues with false positives.

      Avoiding a primary reliance on blacklists is generally good advice, but let's not overstate things.

      In a SOHO environment, for example, it could be considered perfectly acceptable, and offers a surprisingly effective and simple setup with none of the problems you cite.

      On the other hand, if you work for a large corporation that has business dealings in China, the inappopriate use of a blacklist will, among other things, cost you your job. The same could be said of grey listing. Oddly enough, people are as insistent that grey-listing works as you are that blacklists don't.

    4. Re:Easy solution: by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      What if our operating systems were more secure, or if virtualization became universally used? Wouldn't that make it less necessary to use blacklists? I mean, if there's no danger from malware, then I don't have to worry so much if I open an attachment from an email that looks like it's coming from a friend. Worst thing it can do is blow up my virtual machine and I can just close a window and keep on going. It would also make hackers look for other ways to do evil besides attacking our desktops.

      Is virtualization as secure as I think it is? I admit I don't know a lot about internet security beyond just being careful and using protection, so I'd like to hear what those of you who have expertise think.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Easy solution: by genner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What if our operating systems were more secure, or if virtualization became universally used? Wouldn't that make it less necessary to use blacklists? I mean, if there's no danger from malware, then I don't have to worry so much if I open an attachment from an email that looks like it's coming from a friend. Worst thing it can do is blow up my virtual machine and I can just close a window and keep on going. It would also make hackers look for other ways to do evil besides attacking our desktops.

      Is virtualization as secure as I think it is? I admit I don't know a lot about internet security beyond just being careful and using protection, so I'd like to hear what those of you who have expertise think.

      It's not a about viruses it's the shear volume of spam hitting mail servers that makes blacklisting necessary.
      If you remove it your essentially allowing yourself to be DOS'd.

    6. Re:Easy solution: by EdIII · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You didn't provide him a solution at all. Not really. Don't get me wrong, you are entirely correct in your advice.

      However, how are you supposed to get that advice to , or even communicate reliably, with stubborn and/or stupid mail server admins? The problem most often is on the *other* side.

      The mail server admins at Craigslist.org deserve to be shot (they really do, at least with rubber bullets). I have run into problems getting email to a mail server in which I am apparently blocked by five-ten-sg.com. Of course, you cannot communicate with five-ten-sg.com *at all*. I did perform an audit of our system to see if we were indeed compromised before accusing them and everything was fine. You just can't communicate with the other side when there is a legitimate problem.

      Ostensibly, mail server admins should be checking the postmaster and abuse accounts *every single day*. I bet most have not checked in 6 months. How else do mail server admins work things out amongst themselves?

      I think the solution is a polite, but strongly worded email to the customer of the offending mail server (sent from someplace else like gmail) informing them of the problem and the fact their mail server is being run by a monkey. In more polite and diplomatic language of course, but informing them that the reason they can't get email from the other person is that the hosting company does not have their mail server's being run correctly.

      Throw the ball back into their court. If you write the letter nicely enough with some informative links to what you basically outlined in your post you might even turn a mail server admin from the stupid-side of the force.

      I have to hope that problems receiving email due to such behavior are not isolated and that eventually the mail servers being run unwisely will just lose their customers.

    7. Re:Easy solution: by AnEducatedNegro · · Score: 2, Funny

      not my fault you have small pipes.

      aEN

    8. Re:Easy solution: by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It's not a about viruses it's the shear volume of spam hitting mail servers that makes blacklisting necessary.

      Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

      I saw "hackers" mentioned above and I thought the problem with the large number of blacklisted IPs was malware.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:Easy solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ask your mom for technology advice? You'll probably have better luck asking your or your neighbour's grade school child.

    10. Re:Easy solution: by socsoc · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't grey listing work? Many people that I regularly correspond with have grey listing setup and aside from the annoyances in my MTA logs, it works fine. A legit e-mail server will try again later.

    11. Re:Easy solution: by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Greylisting takes out 90% of the spam for me.

      And if there are false positives in that, then it's time for the sender to properly set up their e-mail system. Greylisting is based on senders having proper mailers. A single retry after a few minutes and you're through. It's just that spammers' fire-and-forget mailers do not retry.

      And after that it's SpamAssassin looking at the rest, using a.o. various RBLs.

      I wouldn't consider using any RBL as fully authoritative though, like blocking on SMTP level based on an RBL listing. If DoS would become a serious problem for small sites then I'm sure soon enough we will see a sendmail/postfix plugin that will temporarily block any incoming connections from a site that connects too frequently. If that doesn't exist already.

    12. Re:Easy solution: by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Well I'm happy to hear that you are so filthy rich that you do not care about paying for extra bandwidth just to receive other people's junk.

    13. Re:Easy solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? By sane blacklist use, I use them as a front line. If you're listed on Spamhaus ZEN, I don't want (and will block) your email, end of story.

      The false positive rate is very low - one or two per month against thousands of spam blocked per day. (ZEN's false positive rate is at zero and holding. The false positives are mostly about SPF record checks.)

      (And, of course, I take the approach that anyone sending from a dynamic IP shouldn't.)

      The trick, though, is to remember as an admin using a blacklist, you are delgating your authority to an outside party. You have to make a judgement as to whether that outside party is trustworthy.

      Spamhaus are, IMHO, trustworthy and professional. By comparison, there are a lot that are fly-by-night one-off crazies that have no comprehnsion of what a professional outfit actually is, mad and power-drunk. THOSE blacklists need to be ignored.

    14. Re:Easy solution: by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      It even doesn't have much to do with data bandwidth.

      It has to do with human processing ability.

      If you don't filter the spam out, then you'll miss quite a lot of legitimate e-mails, and may not even check your e-mail at all.

    15. Re:Easy solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the neighbor's kid can help fix your broken sarcasm detector.

    16. Re:Easy solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    17. Re:Easy solution: by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      I considered using greylisting but the number one issue with greylisting for me is that it turns email from "arrives in 3 to 30 seconds" to "arrives in 3 seconds to 6 hours". Also, most greylisting setups I've had to deal with were kind of, for lack of a better description, wonky and paranoid ("You're not on our Good Guys(tm) list? REJECTED!"). I suppose greylisting is better than the horribly broken approach of rejecting incoming mail where reverse lookup doesn't match (e.g. email from somecompany.com which resolves to 10.x.x.x for which a reverse lookup returns x.x.x.10.cust.biz.someisp.net would be rejected because clearly this person is a spammer (or the ISP used by somecompany (someisp) doesn't allow proper reverse lookups without paying an extra $350 monthly "we want your money" fee)).

      Personally (for my home server) I just rely on SpamAssassin and throwaway accounts (e.g. company@mydomain.tld) and I get a very minimal amount of spam (especially compared to outfits I've worked with that insisted on blacklist-only solutions).

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    18. Re:Easy solution: by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      The delay is only for new senders and admittedly can be irritating if you're waiting for a web sign-up reply or so (but then you could just use mailinator for that). It saves so much spam processing that I consider it a very good trade-off.

      For anyone e-mailing me more than once every three months or so (as in all regular contacts) there is no extra delay.

    19. Re:Easy solution: by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that everyone doing greylisting is doing it "properly" and even then it's an inconvenience.

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    20. Re:Easy solution: by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      However, how are you supposed to get that advice to , or even communicate reliably, with stubborn and/or stupid mail server admins? The problem most often is on the *other* side.

      Indeed, I once had an issue with a Turkish ISP (forgot the name of them) that had some seriously misconfigured mail server that kept throwing a lot of traffic my way (thousands of junk bounces per day for several days while one of my domains (that has a proper SPF record setup btw) was getting joe-jobbed), I tried contacting them, explained the issue and in what way their server was misbehaving and got a reply back that could be summed up as "Why should we listen to you? You're just some spammer trying to mess with us!", I tried replying and once again explaining the issue at which point they threatened legal action if I didn't stop trying to spam their customers.

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    21. Re:Easy solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We block 90% of our incoming mail via blacklisting (using mainly NXSPAM by heise.de).
      If I would let all those mails run through spamassassin I would need five more servers at least.
      Tell that to my boss!

    22. Re:Easy solution: by Ash-Fox · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Why doesn't grey listing work?

      Because spammers also exploit legit mail servers.

      A legit e-mail server will try again later.

      You just answered your own question.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    23. Re:Easy solution: by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how you can complain about the Cragilist mail admins and then recommend someone uses gmail. Twice, I've had spammers use my address in the From: field when spamming gmail accounts. Even though I have SPF records set up correctly so that Google can easily tell that I am not the one sending the mail, they send a copy of every spam to me. If it weren't for the fact that I have a couple of friends working there (not in the Gmail department), I'd block every mail from Google. They make it trivial for spammers; just send the same spam to 1000 gmail accounts with different From: addresses and Google will happily relay it to 1000 people for you.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    24. Re:Easy solution: by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      It's not a about viruses it's the shear volume of spam hitting mail servers that makes blacklisting necessary. If you remove it your essentially allowing yourself to be DOS'd.

      Funny, but I have no problem using RBLs as only scoring for spam.

      Most spam never even gets far enough to be scored. I have lots of stuff like the following in my logs:

      Nov 13 07:52:05 xxxxxxx sendmail[7196]: nADCppch007196: <username.deletethis@example.com>... User unknown
      Nov 13 07:52:05 xxxxxxx sendmail[7196]: nADCppch007196: lost input channel from abts-mp-dynamic-076.9.168.122.airtelbroadband.in [122.168.9.76] (may be forged) to MTA after rcpt
      Nov 13 07:52:05 xxxxxxx sendmail[7196]: nADCppch007196: from=<reappointfr44@rotex2780.com>, size=0,class=0, nrcpts=0, proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=abts-mp-dynamic-076.9.168.122.airtelbroadband.in [122.168.9.76] (may be forged)
      Nov 13 07:52:21 xxxxxxx mimedefang.pl[5245]: filter_relay: 61.79.93.53; [61.79.93.53]
      Nov 13 07:52:31 xxxxxxx mimedefang.pl[5245]: filter_helo: 61.79.93.53; [61.79.93.53]; ZQLSMIV
      Nov 13 07:52:31 xxxxxxx mimedefang.pl[5245]: filter_helo rejected helo ZQLSMIV
      Nov 13 07:52:51 xxxxxxx sendmail[7202]: nADCqLHZ007202: Milter: helo=ZQLSMIV, reject=501 5.5.4 Bad HELO: 'ZQLSMIV' is not fully qualified domain name
      Nov 13 08:19:17 xxxxx mimedefang.pl[5381]: filter_relay: 91.121.19.58; ks39028.kimsufi.com
      Nov 13 08:19:28 xxxxx mimedefang.pl[5381]: filter_helo: 91.121.19.58; ks39028.kimsufi.com; ks39028.kimsufi.com
      Nov 13 08:19:28 xxxxx mimedefang.pl[5382]: filter_sender: nADDJHD8007545; 91.121.19.58; ks39028.kimsufi.com; ks39028.kimsufi.com; <ioamorim@eln.gov.br>
      Nov 13 08:19:28 xxxxx mimedefang.pl[5381]: filter_recipient: nADDJHD8007545; 91.121.19.58; ks39028.kimsufi.com; ks39028.kimsufi.com; <ioamorim@eln.gov.br>; <user@example.com>; <user@example.com>; local; ? ; user
      Nov 13 08:19:28 xxxxx mimedefang.pl[5381]: greylist_check: nADDJHD8007545; ks39028.kimsufi.com [91.121.19.58] is default-listed
      Nov 13 08:19:28 xxxxx mimedefang.pl[5381]: gl_addtuple: nADDJHD8007545; 91.121.19.58; <ioamorim@eln.gov.br>; <user@example.com>; delay until Fri Nov 13 08:23:28 2009; expires Mon Nov 16 08:23:28 2009
      Nov 13 08:19:28 xxxxx mimedefang.pl[5381]: gl_newipstate: nADDJHD8007545; 91.121.19.58; grey; expires Fri Nov 13 08:23:28 2009
      Nov 13 08:19:28 xxxxx mimedefang.pl[5381]: filter_recipient tempfailed recipient <user@example.com>
      Nov 13 08:19:28 xxxxx sendmail[7545]: nADDJHD8007545: Milter: to=<user@example.com>, reject=450 4.7.1 Greylisting in action, please come back in 00:04:00
      Nov 13 08:19:28 xxxxx sendmail[7545]: nADDJHD8007545: lost input channel from ks39028.kimsufi.com [91.121.19.58] to MTA after rcpt
      Nov 13 08:19:28 xxxxx sendmail[7545]: nADDJHD8007545: from=<ioamorim@eln.gov.br>, size=0, class=0, nrcpts=0, proto=SMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=ks39028.kimsufi.com [91.121.19.58]

      There are a lot of other tricks that don't show up in the logs (or not very well), like delaying error responses for 30 seconds or so, adding a 10-second delay before my mail server greeting, etc. With these tools, barely half the connections even get to the "DATA" stage, and almost all of that is opt-in mailing list e-mail.

    25. Re:Easy solution: by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that everyone doing greylisting is doing it "properly" and even then it's an inconvenience.

      Properly-done greylisting isn't an inconvenience to anybody, because nobody notices it.

      A slight delay in receiving the first e-mail from a system is nothing, since you might not have been expecting that e-mail. In addition, even with a 4-minute initial delay (my choice in greylisting), mail to my domain is delayed less by greylisting than by whatever random outages afflict the Internet.

      As an aside, when did e-mail become "instant messaging", and when did "instant" become a requirement for all forms of communications, regardless of the importance?

    26. Re:Easy solution: by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      Properly-done greylisting isn't an inconvenience to anybody, because nobody notices it.

      I've yet to see a greylisting solution that didn't have an initial wait that was long enough to be noticed.

      A slight delay in receiving the first e-mail from a system is nothing, since you might not have been expecting that e-mail. In addition, even with a 4-minute initial delay (my choice in greylisting), mail to my domain is delayed less by greylisting than by whatever random outages afflict the Internet.

      You're making assumptions about how people use email and concluding that since no one uses it differently from you then there is no problem.

      Also, most emails sent to me through work email servers or my home email server tend to arrive a lot faster than in 4 minutes (a few seconds to a minute are most common from what I can tell).

      As an aside, when did e-mail become "instant messaging", and when did "instant" become a requirement for all forms of communications, regardless of the importance?

      Late 90's I believe, before then email was a bit hit or miss when it came to delivery times (and as late as the mid 90's you couldn't really rely on it arriving depending on what host you were emailing to, back then there were plenty of oddball mail servers that would just silently pipe the incoming messages straight into /dev/null if a user had exceeded his/her disk quota).

      As for all forms of communication, well I'd say that these days "instant" is a lot more important than it used to be and when the standard is "real time or close enough to be indistinguishable from it" then that's what you have to strive for, imagine if Fedex started taking six months to deliver a package (but only for new customers and the customer would have to call them about the package at least once before it was delivered, to make sure the customer was serious about sending the package) while UPS, USPS and the others were still capable of overnight delivery, and imagine that they still advertised it as an overnight service, would you use Fedex after they spent six months delivering that first package?

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    27. Re:Easy solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blacklists can be great if they are effectively managed. A dumb text file that you drop IPs into and forget about is lame. There are easy to use tools like relaydb in any *BSD ports tree. Given the system resources required to scan mail for spam and viruses, a dynamic blacklist can keep things rolling along at a nice clip. Use after helo checks and before your RBLs. Good blacklists don't keep non-offending IPs around for more than a day or two.

    28. Re:Easy solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop relying on blacklists as your primarily (or only!) filtering mechanism.

      Urm, no. Blacklists are the only working solution I have found to spam. A false positive in a filtering setup may be unnoticed (I know hordes of people who never check their spambox for false positives before they clean it), while a false positive in a blocklist setup will result in the sender being notified of the failure. Notification of delivery failure >>> message lost.

      Smart use of blocklists results in 99,98% blocking for me, and me and my users are perfectly able to deal with the occasional spam reaching our inbox. As far as I'm concerned spam is a non-issue, and has been for years.

    29. Re:Easy solution: by AnEducatedNegro · · Score: 1

      So.

      rely on other methods to stop spam, not blacklists. my blacklists have the lowest priority so that a valid mail from a blacklisted address will not get blocked. as of last check we catch 98% of spam. i'll take the bandwidth hit if it means my customers don't miss valid emails.

      aEN

    30. Re:Easy solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. At a company I used to work at, once we switched on an initial black list filter we reduced the amount of mail getting into our queue by 80%!! Not only did performance improve dramatically, but in the year that I was there and the filter was operating we didn't get a single report of a false positive.

      To the OP, in theory I agree that we shouldn't have to use blacklists, but in practice the alternatives aren't yet as affective.

    31. Re:Easy solution: by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If you only use blacklisting as a very small part of your overall filter scoring, you won't have problems when the IPs in question get turned over to non-spammers.

      I won't have problems; whoever bought IPs from spammers and is now trying to contact me will have problems.

      If I know you, you have other means at your disposal to contact me and ask to be added to my whitelist/filter-exceptions; and if I don't know you, chances are that I don't want your communication in the first place.

      Rather than have a single e-mail address, I'll nowadays get a new address for each contact I wish to maintain, and drop it if it starts getting spammed. If I need to accept inbound contact attempts from unknown people, I'll make a new address for that. I also use throwaway addresses for registering into forums that require them.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    32. Re:Easy solution: by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      FedEx... excellent analogy, but you use it totally wrong.

      To send parcels by FedEx or other couriers, you have to register first. That takes a while: phone call, fill in form, call back, and then they know you. Maybe a couple hours, maybe a day after the first call you can send out your first parcel with them.

      Next time you have a parcel for them to deliver you just call, say "hi, it's me, this is my account, please deliver". And done.

      Greylisting is like that. First prove you're a legitimate sender. Then I will accept your mail (and any subsequent mails) without any more fuss.

      Now compare this with the postal services. There you can just go and send your stuff, no questions asked.

      And to complete the analogy: spam. Junk mail. FedEx has yet to deliver any unsolicited junk to me. Hong Kong Post does so to me on a regular basis.

    33. Re:Easy solution: by EdIII · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how you can complain about the Cragilist mail admins and then recommend someone uses gmail.

      If you're entire IP address is blocked and not just some of your domains you are going to have to get your email to the affected customer of that mail server from *SOMEWHERE*.

      So where would you send it from? I came up with gmail off the top of my head. It could be a free account at Yahoo, Hotmail, MSN, whatever.

      Would you purchase a domain and email service from GoDaddy just to send out that email?

    34. Re:Easy solution: by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      Ah, but if Fedex was like greylisting it would not require registration (greylisting does not require you to register), instead they'd tell you that your package couldn't be delivered and if you ask them to send it again after an unknown period of time (sometimes a day or two (SMTP:a few seconds), sometimes a month (SMTPseveral hours) depending on what part of the country (SMTP:email server) you're in).

      Proving you're a legit sender would be something more like SPF. You don't prove your legit just because you show up with your package (SMTP:mail) a second time.

      Greylisting is just a game of hoping spambots never get clever enough to queue and resend, because the day that happens greylisting will become completely useless.

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    35. Re:Easy solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you'd bothered to read up on greylists and/or spambots (instead of just assuming you understood how it works), you'd see that spambots generally don't track which machines send what (they just work from a common list), nor do they parse delivery reports. Theoretically, they could overcome greylists, but that increases the risk (larger code footprint = easier to detect and exploit/neutralise), decreases the payload (more time checking = less time sending) and means more code (more code = more time coding, more time spreading, etc). Also, the payoff isn't that great either - a good mail filter setup won't use greylisting as it's single means of defence (merely the front line defence, to save the smarter filters from eating CPU cycles) so the spammer still only gets through in a few corner cases (and then the people it gets through to probably aren't interested in spam, or they wouldn't have spam defences). Spammers are volume people, they're not going to care about send failures unless it means significantly less throughput (and it would have to be a lot, enough to get their clients to actually ask for increased throughput at the cost of decreased mailing rates).

    36. Re:Easy solution: by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      You know, thats nice and all, but with a few blacklists, you are able to reduce your email traffic by a metric ton. When I worked at a place that had a T1, you could measure the email traffic in double digit percentages.. After adding blacklists, it dropped to around 1% of total traffic, since many of the blacklists stopped the email before sending the body of the message. Now they use a Barracuda, which has a managed blacklist, but still, huge cut in traffic, and they had a 300Mhz p2 desktop running as their mailserver for a while, and it ran postfix just dandy for the 75 full time employees.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    37. Re:Easy solution: by dodobh · · Score: 1

      Most large providers would need 10X the hardware just to handle current spam loads. I know ISPs whose spam filtering runs into 7 figures in USD.

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    38. Re:Easy solution: by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      If you'd bothered to read up on greylists and/or spambots (instead of just assuming you understood how it works), you'd see that spambots generally don't track which machines send what (they just work from a common list), nor do they parse delivery reports.

      If you read what I wrote, you would realize that there are actual regular mail server installations that get exploited into sending mail, these installations are setup with default settings to retry sending mail etc.

      I have had personal experience in finding that greylisting does not help against those spam relays. I get spammed a lot by vulnerable e-mail form sites, from greeting card websites to badly setup request 'support' via this textbox sites which pass e-mails to the legitimate mail server running on the webserver - Greylisting will not help in those situations, period.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    39. Re:Easy solution: by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      first off, its not that hard to send a package. They ask for your name and address... which they do everytime anyway. Then you're a "legitimate" sender if you have a package to send and the cash. how do they know I even gave them my real address? They don't.

    40. Re:Easy solution: by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      They do as soon as they try to pick up the package... so yes they do know your address is the correct one.

  7. How does one renovate and recoup the lost trust t by DeadDecoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You don't. The Internet never forgets, never forgives.

  8. this is a SERIOUS problem by pele · · Score: 1

    that SORBS bastard wanted to charge me $50 to take my new block of IPs off his/her/its list!

    hah, good luck SORBS is out of business now!

    1. Re:this is a SERIOUS problem by gmack · · Score: 1

      There are worst things out there than SORBS. There is a certain mail trust tool that blocks any auto blocks any ip with a negative spam to real percentage until the score returns to positive. Whatever genius thought that auto kill system up forgot that you can't detect when the spam to real email percentage improves if you never accept email from the sender.

  9. What slums trust who now? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    I think I've gone aphasic. The summary/quote didn't make an ounce of sense to me.

    1. Re:What slums trust who now? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no joke.

      Hosting/Colo sold me Whitechapel Road/Ventura Avenue for Mayfair/Boardwalk prices

      Even for Slashdot, that's a lot of slashes. I sprained my Wernicke's Area trying to parse that.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:What slums trust who now? by reverseengineer · · Score: 1

      The Monopoly reference doesn't even make sense. I understand that Mayfair is the UK Monopoly equivalent of Boardwalk, but there isn't a Ventura Ave. on either the US or UK boards, at least. The corresponding property to Whitechapel Road in the US game is Baltic Ave.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    3. Re:What slums trust who now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sprained my Wernicke's Area trying to parse that.

      Is that near Shatner's Bassoon?

    4. Re:What slums trust who now? by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      Ventura Ave is a common mis-reading of Ventnor Ave, a yellow property next to the water works.

  10. Usually never by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When do I clean addresses and domains out of my filters? Usually never. It's just too much trouble to keep tabs on all of them and actively look for them being cleaned up. Once they're in the filters, there they stay until something happens to make me take a look at them. Usually that something'll be someone I know getting caught by the e-mail filters and contacting me out-of-band to find out why I'm not responding to their mail. Or it might be me trying to go to a site I added to the filters ages ago and being blocked when I know it should be clean now, and I go and find it and remove it. But generally, unless something like that motivates me, I've got better things to do with my time than keeping track of all the bad guys I've run across over the years and whether they've mended their ways or not.

    1. Re:Usually never by schon · · Score: 1

      Like you, I blacklist at my firewall... I also send reports to the block's owner... unlike you (apparently :) I go through my blacklist every few months, and if there haven't been any hits from that block, I'll remove it. I figure that will prevent the list from eventually becoming 0.0.0.0/0. :)

    2. Re:Usually never by socsoc · · Score: 1

      Postini does a great job for me and is mainly hands off. My work domains get a lot of dictionary spam and once I switched from an in-house solution it's gone dramatically down. My time is better spent elsewhere, to hell with the blacklists and spam filtering software that I used to maintain.

  11. Where are the cops? by NoYob · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In addition, at least one fraud expert who works with a number of big name retailers said online retail fraud rates fell from around $250,000 per day to zero for a short time following McColo's takedow

    Why aren't the cops there getting customers lists from McColo and going after the fraudsters?

    As far as the toxic waste is concerned, have the Government take those toxic address and have the Government turn their current addresses back into the pool. That will detox those addresses quick.

    --
    It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    1. Re:Where are the cops? by ShaunC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why aren't the cops there getting customers lists from McColo and going after the fraudsters?

      In the case of McColo (and RBN), many of the fraudsters probably are cops, or at least have cops on the payroll.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    2. Re:Where are the cops? by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why aren't the cops there getting customers lists from McColo and going after the fraudsters?

            Because the police are far too busy going after the real criminals to waste time with legitimate fraudsters.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Where are the cops? by Ozymandias_KoK · · Score: 1

      Legitimate fraudsters?

    4. Re:Where are the cops? by screeble · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You know... That's a really good idea.

      Signed IP swapping somehow... Reverify those IP addresses as valid.

      It would only require transferring them to a host processing site.

      Then, they could be removed from block lists and be reallocated.

      It would be a fuck load of record updates, though.

    5. Re:Where are the cops? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      The reality is in most cases, police services or forces(whichever you prefer or whatever they're called where you live), don't always have the resources. Then you get into jurisdiction. It's a messy convoluted processes when dealing with internet crime. Things are shifting but that's just how it is, the police are about 5-8 years behind because they don't have the funds and resources to deal with it. So it's a non issue.

      Even specialized groups that deal with this stuff are really short on proper resources.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re:Where are the cops? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they'd have the resources if they stopped arresting people for putting certain chemicals in their bodies, or sitting on the road trying to catch speeders.

    7. Re:Where are the cops? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      What you mean doing their job is bad? Enforcing the law(s)? Who'd have thought of that. If you don't like the law, allow me to point you at your nearest government body. Pretty simple isn't it?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  12. Re:How does one renovate and recoup the lost trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amen, brother.

  13. Easy by Jazz-Masta · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Before you order a co-lo, agree that it has to pass certain checks, such as a blacklist check.

    http://www.mxtoolbox.com/blacklists.aspx

    As for decreasing IP space, IPv6 (real or tunneling) is available at most large co-lo places, so that won't be a problem.

  14. Re:haha funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Read this before you post again.

  15. You Don't. That's the point. by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How, in a few years, will I tell if some Hosting/Colo sold me Whitechapel Road/Ventura Avenue for Mayfair/Boardwalk prices, and no one is going to accept my mail from a former slum?

    As the purchaser, you probably can't. But what you can do is demand that your provider move you to a better IP neighborhood, or renegotiate (read: "tear up") the contract.

    Blocklists aren't about playing whack-a-mole with spammers, they're about disincentivizing spam-friendly providers.

    If you're an ISP or hosting provider, and you harbor spammers and botnets, the IP ranges you hold are permanently devalued. That means it's harder for you to get customers, more expensive to support your legitimate customers, and your business, when you decide to sell it, is worth less than if you'd booted the goddamn spammers off your network when you had the chance.

    Car Analogy: If you're doing your own oil changes, and instead of hauling the waste oil to a recycler, you dump it into your backyard, don't complain when you try and sell your house and the highest bid still leaves you $100,000 underwater on your mortgage, or requires you to spend $150,000 remediating it. Your property is worth less than it could have been, had you only been a better steward of it.

  16. Eminent Domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Followed by handing over the domains to a rich developer to build an on-line sports stadium.

  17. Obligatory grammar nazi by BenoitRen · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    all the domains and IP's

    You do not use the apostrophe to pluralise.

    1. Re:Obligatory grammar nazi by ledow · · Score: 4, Funny

      I once passed a shop offering "Sandwich boxe's". I call it hedge-your-bets punctuation...

    2. Re:Obligatory grammar nazi by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean 'hedge-you'r-bet's"?

    3. Re:Obligatory grammar nazi by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      I once passed a shop offering "Sandwich boxe's". I call it hedge-your-bets punctuation...

      Dude. I was in a Safeway that claimed to be selling "Mrs Whites pie's". I cried. Three words, three mistakes: HOW?

      Then I pulled out a Sharpie and fixed it, which is why my friends used to call me Conan The Grammarian. Bad grammar modded for free!

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    4. Re:Obligatory grammar nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now you don't have an friends left. Was it worth it, Conan?

    5. Re:Obligatory grammar nazi by dornbos · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be "Conan, The Grammarian?"

    6. Re:Obligatory grammar nazi by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      And now you don't have an friends left.

      Oh, the inory...

    7. Re:Obligatory grammar nazi by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      I see only two mistakes. I hope your third correction wasn't to put a full stop after Mrs, because it ends in the same letter as the word it abbreviates.

    8. Re:Obligatory grammar nazi by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I was taught that any abbreviation was marked with a full stop unless it was just an elided vowel or syllable, in which case it was marked with an apostrophe. Do you have a source for the abbreviation rule? I'd be glad to convert.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    9. Re:Obligatory grammar nazi by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Fowler's Modern English Usage, p480. Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words (see excerpt). FWIW the first is a British source and the second says that it's a British rule, so if they have Safeways somewhere else I may owe you an apology.

    10. Re:Obligatory grammar nazi by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      I'm in the USA, where our grammar rules are not only looser than yours, but also more loosely interpreted. But it's an interesting rule (and I love Bill Bryson's stuff, and was surprised to see a book of his that I don't already have.) Now I have a quest to see if it holds hereabouts. Thanks for the references.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    11. Re:Obligatory grammar nazi by stuckinphp · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean "hedge-you'r-bet's'"?

      --
      if only
  18. 90 percent of blacklists are crap... by bmo · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...because 90 percent of everything is crap.

    > So too, now Geocities is dead [as a business], but does that still live in your filter list? It still appears in OpenDNS under several policy categories.

    If you filter via OpenDNS, then you get what you deserve.

    If you've done *any* metamoderating of OpenDNS website classifications, you will soon decide that poo flinging chimpanzees are more accurate.

    I came, I saw, I ran away screaming.

    --
    BMO

  19. Slums? I'm a gangsta! My epic will bust a cap by mseidl · · Score: 1

    I'm straight up gangsta from south central Ironforge...

  20. 4chan by meow27 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    isnt THAT the slum of the internet?

    1. Re:4chan by Fry-kun · · Score: 2, Funny

      /b/ is the fist thing that came to my mind as well

      --
      Did you know that "FTW" ("for the win") is a direct translation of "Sieg Heil"?
    2. Re:4chan by jaxtherat · · Score: 1

      It is a wrenched hive of scum and villainy.

      --
      http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
    3. Re:4chan by petrus4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mod parent +5,000, Insightful.

      Seriously; if maintaining your level of faith in the compassion, empathy, and fundamental decency of the human species is something you care about, don't ever visit 4chan.

      That site is very little more than a showcase of the very worst, morally, psychologically, and emotionally, that humanity is capable of.

    4. Re:4chan by foo1752 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mod parent +5,000, Insightful.

      You missed your chance, dude. You should have said: Mod parent over 9000, Insightful.

    5. Re:4chan by Aokisensei · · Score: 1

      In defense of 4chan (yes, I said it), it's really mostly /b/ and maybe a few other boards that are disgusting and vile.

      I tend to stay on /a/ and /c/ (anime and anime/cute boards) and it stays relatively civil and sane and within something that resembles the boundaries of most people's moral decencies.

    6. Re:4chan by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

      Oh, please. Now it's preteen boys acting as crass as they possibly can, before it was a bunch of actually pretty smart people acting as dumb as they can.

      "before" here referring to years and years back. /b/ was never good; the rest of 4chan was.

    7. Re:4chan by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      That site is very little more than a showcase of the very worst, morally, psychologically, and emotionally, that humanity is capable of.

      Which is why /b/ tends to provide great entertainment. It is always impressive to see how low people can go for their 15 seconds of "fame".

    8. Re:4chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That site is very little more than a showcase of the very worst, morally, psychologically, and emotionally, that humanity is capable of.

      Funny that it doesn't end in '.gov' though.

    9. Re:4chan by seandiggity · · Score: 1

      I read the title in my RSS feed and assumed it would be about 4chan :P

      --
      Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
    10. Re:4chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in a sense, he's doing it wrong.

    11. Re:4chan by skeeto · · Score: 1

      a showcase of the very worst, morally, psychologically, and emotionally, that humanity is capable of.

      It gets even worse than 4chan in the dark corners of anonymous networks.

  21. 1 year by scorp1us · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everything should expire after a year.

    I also would suggest this in government. That all laws get renewed to automatically expire after 10 years. That way we can keep the law makers busy keeping the good laws while letting the old ones die, as well as keeping them from making crappy new ones that won't survive a 10 year renewal.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    1. Re:1 year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I too often come up with juvenile ideas which I post on slashdot because nobody in the real world listens to me.

    2. Re:1 year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sunset clauses are in many bad laws. its not a bad idea.

    3. Re:1 year by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed. Also, all laws must be read into the record. That'll put an upper bound on the sheer magnitude of legislation and guaranteed that the aforementioned laws have been read at least once.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:1 year by QuoteMstr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Reading every law? What about the building code? What about trade duty schedules? What about the tax law (a lot of the complexity of which is actually necessary)? I'm sure you can find many more examples. It's as if you're asking for every computer program to be dictated by telephone. Your request reflects a very naive view, namely that complex societies like ours can be governed by simple laws.

      If we actually tried what you suggest, what we'd see is simple legislation. Because these laws would have simple, they couldn't address subtleties and special cases, and as a result, these laws would cause a lot of injustice. Is this the world you'd really like to live in?

      I never understood how people like you can see all law as universally bad, and how you actually hope for a "gridlock". Bad government is bad, yes, but good government is also good. You'd argue that all government is bad government, but if you look around, any reasonable person will see that argument is nonsense. Only ideologues maintain that government is always the problem.

    5. Re:1 year by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      However, in a jury system, if juries are given power to interpret the laws, then you get interesting consequences.

      Intentionally vague laws can be abused, yes, but they're also flexible in the other direction.

    6. Re:1 year by jecowa · · Score: 1, Troll

      I like reading juvenile ideas on slashdot. Please keep them coming.

      --
      my opportunity to freely express myself with the potential persecution and hangings and such
    7. Re:1 year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Existing laws, even when making special cases, are terribly ambiguous. If they weren't, we'd have fewer court cases where judges were forced to interpret the law.

      Part of the issue is likely the inherent ambiguity of the English language and the shifting definitions of the language over time. I'd prefer that laws be kept simple, if for no other reason than it allows an average person to have a decent understanding of these laws. As it currently stands, it can be quite difficult to interpret the law.

      You also assume that the injustice of which you speak doesn't exist in the current system. It does. For all of the complicated laws and special cases, there are still plenty of loopholes to be exploited by those who have the knowledge or the money to afford someone who does.

      Laws are simply a code of conduct which must be followed in an arbitrary society. Not all laws are necessarily written down, either. I feel that one property of good government is that it has few and simple laws. The ideal government (and society) could function with little else beyond the golden rule. In my opinion, once government has moved beyond that, it heads downhill until it becomes so worthless and self-serving that the population replaces it and tries to start over again.

    8. Re:1 year by bloobloo · · Score: 1

      Everything should expire after a year.

      I also would suggest this in government. That all laws get renewed to automatically expire after 10 years. That way we can keep the law makers busy keeping the good laws while letting the old ones die, as well as keeping them from making crappy new ones that won't survive a 10 year renewal.

      I used to think that would be a good idea, but then I realised politicians would be involved. Think of the pressure that could be put on a weak government if the opposition felt that their new bill had to be passed before they would support renewing the law against tax evasion. The opposition wouldn't lose the support that they would if they tried it with laws against murder etc, but it would cripple the government.

    9. Re:1 year by tjstork · · Score: 1

      You'd argue that all government is bad government, but if you look around, any reasonable person will see that argument is nonsense. Only ideologues maintain that government is always the problem.

      Has the thought ever occurred to you that some of us may see the expansion of government as evidence of a decline in society? It's like public schools in inner cities. Why are the expensive? It's because they are the only institution with money and so everyone hangs their hat on them. You can either underfund them and watch the kids suffer, because the community basically holds the kids hostage, or you can try and clear out the neighborhood leadership and get some business friendly people in there so that schools aren't the whole economy, or you can just throw money at it. Guess which option America does?

      --
      This is my sig.
    10. Re:1 year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post makes no sense to me whatsoever. Why should schools be more expensive when businesses in the neighborhood are failing? If anything, they should be cheaper because staff would be willing to work for less. Your post is utterly incomprehensible.

    11. Re:1 year by VoidEngineer · · Score: 1

      A better plan would be to create a legislative chamber who's sole responsibility is the repeal of laws. So, the legislative branch would be composed of three chambers: Senate, House of Legislation, and House of Repeals. Or something like that. That would create a better system of checks and balances.

    12. Re:1 year by VoidEngineer · · Score: 1

      Rather than responding with name calling, why don't you grow a few neurons and provide an actual counter argument and explain why you don't agree with the GP? Simply calling another post juvenile, with no supporting argument, is trollish.

    13. Re:1 year by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      Robert?

    14. Re:1 year by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Government is not universally bad, although it doesn't start out on good footing (All governments, even our own, establish themselves through bullying and blood). But although there are needs that can only be efficiently met through the use of government, expansion of government should always be looked at warily.

      The greater the fraction of activities that the government undertakes, the greater the chance that it IS the problem in those areas. If government is responsible for 100% of the economy, any problems with the economy are, ipso facto, caused by the government.

      With the health care mistake we're about to undertake, the federal government will be eventually increasing its presence by 50%, accounting for more than half the economy by itself (~1/3 before, + ~1/6: the size of medicine according to pundits). And that doesn't even take into account the proportion occupied by state and local governments.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    15. Re:1 year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People have to enforce and obey those laws, and if they've never read them they can't really do that. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that they be read into record, just don't require the elected official to read them and do something to prevent hiring the Micro Machine Man.

    16. Re:1 year by VoidEngineer · · Score: 1

      Er, yeah? Do we know each other?

    17. Re:1 year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently this is your first encounter with the Randroid / Paultard / Teabagger / Tenther crowd. They're OK with injustice, as long as it happens to poor and/or brown people, and logic's not a factor in their "GOVERNMENT BAD!!!!one!!!!" belief system.

      They also have a significant overlap with some of the more authoritarian offshoots of Christian Dominionism, which would replace the existing laws with, essentially, the Mosaic law from the Old Testament.

    18. Re:1 year by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      .. that suggestion was made by Robert Heinlein, a long time ago.

    19. Re:1 year by VoidEngineer · · Score: 1

      ah... weird coincidence then... interesting to know where that meme came from though...

  22. Re:How does one renovate and recoup the lost trust by proxy318 · · Score: 5, Funny

    You don't. The Internet never forgets, never forgives.

    Never sleeps either. The internet waits.

    --
    Saying your "phone ran out of batteries" is like saying your "car ran out of gas tanks".
  23. Re:You Don't. That's the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $SPAMLIST is an ill-maintained and disreputable, even renegade, rbl that is nearly defunct and we are not aware of many legitimate mail domains that would use it for any purpose. However, if this listing is causing you actual problems then you are probably a spammer. . . .

  24. "illegal activity" is another person's "freedom" by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    Indeed, the economic benefits abound when a huge swath of illegal and annoying activity ceases

    Translated from corporatocracy-ese to english:

    "once we've quashed the disruptive technological utopia people created on the web, the economic opportunity to carve it up and sell it back to only those who can pay abounds!"

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  25. Why you're not responding? by XanC · · Score: 1

    Surely you reject mail at SMTP time, allowing the sending server to notify the sender that the mail didn't get through, right?

    1. Re:Why you're not responding? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      SMTP protocol? Hello, why am I wasting my CPU cycles and bandwidth on reading and rejecting a spammer's SMTP exchange? Their IP ranges go into my firewall and their packets get dropped long before they get anywhere near the SMTP server. If they get through that and get caught by the SMTP server's checks then yes they'll get an appropriate error code back, but that's a last-ditch check because Rule #1: you can't trust anything a spammer sends you, this includes their HELO/EHLO command.

    2. Re:Why you're not responding? by XanC · · Score: 1

      So why are people's emails going into a blackhole, rather than them getting a bounce from their server?

      Or maybe I misread your original sentence about people contacting you out-of-band; I interpreted that to mean they had no clue why you weren't answering, but it could easily be as a result of an undeliverable notification. My bad.

    3. Re:Why you're not responding? by RollingThunder · · Score: 1

      If he firewalls, they will get a "message undeliverable" from their own mailserver, since it can't connect to his mailserver to hand the message off. The message won't dissappear from their local mail queue just because he's bit-bucketing the packets that are trying to establish connection.

    4. Re:Why you're not responding? by LarrySDonald · · Score: 1

      Many do to prevent verifying the existence of an address. This is pretty reasonable, especially if the email leads itself to a username (not that they do much anymore) and to prevent general recon for compiling "good" lists. A few years back I wrote a script to verify a few hundred email addresses (for good, in fact you'd have to pay $100/month or so to be on it - some journal about labor law cases). About half would treat existing and non-existing addresses equally, of the rest about half sent bounces, half denied you in SMTP. I'm sure number have changed. In the far past, it was common to bounce "doesn't exist" to spam, hoping to be taken off the list. Kinda like beeping a fax tone at automated telemarketing dialers. Neither worked all that long.

    5. Re:Why you're not responding? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Be a good citizen and tar pit. It only costs a few cycles...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Why you're not responding? by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      Rule #1: you can't trust anything a spammer sends you, this includes their HELO/EHLO command.

      Perhaps you should learn more about SMTP.

      Although the parameter to HELO can be an outright lie, unless it's not following the RFC, you just accept it and ignore it. Anyone who uses a syntactically correct HELO to block e-mail is just asking for trouble.

      What's important is the connecting IP address, envelope sender, and envelope recipient, only one of which can be faked in any meaningful way and still result in a chance to deliver e-mail. With just those three pieces of information, you can block almost all true spam without needing to close off vast swaths of the Internet at your firewall.

      Using greylisting, strict SMTP RFC compliance checks, and SpamAssassin with scoring for blacklists, and with nearly 500 active e-mail accounts that end up in my inbox, and I generally see less than one piece of spam every day, although on really bad days I see two or three.

  26. "incentivize" by XanC · · Score: 1

    The word is "incite".

    1. Re:"incentivize" by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      It is irritating to see the birth of yet another corporate-speak word. Unfortunately I don't think incite is going to ever be a good replacement. Incite has the strong connotation of encouraging someone to do something bad instead of something good.

      Unfortunately, given its origins, "incentivize" is likely to acquire the same connotation over time.

    2. Re:"incentivize" by iangoldby · · Score: 1

      Try 'motivate'.

  27. Exactly!! by XanC · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They're desperate to show that they're doing something. Make it so they have to do something to maintain the status quo and everybody's happy.

    1. Re:Exactly!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might lead to some complexities in law such as remembering when all the laws lapse and their replacements take affect. However this will likely be in the more advanced concerns such as the laws affecting your line of business and hence it would be your job to keep up on these laws. Another problem may occur when the laws sunset and their replacement can't be negotiated due to one party stonewalling maybe for harsher punishment/less harsh etc but again this would likely be kept in check due to laws such as say again the murder case having an extra sense of urgency to keep a lapse period from occurring and the damage that would occur. It would help keep the laws and their punishments current and really how many laws can you write without micro managing the whole country, I don't see it so much as the politicians showboating for the sake of showboating but you outlaw murder, kidnapping etc how much do you really want to be involved in peoples daily lives. Many will probably say "its all they think about," but would defiantly warrant further consideration.

  28. Re:You Don't. That's the point. by davidjohnburrowes · · Score: 1

    This sounds reasonable. How do I go about making sure my ISP/hosting provider is not harboring spammers/botnets? Is there a reputable site somewhere where this kinda info is tracked?

  29. Slums? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, spammers and the IPs they use, and areas that the poorest of the poor live in is a really good analogy.

    1. Re:Slums? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Village of the Spammed?

  30. Re:Slums? I'm a gangsta! My epic will bust a cap by whychevron · · Score: 1

    well I'm from south central Orgrimmar we will bust a spell in yours

  31. Downbelow finally explained by earlymon · · Score: 1

    I always wondered how Downbelow really could really happen in an enlightened, spacefaring society.

    See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_5_(space_station)

    Substitute "IP slums" for "Downbelow" and "information-based" for "spacefaring."

    See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocities#Neighborhoods

    --
    Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    1. Re:Downbelow finally explained by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      I think they explained that pretty well in the series, and even discussed the social conditions that lead to it.

      1) Lots of people on speculative journeys (think gold-rush mentality) that had a tough time and can't afford the return trip home.
      2) Refugees from war, political and religious persecution, etc.

      Throw in some compassion on the administration's part (eg, not just going to throw them out an airlock), but not full-fledged socialism, and voila, a slum.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    2. Re:Downbelow finally explained by earlymon · · Score: 1

      I acknowledge the explanation - and truly appreciate your clarification of it.

      I've always seen slums as something that holds over from the past, and couldn't really understand how they got them in a new space station. It was a bias on my part.

      But seeing it occur in fairly new tech (per this article / thread), kinda opened the door for me to begin to accept how that worked.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
  32. Re:You Don't. That's the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with this is when ARIN takes back IP space and then hands it back out to another ISP. Such is the case at my company where one of our new /18's apparently had some /24s in it that were listed on blacklists PRIOR to our having ever had this IP space. It was obviously space ARIN got back from some other company and then assigned it to us when we requested more IPs.

  33. Re:"illegal activity" is another person's "freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think another example would be many of the morality crimes as well.

  34. Does Krebs mentions slums? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    @turtleshadow: Is 'slum' the best analogy you can come up with? As though slums everywhere are singularly about criminality? Do you live in Palm Beach or something? Monaco? What a thoughtless way to caricature people all round the world, and miss the point you want to make about criminality on the internet. See, in real life, slums are where people live when they've trying to make ends meet but just don't have the resources or infrastructure they need. You won't find spam kings working from Kibeira.

    1. Re:Does Krebs mentions slums? by turtleshadow · · Score: 1

      I just looked at wikipedia under slum
      That which matched for me for lack of better words were:

      They are commonly seen as "breeding grounds" for social problems such as crime, drug addiction, alcoholism, high rates of mental illness, and suicide. In many poor countries they exhibit high rates of disease due to unsanitary conditions, malnutrition, and lack of basic health care...

      Many slum dwellers employ themselves in the informal economy. This can include street vending, drug dealing, domestic work, and prostitution...

      I drew a parallel of corruption or chaotic governance to the named ISP's by Krebs and as such seemed to have met the analogy well enough.

      I rejected Ghetto for wiki's alignment to ethnicity or the word Barrio which upscales in a certain language and Hooverville which implied an economic basis.

      I possibly could say Mos Eisley or Tatooine both are a more focused but lesser known reference and wouldn't work with the reference to Monopoly addresses which are cheap vs expensive based on arbitrary or cultural value.

      Spam kings may not work out of Kibeira directly but they could somehow make .NG totally worthless if spammers/malware moved in and everybody else started to filter them out based on this. This is actually a real threat in my mind to developing nations and would injure innocent persons by the acts of such persons willing to sacrifice them for a fast buck.

      Realistically, many people in business do look at your TLD and determine on that alone if they are going to continue to do business with you.

      My point in asking was how get opinions to recover and redeem such a place which is exactly I think your alluding to. I don't condemn or demean any people who in real life are in such places not by choice or don't have a way out.

  35. "Slums" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't call it the slums of the internet. While it may be true that with the poor we have a lot of criminal activity it can be said that with the rich we have the most destructive type of criminal activity. And for the internet the blacklisted IPs represent the places with criminal activity, nothing more and nothing less.

  36. Re:How does one renovate and recoup the lost trust by DeadDecoy · · Score: 1

    And surfs for porn in the interim.

  37. Re:How does one renovate and recoup the lost trust by countertrolling · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... never lies, and is always right

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  38. Re:haha funny by donaggie03 · · Score: 1

    What's the problem? That was a completely correct use of the colon!

    --
    Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
  39. Re:You Don't. That's the point. by ermon · · Score: 1

    If you're an ISP or hosting provider, and you harbor spammers and botnets, the IP ranges you hold are permanently devalued. That means it's harder for you to get customers, more expensive to support your legitimate customers, and your business, when you decide to sell it, is worth less than if you'd booted the goddamn spammers off your network when you had the chance.

    While this is good policy on it's face, it has a severe problem - the ISP itself is not permanent. What if the spam-friendly ISP goes out of business and it's IP range is reassigned to a spam-hostile provider?

    The parent seems to conflate an IP address assignment with an ISP. IP assignment is not permanent - IP addresses and ranges can and have been reassigned from one provider to another.

    Based on the type of permanent blacklisting argued for by the parent, the spam-hostile provider is still blocked simply because they reside in the a range previously owned by spammers. Over time, spammers move around and contaminate an ever growing portion of the IP space. If this IP space cannot be reclaimed the number of useful IP addresses will shrink over time.

    In some sense, IPv6 is the solution - but until that blessed day arrives, IPv4 addresses are in short supply. As a result, some method of reclaiming "bad" IP addresses once their owners reform must be made available.

    That is precisely the question under discussion here.

  40. be careful by socsoc · · Score: 1

    How about you don't accept the IP addresses of the slums and ask your provider for clean ones?

  41. Good question by buss_error · · Score: 1

    Aside from calling the IP allocations formerly used by criminals "slums", this is actually a very important question. All of McColo's space is still in my edge routers as "drop". I only checked because of the connection with this story. Does it make sense to drop those blocks now? I'm not entirely sure, and since no one is complaining (as yet), why WOULD I remove them?

    Should we look to some authority to publish a list, something like the SpamHaus DROP list?
    Should we start looking to ICANN to more strongly enforce removing bad actors? What rules, which guide lines? Is sending spam ok, but not being known to host fraud sites? Why? Who decides?

    I think it highly ironic that SAVVIS commented upon IP allocations that are "poison" for email. Perhaps it's a case of "the burned hand teaches best." Those that deal with more than a modicum of email will know the back story to that vis-a-vi SAVVIS networks.

    I may not be smart enough to have the answers, but I think I'm smart enough to know when someone asks a pretty drun good question. I think this is one.

    Part of the answer may be for a system of distributed log inspection. Obviously, some of the information will need to be sanitized before being sent to third parties. Just as obviously, some way to keep the system from being abused by governments needs to be considered. How to do that without giving repressive governments a very powerful tool is something I've been thinking about for over five years. To date, I don't know that it can be done. I do think that if it cannot be closely kept to identifying command and control or infected hosts, it should NOT be done.

    I want to shut down and stop criminals - not stifle those that protest against their governments.

    --
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
    1. Re:Good question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you smart enough to explain to the rest of us what drun means?

    2. Re:Good question by buss_error · · Score: 1

      Means I phat fingered durn, and didn't catch it before hitting "submit".

      --
      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
  42. My situation by i_ate_god · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I setup my first postfix daemon, I failed. Took my days. One day, it seemed like it was working, but wasn't accepting username and password logins. I went to bed, didn't stop postfix.

    The next day I get an email from my colo asking why some of my IPs are being blacklisted. The colo apparently got notified that two of my IP addresses are spammers. I looked at my logs and sure enough, I stupidly let postfix run as an open smtp server and some guy started using it to send out spam.

    So I stopped that, but now what? Yahoo won't accept my emails. Craigslist won't accept my emails. Hotmail moves them into the junk folder. Yahoo had the best help.

    http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/postmaster/errors/;_ylt=ArX8PxnGVabUYKQmtOrSQN5vMiV4

    So the error message I was getting from Yahoo was related to spamhaus. I stopped postfix, finally got it up and running properly with authentication, and sent an email to the SBL list guys ( http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/delistingprocedure.html ) and got delisted pretty quickly.

    Sending emails to Yahoo now worked fine. Other places were slower to realize that I was not a spammer, but all in all, it took about 6 months for the dust to settle, and a few more emails to various places to say "hey! I am not a spammer!".

    For a major business, this can be a problem, but these lists aren't private. When doing research on where to create your new home on the internet, checking to see if they are blacklisted anywhere first would be a prudent thing to do.

    --
    I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    1. Re:My situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sent an email to the SBL list guys ( http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/delistingprocedure.html [spamhaus.org] ) and got delisted pretty quickly.

      Yes, but are you still on SORBS?

      Company I used to work for had their ip address space hijacked over six years ago. Got it cleaned up and off every other list relatively quickly. Repeated contacts over the years to SORBS by various postmasters, jumping through every conceivable hoop to no avail.

      Anyone that uses SORBS for anything is an idiot.

  43. Re:You Don't. That's the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you tried a new website, google.com?

  44. Re:You Don't. That's the point. by Bengie · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, once IPv6 hits, IPs will be given out based on location. Don't like Russia, ban one subnet and you're good.

  45. blocklisted? by socsoc · · Score: 1

    A heavily blocklisted network quickly becomes unattractive to legitimate businesses

    Is that like a blacklisted net? Can someone spam them an editor please?

    1. Re:blocklisted? by gujo-odori · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Among antispam industry professionals (yes, I am one) the term blocklist appears to be slowly displacing blacklist as the term of choice.

  46. Re:haha funny by MBCook · · Score: 1
    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  47. Re:How does one renovate and recoup the lost trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are legion. Expect us.

  48. Hogwash: Building codes are regulatory by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Hogwash: Building codes are regulatory, just like FCC and FAA rules, or public utilities commission rules. The only laws involved are usually rather simple and to the point in delegating the authority to an administrative agency generally controlled by the executive branch of the appropriate government.

    As far as tax law, it's only necessary to not have a graduated flat tax (e.g. taxed on what you earn above minimum was times 2080 hours + $1) if you are intent on hiding your legislative cronyism, malfeasance, kickbacks, and unfunded mandates in the tax code. If you want to legislate social policy, then be honest and legislate social policy, and if what you do is unpopular, you don't get reelected.

    Also, I remember a debate from my college days when it was suggested that the best form of government was in fact a benevolent dictatorship. No thank you.

    P.S.: I'd still like someone to explain to me why the disincentive for second degree murder should be less than the disincentive for first degree murder; the victim is still just as dead, right?

    -- Terry

    1. Re:Hogwash: Building codes are regulatory by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      Also, I remember a debate from my college days when it was suggested that the best form of government was in fact a benevolent dictatorship. No thank you.

      Of course the best form of government is benevolent dictatorship. The only problem is that benevolent dictatorships tend not to stay benevolent, especially when authority is passed down to the dictator's heirs.

  49. Kibera is in Nairobi,Kenya not Nigeria by turtleshadow · · Score: 1

    OK Im mistaken Kibera is in Nairobi,Kenya not Nigeria.

  50. Wait a few years by Animats · · Score: 1

    Wait a few years. In five years or so, those addresses will have scrolled off blacklists. It's not a big deal.

  51. Cleaning Dirty IP Addresses (howto) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It takes a bit of time, but if you inherate a 'dirty' IP Address. AKA, one that was used by a spammer or porn website, you need to visit the maintainers of the blacklists.

    http://www.spamhaus.org/

    and

    http://www.spamcop.net/

    You send them an email about your situation, and the ISP that issued you the IP addresses need to Also contact them. They (spamhaus and spamcop) will then base your request of if they receive anymore spam complaints.

    Then you can 'clean' the 'dirty' IP Address.

    As far as Spam goes, that is how you do it. But, for other blacklists, you have to contact them.

    Just send them an Email and claim your a new owner and are not affiliated with the 'Slum Lords' past or with them in any way,

  52. Blacklist recycling by Pf0tzenpfritz · · Score: 1

    On my webserver, I delete the upper third of all addresses in /etc/hosts.deny every couple of weeks. One hour later they usually are back at the bottom of the file. Maybe I should run a weekly line count and collect some stats on it.

    --
    Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
  53. Re:How does one renovate and recoup the lost trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Never sleeps either. The internet waits.

    I thought Al Gore was the Internet, not Chuck Norris?

  54. Blacklists should expire agressively by badger.foo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The problem here seems to be badly maintained blacklists. After seeing way too many false positives on various blacklists out there, the only lists I would use are ones that expire their entries in a matter of days or hours. The good ones that I use are uatraps (greytrapping generated, 24 hour expiry) and nixspam (IIRC max 4 days after last seen spam activity). Then of course I maintain my own greytrap list (see the traplist homepage and the traplist ethics pagefor details).

    The point is, you need to expire entries aggressively. Keeping entries around because somebody received a spam from somewhere in that general direction four years ago is just silly. And don't get me started on blacklisting domains. If there is one thing we know with almost total certainty, it is that spammers never use From: or Reply-to: addresses that have anything vaguely to do with the real senders.

    --
    -- That grumpy BSD guy - http://bsdly.blogspot.com/
  55. Re:Slums? I'm a gangsta! My epic will bust a cap by borizz · · Score: 1

    Stormwind Mage Quarter represesent yo! Chilling with the homies in the basement of the Slaughtered Lamb.

  56. Re:You Don't. That's the point. by Claws+Of+Doom · · Score: 1

    Car Analogy: If you're doing your own oil changes, and instead of hauling the waste oil to a recycler, you dump it into your backyard, don't complain when you try and sell your house and the highest bid still leaves you $100,000 underwater on your mortgage, or requires you to spend $150,000 remediating it. Your property is worth less than it could have been, had you only been a better steward of it.

    I'd hate to see your house analogies.

  57. I read it as "slurms" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read it as "slurms".

  58. But if you clean up the Net Slums... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    ...where will Helba live?

  59. How about Slashdot? by Marauder2 · · Score: 1

    I have been trying to get one of my IPs unblocked by Slashdot for several months now and have seem to have hit a black hole, emails go in never to be seen again...

  60. Address Blocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine if we treated real mail the same way?

    Block by carrier? (Sorry USPS, you delivered too much junk mail)
    Block by street? Neighborhood? City? State? (Sorry New Hampshire).

  61. Re:How does one renovate and recoup the lost trust by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

    ... is Mother, is Father...

  62. Change the name by mahadiga · · Score: 1

    Change the name.Period.

    --
    I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga