Slashdot Mirror
"Usenet Death Penalty" against AOL
An anonymous reader wrote in to send us an article from
Deja News discussing the fact that German Usenet Admins
have declared AOL Rogue, and are discussing
banning the ISP
to cut down trolls and spam. The RFD ist auf Deutsch,
so you might wanna hit up
Babelfish for
your usual amusingly broken translation.
I think it's funny that you're posting a pro-spam
message from ecohort@spammeanddie.com.
FYI, bulk faxing was made illegal even though the
cost to the recipient is tiny. That's not the
point. It costs me money, period. If spam went
unchecked, maybe it wouldn't be only a few seconds
a day wasted on it.
-- kyle-slash@toehold.com (Kyle Hasselbacher)
We'd study the mess that Usenet has become, and design a new system, to perform the same functio, but do a better job (I think Fred Brooks would approve).
Yes, I've heard of Usenet 2, but I think their priorities are a bit screwy. We need privacy and free speech. All abuses can be kept within sane limits by machine-enforced quotas.
Well, since most AOL users are your common, average idiot, I don't think any of them would pass the test. That's a beautifully simple solution. The questions might go like this:
1. Someone posts something that's totally opposite to what you believe. You then:
a. Post an intelligent, well thought arguement that adds to the debate.
b. Type an angry reply, one sentence long, in all caps.
c. Accept the difference and continue on your merry way, or
d. Kick the dog
Any other additions?
You missed the point of this whole affair by more than a couple attoparsecs there. I was going to post an explanation, but I'm at work, don't have my /. password handy, and besides, the particular insight you are so apparently lacking is only a mouse click away. Even an AOLer could find it.
What ISP's are you talking about Xs4all (err... KPN (the dutch telco)), Cistron, Knoware, WorldOffline?
(Think it's impossible? One phrase: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?")
it is the company. that's their business. allowing people to use /ignore on irc, etc. I'd say to those of you
(and abuse) internet services. I've already severed communication channels to them by placing
procmailrc, htaccess,
who are in a position to make these changes systemwide, go for it. let aol know that they are not welcome on your computers.
those of you who do not have root, you also have options such as those I have described. the less
ability aol has to access internet hosts, the more likely they will split up into local groups, on smaller isps, where
abuse is easier to handle. aol has clearly shown that they do not care for their
users' actions in any case, and it's up to the rest of us to take individual action.
Neither are yours.. harharhar.
I know, I was just playing around. I'm just a goofy fellow with an eye for homur (good and bad :-). I'm glad you took my friendly jabbing as I intended, not as an insult. Sometimes I can't help myself...
Anyway, back to the topic!
Oh dear God I meant "humor"! :-)
If AOL is so great, why am I getting a dozen or so spams per day on my AOL account coming from other AOL accounts, touting the various online casinos, porno sites, etc.? I am routinely forwarding them to TOSEmail1 like a good little member, but I'm getting sick of it. (The spam from outside of AOL, including the stuff showing an "@aol.com" return address, which is clearly bogus, goes to TOSspam).
And the others who have posted here complaining about the non-response to "abuse@aol.com", ought to get AOL accounts and feel what it's like from the inside - it's WORSE !!
AOL could do a much better job cleaning up the mess, and they know it. But, what do you expect from a bunch of retards who can't be bothered to port their crappy member software to Windows NT?
They're making money hand over fist, but can't be bothered to make good use of it.
This analogy doesn't fly. There is a big difference between saying that you are not allowed to talk because you think bad thoughts and you are not allowed to talk because every time someone else tries to say anything you just start screaming at the top of your voice. To make an analogy you are not a racist if you choose not to invite a jerk to your party no matter what race thay are. It's not that they are trying to be bigots against aol, they just don't want to invite the irresponsible kid over to play.
Cool. I hope everyone follows this good example
and starts banning AOL from their SMTP servers, web servers (yes, AOLers scan for mail addresses too) and so on. Phew!
Hm, I prefer slrn myself, just because it can score on more headers. Of course, it's bloody slow when you do, but whatchagonnado.
Forget 'netgod' and let me clarify something.
This Call for UDP lacks the administrator support
and is therefore completely irrelevant. The guys
proposing this RfD knew it in advance. Furthermore
they reject offers to admin-admin telefon calls.
All I did was, phoning the TechC of aol.de. There
I explained why the RfD is sensless and there real
problem: A single spammer in a few newsgroups.
This spammer uses a fresh AOL test CD per day.
Despite this pratice violates AOL test CD rules,
testing should not include posting access.
Result of multiple calls (due to RfD misunder-
standing at press department): AOL test CDs will
be not able to post into newsgroups ASAP. And
-most important- AOL TechC subscribed to the
international German speaking news-admin ML.
Lutz Donnerhacke
http://spam.abuse.net/
http://maps.vix.com/
It will help you understand why spam is morally and *technically* evil.
When we have to resort to such heavyhanded tactics, in order to maintain a semblance of order, isn't that a sign that the system is fundamentally broken?
If we could enforce per-user quotas on Usenet, it would cut out almost all of the junk, without rmeotely approaching censorship. It would Spamming no longer feasible. Long boring screeds would be rare. And quotas would limit the spread of flames. As for trolling, that wouldn't be an issue if hotheads weren't so easily provoked. So the issue with trolls is really an issue with flamers.
Of course, there are lots of other issues. For instance, the top level heirarchy makes very little sense. And there are too many junk groups, etc.
When I was running my static IP's, I set up ipfwadm to filter out all packets originating from several ISP's. AOL was one (Easy enough to find all their IP's and filter them) as was the entirety of Agis.net, from whence a lot of spam seemed to be originating. ipfwadm and its replacement, ipchains, are wonderful tools.
of a lot of people
it doesnt harm the net access of a lot of people, it harms aol users ability to post to some german language newsgroups. few aol users speak german, and even fewer would have anything interesting to say in those newsgroups.
A demonstration of exactly what I wrote about netiquette. Only
at Slashdot would someone waste his time complaining that
an interesting post should be marked down.
It is very pertinent and on-topic, especially considering the
general tone of posts which state or imply that AOL users are
the bane of civilization but perhaps, with the help of Slahsdotters,
can be uplifted out of ignorance....
I don't care how the post gets rated. And, to reply to your post,
I'm not so sure that the majority of slashdotters disagree with
much of the post you regard as a troll. Some very vocal, elitist
wannabe nerds, perhaps, who look down their noses at lusers...
It's something they may not think about much and take for
granted - the current system of ISPs and portals which exploit
people using the internet.
Giving individual users the rights and responsibilities of domain
owners would eliminate much of the spam for logistics reasons
alone - it's a lot more expensive to spam a large number of
individual domains and to maintain the mailing lists. This would
also force individual users to become more responsible or to
seek help on their own rather than own if they want to use
the net.
Finally, is your immature reaction to a post for God's sake?
I hope God has something better to think about that the ratings
of posts at Slashdot.
Holy flames
It's the company, not the users.
First, the extremely large number of users attracts people who
exploit them with spam and much worse. AOL also exploits
users with pop-up ads that are difficult to remove - like having
one's name taken off a junk mailing list.
Most AOL users just use email for communicating with
relatives and friends and are quite harmless. Very few post
anywhere, even within AOL's own chat rooms.
I think Slashdotters need lessons in netequitte. Relative to the
number of posts or readers, AOL's user base is quite civilized.
The solution is to eliminate ISP's and proliferating domains.
Every citizen of the world should be given a domain, but only
one, and every company allowed only one. ISP's would just
be relay points whose services are contracted by phone and
cable companies or whatever is used to carry the traffic, perhaps
providing storage as well for those connecting with set-top
boxes or other devices that are not full computers. In other words
a net address would be a like a post office address now is.
Many domains would remain inactive, for those choosing not
to use the internet, but many others would be activated. Of
course this would require a reworking of the entire infrastructure
of the net, and can't be done overnight. The way traffic
is handled will change anyway, so why not change it in a manner
which facilitates democracy and true free enterprise rather than
what we have now, which is exploitation of users by unscrupulous
parties providing services whose value is vastly overestimated.
This way every individual, or company, would be responsible for
their own email and content, and real point to point communication
would become a practical reality.
Many nerds are opposed to such freedom, because they make
a good living exploiting users by owning or working for ISPs.
What services do ISP's provide, really. What services do
portals provide? Mostly the illusion of friendliness and convenience.
This would also vastly increase the trade for nerds and others
providing contractural services to individual domain owners,
but in a free market and not by exploiting captive audiences
using ISP"s and portals.
Most importantly it would eliminate the sale and hoarding of
domain names, which really should be outlawed. Anyone with
a grain of sense can see that this practice violates every
principle of human rights and international law.
I am all for this, if enough of a movement gets started to teach AOL a lesson, I would be more than happy to also do it at the small ISP I run.
"I am sorry, but we do not accept mail from AOL here"
Damn, that would be so satisfying.
One problem is, there ARE some intelligent AOL users. My favorite poster to a.p.t is from AOL.
AOL users can't mail some ISP's in the Netherlands and I think this trend will continue AOL cleans up it's act. It's a good thing too, if a lot of ISP's decide to ban AOL, it's a choice: either AOL or the "real" internet. I used to get 4x spams per week from AOL users. I used to forward every message with a complaint.. it HAS stopped recently.
friend, that AOL doesn't take action against spammers when notified, and that several Usenet groups are currently being destroyed by spammers using a series of free trial AOL accounts.
From Babelfish, with a little help from me:
Something to add to the discussion: there seems to be a difference in handling abuse of American and of German AOL users. AOL Germany is a subsidiary of publisher Bertelsmann, so it's a different company than AOL US. In the discussion following the posting of the RfD it was mentioned that while AOL US does honor abuse-notifications, AOL Germany doesn't. I can't verify that myself, though.
Another interesting fact is that according to German "netgod" Lutz Donnerhacke AOL Germany is understanding the problem is going to make an announcement to the (de-)abuse-groups, soon.
Finally, the RfD is obviously lacking support of German news-admins so probably the effect, a successful CfV will have, will be minimal. BTW: It is not cleared, yet, if a formal CfV is possible.
- Sebastian Rittau
I wouldn't call a UDP "forming a cartel and blocking" an ISP. You're simply stopping them from participating in Usenet. It's not like you're blocking them from the Internet.
Also, I would say that if a company doesn't play by the "rules", a lot of little companies crushing them is perfectly fair play.
That's sort of a defeatist attitude, but to a certain extent you are right.
I don't believe that by enforcing the rules now that it should have long ago that USENET will die. Maybe it can be saved from the spammers. Maybe A time will come when all usenet messages can be traced to their authors (the real ones)
That degree of personal accountability is missing, which means that lots of people will take advantage of being anonymous.
Don't get me wrong, being anonymous has advantages sometimes... for whistle blowing, etc, Nobody needs to know what I'm looking at when I surf, but for alt.fan.star-wars? Seriously, who needs to be anonymous there? You're posting to the public...
> controlling content on the internet on behalf
> of their population or any other way of
> "controlling" the internet
So what's the issue here? The issue here is freedom. If I want to go look at porn, or see information on abortion, or read anti-{insert your country here} propaganda, I should be allowed to. Freedom does not include "doing anything you want." I should not be able to degrade the quality of your service.
I should be free to view whatever content I want.
Spam, however, is another matter entirely. An email message sent to my account is not the same thing as a web page sitting out there. An email to me gets to me, and I am forced to wade through it in order to get to the rest of my messages. The spam sent to me actually causes me harm (in terms of lost time, lost bandwith, and lost disk space). A web page sitting out there that I don't want to see doesn't affect me at all.
USENET has rules. For example, posts are supposed to stay on topic, avoid flames, don't cross post to 1000 different groups. AOL users have violated the policies, and AOL refuses to do anything about it. In order to keep the net sane, they've got to be controled. So we have the freedom to read on topic posts and not see ads for sex sites in EVERY newsgroup.
Here's the principal difference, the Austrailian government is an "outside", "foreign" force trying to impose on how much of the internet their citizens can see and use. The German admins are "inside", "domestic" forces making use of the standard internet self-regulatory features that have evolved over the decades (an eternety in internet time).
Think of it this way: Australia is trying to impose a trade embargo on the Internet (and trying to get local businesses to pay for and manage the blockade). The German admins are police trying to get a drunk tourist to stop disturbing the peace.
To put it another way, Austrailia is insisting one group of people (ISP's) censor another group of people (normal citizen's). The Germans are determining what takes up the space they paid for, and announcing it to the world in case others feel like following suit.
That's why most of us support the German admin's actions instead of the Australian government's.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
What would prevent anyone in Australia from using an encrypted network tunnel (i.e. "simple" ones like PPP over TCP/UDP through an SSH stream or more complex ones like IPSEC)? If they had a host in a free country (say, the USA) to work with, they could just set themselves up with another access point, and they would bypass any restrictions the government imposed.
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
The problem is that it isn't that simple. Most malicious spammers now use a technique called superceding where they basically overwrite the body of "signal" messages with noise. This makes it look like legitimate posters in the newsgroup are posting spam under legitimate titles. IMHO this is the most vile kind of spam, since not only does it increase the noise of a newsgroup, it actively decreases the signal, and destroys countless discussions. The worst part is that moderation is usually ineffective agsinst this kind of attack.
I read the internet for the articles.
The MAPS RBL should be manditory (it's availible with Sendmail), but ORBS is more radical in it's relay checking. It's very similar to a UDP but invoked often for lesser reasons. A better Relay blocker, the Radparker Relay Spam Stopper (RRSS), is availble and practices the same goals as the MAPS RBL in respect to open relays.
If every admin read news.admin.net-abuse.email and .usenet, then the world would be less spam-free.
---
Spammed? Click here for free slack on how to fight it!
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
That may be true, but if a cartel of ISP's all decide on a certain policy, you are still totally pimped. In the US there are laws limiting collusion between supposedly competing businesses, but they are rarely effective unless there is blatant price fixing going on.
Well, why were you contacting AOL then? Denial of Service is illegal, and therefore a law enforcement problem. Contact law enforcement, and let them deal with it. AOL will listen if you go through the proper law enforcement channels first.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Well, I've had a lot of problems with *.home.com's unsecured wingates. *.mediaone.com as well. Why not just ban all cablemodem users? Sure, that's fair. Ban AOL, ban cablemodems, ban anybody else remotely likely to cause trouble, and you'll have a trouble-free network. You'll also have no users.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I've never gotten a reply from Earthlink or Mindspring about spam or denial of service attacks from their users. AOL actually replied. Go figure.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Small ISPs tend to be quite helpful. However, large ISPs are for the most part not. AOL is no worse in this regard than Earthlink, Mindspring, @Home, UUNet, and a myriad of other ISPs that do little to get rid of their abuse users and spam problems. AOL is, in fact, better than many of these ISPs, as it is at least trying to get rid of spammers. AOL, unlike most of the other ISPs, has actually taken large spammers to court, and actively goes after their accounts.
Perhaps you should check the SMTP servers in the headers of the spam you get - the majority of spam from @aol.com is not from AOL - anybody can write "From: bob@aol.com" in the headers.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Umm, your reply made little sense to me. I want to email people I know on AOL. I do not appreciate an ISP telling me I cannot email these people.
Telling the people "get a new ISP" is not an option. It is not my place to tell my acquaintances what ISPs they are allowed to use, just as it is not my ISP's place to tell me who I am allowed to send email to.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Banning an ISP because lots of its users are clueless seems like a bad idea to me. First of all, the majority of UseNet problems are from spam, and the majority of UseNet spam does not originate from AOL. AOL is in fact one of the few ISPs actively combating spam, even taking large spammers to court. Earthlink, Mindspring, FlashNet, etc., are all much more guilty in this field. Why don't we ban them all for refusing to clean up their spam problem?
This whole deal seems as absurd to me as the fact that several IRC networks banned all cablemodem providers since a lot of cablemodem users had improperly configured WinGate software that allowed abuse.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It's not being proposed that AOL use their own customer base against something; It's being proposed that *an outside group* turn AOL's customers against them.
If AOL (or MS, or anyone else) tried to force their own customers to rise up against someone, I would consider that unacceptable. This is not.
When I was cracked quite some time ago, I called what turned out to be the wrong ISP, and asked for help. They traced the cracker past them to his true home, and were otherwise extremely helpful.
Thankfully, I've only been attacked this once; However, I understand that this kind of assistance and cooperation is commonplace. Were I running an ISP, I would try to offer it myself.
Even an instance on use of proper channels by AOL is ungentlemanly, making them far worse netizens than almost all other ISPs out there. Their unwillingness to offer help against what is generally considered a common enemy is a Very Bad Thing, and I understand other ISPs wishing to have nothing to do with them.
>If M$ refused to support it's customer base
They already do.
> USENET is not the Internet police. No one is.
This has about as much heft as me claiming that no one has the right to tell anyone what to do. It may be true in my way of thinking, but the fact is that a society cannot function like that.
Besides, it's not your systems in question here, so what you think is irrelevant.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
I wasn't speaking about spammers, but the metoo-type posters. I stopped using usenet before the spam was that bad, because of all the noise from worthless/offtopic/etc posts.
?
I agree with you. My original post was an impulse post. I was going on what I had seen a couple years ago. I know longer read usenet on a frequent basis. I quit largely because of all the noise. And that was before the spam got really bad.
Unrestricted trial accounts are Evil. Deja news does at least make you go through an extra step of verifing with another e-mail account before you can e-mail or post from there. Not much of check, but it is better than nothing. I only hope they aren't content with that and are looking for a better checking system.
I think aol has improved their image some, here recently. So I don't wish a UDP on them, but I hope it cause them to evaluate some of their processes, including restricted trial acounts (other than a time limit) and user education.
?
Hopefully the threat alone will cause AOL to make some changes. I know it's not the company itself, it's the users, but since they know they have the largest base of newbies they should do something.
What is that something? How about forcing users to take a quiz on netiquette that they must pass before given the ability to post. Even just a major effort to educate their users would be a step in the right direction. Most ISPs don't have to worry about this, but AOL isn't most ISPs.
?
I also would like AOL to actually react to mails to abuse@aol.net, not just having their ignorebot giving me replies.
That's a good reason for a UDP. If AOL isn't doing it's part to keep the usnet useable, it must not be allowed to participate. Consider a responsive abuse role account to be a requirement for participation.
>You mean that the ad for non-surgical lyposuction
>is an idea that needs protection?
I don't have to--the United States Supreme Court already did. As an attorney i think that the doctrine of "commercial free speech" is one of (but not the) worst to come out of the court in its history, but it'ss there. It came up in the context of lawyer advertising, which virtually every bar association and licensing authority banned. It is now permitted over their objections.
I'm going through one of my cyclic fits where I yank linux for freebsd, and don't have newsposting working yet. So I tried dejanews, but they seem to have removed threaded reading in their latest "update" (I *defy* you to read alt.folklore.computers without threading). So I cringed and tried remarq again (cringing because last time I tried, it kept failing and feeding me pages about what to change on IIis to fix its problem, when it gave me anything). It is no longer possible to retrieve a message with junkbuster active--you're given the page pof most recent articles whatever you do. Turn off junkbuster, and it loads. Somehow, it's detecting the proxy and refusing to function. And there's now way I'm letting doubleclick set cookies and flash blinkies at me . . .
and it doesn't help that changing the blockfile seems to trigger linux-netscape (the only one i could get to work at all) to crash on freebsd . . .
So I suppose I just wait a few days until i figure out posting . . .
I guess that's why I (and probably many of us love Slashdot). It's reminiscent of the USENET of long ago. It discusses mostly tech topics and topics of interest to fellow geeks. The S/N ratio is pretty high. Newbies (usually in September) were whacked for bad postings after which they fell into line or were filtered out with killfiles (you rarely had to go this far, though). There was zero spam (it was once a usenet axiom that *you* *don't* *post* *ads* *in* *newsgroups*- *period*. [expecting .forsale and later biz.* groups]). USENET had a common culture back then much like Slashdot has a common culture now. Unfortunately it's a catch-22. Success, like when the internet went mainstream, destroys that culture. USENET is a wasteland now. And Slashdot is becoming popular... hmmm... we shall see. At least Slashdot has a control element the anarchastic USENET lacked.
For content, sure... but this fscking web interface sucks. Good ol' trn, last updated in 1993, still kicks the pants off of the scroll and drool web interface for usability in reading large numbers of messages.
NetBSD: the cathedral vs the bizzare.
Ok so you don't know anything about spam and the First Amendment. The first Amendment protects unpopular ideas not advertizing. You gonna tell me that ads are speech that need protection? The first amendment doesn't mean all's fair.
I'm bothered when I see websites, (including a certain Linux User Group) have a blue Internet ribbon on one side, and a "fight spam" on the other. To me, that sends a contradictory message. "I'm for free speech as long as I approve of it."
Please!! You mean that the ad for non-surgical lyposuction is an idea that needs protection? Do you see us complaining about an unpopular idea? Do you see us trying to get the microsoft web site closed down? No! We just want an end to advertizing where it prohibited!
The money spam causes is from the terabytes of advertizing floating arround usenet that each news server has to deal with. Why don't you keep that mail on you hard drive. Post I LIKE SPAM on a newsgroup and use your REAL e-mail address. See how long it takes for you to delete that!
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
It seems to me that some people here define their freedom by limiting other people's freedom. This is not what i would call freedom.
My freedom ends where yours begins - and freedom always comes with responsibility. You're free to do whatever you want, you're responsible for your actions, you must not limit the freedom of others. It's a simple principle that can and does cause pretty complex situations.
Usually it's obvious, for instance, think about this: Somebody comes along and puts lots of advertisement stickers on my property. No matter how easy they are to be removed, if I don't want them, I shouldn't be bothered with it.
On your property, feel free to put those stickers all over the place, it's your property. Your decision. But leave mine alone, please, as I'll leave yours in peace.
It's about the same situation: ISP's providing boards for discussion and AOL messing it up with ads against the will of the owners. Oh, it's not AOL that abuses the system, it's just some users - so read on:
I am not saying that if people abuse their rights on an online service, we shouldn't punish them. But punishing individuals is not the same as excluding a large internetprovider and all it's clients.
AOL is free to set up its own rules within their service. AOL customers/members are bound by these rules, if they cause trouble, their accounts will be cancelled. Since the service belongs to AOL, only AOL itself decides who can and who cannot access the service.
At the same time, AOL as an ISP is a member of the Internet, not the owner of the net. There are rules and netizens are bound by these rules. If they cause trouble, their ISP's will be involved, too. If the ISP doesn't help enfore the rules but supports the abusers, the ISP will be held responsible, so the ISP will be punished.
Of course that will punish all innocent customers as well. That's the point, those uninvolved people will hopefully realize that AOL has made a mistake, and once enough people increase the pressure, something will be changed. AOL couldn't care less about public newsgroups, but if their users care enough, they'll make AOL care and act.
-- Eavy (: Linux Is Not UniX
Mail abuse@mediaone.net with the hostname and IP address of the problem host. If the user dees not fix the problem promptly they will be disconnected from the network until it is fixed.
The definition of e-mail spam is "unsolicited bulk email": that is to say, an email message is spam if, and only if, it is unsolicited and sent to a large number of recipients. Likewise, a message is usenet spam if, and only if, it is crossposted or multiposted heavily enough (c.f. the Breidbart Index). In each case, the content of the message is totally irrelevant. Spam is characterized by the manner in which it is delivered, and not by the content contained in the message.
The difference between anti-spam efforts and censorship efforts is that censorship by definition uses message content as the sole criteria for rejection, while spam fighters by definition use message delivery parameters as the sole criteria for rejection.
> In the US, most ISPs charge a flat monthly rate,
> so you can't even argue that you are being
> charged for the time to download it.
That's not the point. In general the backbones
have to pay for that and eventually you pay it
because the backbones costs end up in your
flat rate.
You have a point on the free speech issue though.
OTOH, in this particular case AOLusers would
still be able to read news and in the end also be
"allowed" to post via a different newsserver. The
UDP aims at AOL and not it's users.
> I suppose the argument can be made that bandwidth
/. ;)
> would be even cheaper today than it is if not for
> spam. This may be true, but such arguments are
> hard to prove.
Well, either way you wouldn't say that bandwith
is generally satisfying atm. If it would be there
wouldn't be any of the InterNAP ads showing up
on
It was easy at first to eliminate spam from AOL. Since 100% of the content from AOL was spam, it was mighty easy to add a killfile. Then it was netcom, etc... Then they got smart and munged addresses.
What bothers me is that AOL is not a true internet provider in the sense that you can't finger a user or use the traditional ntalk to talk some sense into the newbie. AOL lets them hide. The world they know is behind that free CD they got and the protected proprietary services they got. Somehow they found the newsgroups attractive and decided to spam them.
Since there is no way to identify AOL users, the only way I know how to eliminate the crap is to kill it all.
Its not controlling content, but damage control. Its not the type of content, but noise is not useful. Can you think of a use for spam? And there is no way of controlling it, but to cut it off. There are many people who wish to contribute actual content, but when there is a big pipe pushing raw noise into the newsgroups, its utility is diminished. It breaks.
Usenet might break and become no more if spammers are unchecked. The death penalty might be the lesser of two evils.
Have you ever tryed to report the problems to the other ISP's? I had a problem with a *.mediaone.com user a little wile back so i sent a Email to MediaOne. And guess what...a real person replyed and MediaOne took care of it. TRY that with AOL, a BOT will reply and basicly say "screw you". The real problem is that AOL dosnt GIVE A SHIT. As long as the users keep sending is $20 a month they could(and do) care less what they do.
I have to return some videotapes...
"...but I used to travel alot and you can always dial in from anywhere. They even have an 800 number which you can use. Check Email, telnet..."
AOL isnt the only ISP that lets you dial in from anyware. Most big ISP's have 50 state dialups and some have 800 #'s. thelist.com has a list of alot of them. The nice thing about going with a REAL ISP is that they have real admins. Most ISP's will take care of problems. One of AOL's problems is with SpamBot's that hang out in chat rooms and pick up your Email( When i had AOL i got 80~100 SPAM's a day...no BS) address. so how does AOL fix this? They just tell people to turn off their Email or dont use chat. Keeping you happy isnt realy importent...you are only 1 user out of 11 Million
As long as the problem user keeps sending $20 a month to them they wont put a stop to it, it is very hard to get kicked off AOL.
I have to return some videotapes...
Well, if he's not happy about being blocked, he should complain to AOL management, and loudly! AOL is more likely to respond to subscribers leaving in droves than anything else.
;)
Of course, your favorite poster could always get a real ISP....
This analigy dosent fly.
There is a big defrance between
saying that you are not alowd to
talk becouse you think bad thoughts
and you are not alowed to talk becouse
every time some one else trys to say
anny thing you just start screeming at
the top of you voice. to make a analigy
you are not a rasceist if you chose not
to invite a jerk to you party nomater
what race thay are. It's not that thay are
trying to be bigited torweds aol thay just
don't wan to invite the isresopnsibal kid
over to play.
-Jonathan
anrkngl@nospam.lm.com says-
Babelfish makes the translation up until 4 para. in, then gives me "**Translation ends here**"
Yes- of course it does- it limits the amount of text you can translate in one pass. If you want to translate large docs, you gotta translate it in pieces.
There was also, IIRC, a similar furor concerning AOL's IRC presence, and the refusal of their administrators to cope with the behavior of their users. Eric Fichtner, then AOL Operations Administrator, more or less laid down AOL's official policy of refusing to provide IRC services in any way other than wholly automated without human monitoring. In that respect, Usenet and IRC have similar properties -- keeping them from getting utterly swamped often proves incompatible with corporate profit maximization tactics.
Well, in the channel I frequent, they've banned *!*@~*.home.com. That kills probably 99% of the Wingate abusers by filtering out those without ident.
As far as AOL being banned from IRC, it wasn't specifically because of the users that irc02.irc.aol.com was removed. From reading operlist for awhile (yes, I have no life), there was a lot of arguing about it, but it was finally decided to get rid of the server because the ircops on the server didn't do anything to regulate the users. I think it's pretty much the same thing here. AOL refuses to respond to complaints about their users on usenet, so stuff like this happens.
Also, I do know of a few IRC servers that allow AOL users (irc.prison.net, for one), so they aren't completely shut off.
-mike kania
Well, personally I see a big difference between what the Australian government tries to do, and what the UDP against AOL tries to reach.
In Australia, the goverment wants to limit certain content - the UDP doesn't. For the UDP, if you would like to receive spam, we don't care - but since so many (I use 'so many' very loosely here; so far I haven't heard a single person who LIKES spam) people complain about spam and AOL doesn't do anything about it, the UDP is one way to make them think about it again. Once they change their policy the UDP restrictions will be lifted.
From then on, nobody will care about the AOL users email content as long as they aren't spammed with it; e.g. if some guy on AOL sends out a commercial mass mailing to people who explicitly requested it, noone will mind. But if they allow people to spam the whole community with free online accounts, then something is IMHO very wrong.
What I would suggest as a possible policy change, that would be if AOL would change the status of their CDs in a way, that the new user can surf and read news, but as long as he doesn't pay (and with that fully disclose who he really is), the user should be barred from posting articles and sending email via this account (AOL is certainly big enough to build a second dial-in system which is firewall protected to barr those test users dialling in through this number from accessing the outside world via NNTP/NNRP/SMTP. Everything else could stay open... And once the user pays, his login will be transferred to another dial-in number, that doesn't have these services blocked.
If every admin would utilize the MAPS, the ORBS database, and participate in these UDPs, the world would be a remarkably spam-free place.
When I send an invoice, I expect the response to
be a check, most likely to my snailbox.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I tend to agree, you either have to be for total free speech, or acknowledge that there are limits as to what constitutes "free speech". I'm bothered when I see websites, (including a certain Linux User Group) have a blue Internet ribbon on one side, and a "fight spam" on the other. To me, that sends a contradictory message. "I'm for free speech as long as I approve of it."
I know people argue that Spam costs them money... please! On my slow dialup connection it takes less than a second to download a spam mail, and even less time to delete said mail. In the US, most ISPs charge a flat monthly rate, so you can't even argue that you are being charged for the time to download it. I know the situation is different in other countries, but other countries don't have the first amendment either.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
In theory. However, I haven't seen that happening. In 1994, before Spam was a problem, I signed up for unlimited access with an ISP, and was paying $19.95/month. Today, I am still paying $19.95/month. If you factor in inflation, then I'm actually paying less today!
Since 1994, the cost of bigger pipes has come way down, today you can get cable modems for about $40, maybe up to twice that for DSL. I expect prices for bandwidth will continue to fall in the forseeable future
I suppose the argument can be made that bandwidth would be even cheaper today than it is if not for spam. This may be true, but such arguments are hard to prove.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Nonsense. There is a big difference between a government controlling what people may say to each other and an admin controlling what content takes up space on his private property. Content that is in violation of the informal agreement to use the service. Usenet groups are not public property.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
In the great tradition of United States drug laws, they'll make thinking about it a crime. Or possessing the goods. Or possessing goods you could use to obtain, manufacture, or utilize the goods.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
> I should be free to view whatever content I want.
You are also free from being compelled to carry the content you do not want. Is your ISP violating your rights by not carrying every single newsgroup?
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Uhhh. USENET doesn't have the right to police USENET? Is that the argument?
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
After those few days, all the spammers that were using uu.net at the time, where gone from uu.net. Of course, later new spammers has come to uu.net, but at least now they're aware that it's a problem. (I wonder where they went :).
Perhaps a complete UDP would make AOL actually see the problem? X million annoyed AOL customers have the power to make AOL change that a few sysadms do not have.
- the Crazy Fraggle
But effective blocking is so laughably impossible, and so laughably ILLEGAL, no ISP would even bother spending the hundreds of thousands of dollars getting filtering routers.
--
We have one cable internet provider in Australia and it sucks.
Computers are useless: they can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
Doesn't seem all that long ago that AOL's IRC server was delinked from efnet. And IRC has been a much better place.
Also, what most don't understand, AOL isn't an ISP. AOL is an "on-line service". The difference? AOL is a proprietary network, that just happens to let users have some access to the internet.
The internet is like a world-wide library. AOL is me letting someone in my basement and going "if you need a book from the public library, I'll see what I can do"
So what's this have to do with usenet and irc? AOL is like the idiots that go to the public library, take out a book, and rip all the pages out of it before they return it. Banning AOL is like saying "don't screw with out stuff, you want to destory books, do it to yours at home. Now return your library card and have a nice day"
It would be satisfying until...
You do some consulting for a company.
A company of networked consultants.
Consultants many of whom utilize AOL.
From AOL, who send you specifications.
Specifications you turn into a billable product.
Work done, oh no, have to send invoice.
Have to mail invoice to...guess what.
Accounts payable person with...guess what.
An AOL mail address.
Send invoice and wait.
Hey. what's go'in on?
Oh my! You didn't get the reply?
Needed to validate some information.
Information needed to release the check.
Sorry, you'll have to wait until next month,
to be paid for your work.
Think this is made up?
Sorry, its reality!
United States
Actually, considering that that AOL is an ISP, it's probably illegal to form a cartel and block their traffic.
Anyways, how would you feel if AT+T Worldnet, Prodigy, and UUNet decided to block your ISP's traffic?
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
This is not really true. There aren't that many barriers to entry in the ISP business. If you don't like what you perceive as censorship, there's little to stop you from starting your own ISP and hosting all the AOL spam you want. If enough people find value in this service, you will gain customers and be successful (don't bet the bank on it though).
This isn't like oil or diamonds where supply is strictly limited to a few countries/corporations.
Well, we did contact law enforcement agencies. Have you ever done this? You make it sound like a veritable cure-all.
It's not. You have to deal with a lot of delays and red tape, and it's hard to get someone's ear if you can't *prove* substantial financial loss.
In our case the FBI investigator told me that they would not take our case, even though I had plenty of logs of someone hidden behind an AOL dynamic IP running DoS attacks for days.
---
The real problem with your argument though, is the premise that AOL should ignore abuse by their subscribers unless forced to do something about it by a governmental body. Government intervention should be the course of LAST resort.
Also, there's a wide range of activity that is considered abuse on the internet but is not technically illegal. Usenet SPAM is such a case, and if AOL continues to ignore the abuse its subscribers perpetrate, UDP is a reasonable response.
In your other post you claim that other ISPs are no better. Well, besides the fact that this does not in any way invalidate the arguments against AOL, it's been my experience that most other ISPs, even larger ones, are significantly better at curtailing abuse.
I'd also like to make a point that just because AOL is a large ISP with a huge userbase, this does not mean that they don't have the capability to be more responsive to abuses, or even more friendly toward outside sysadmins.
-OT
The reason I dislike AOL so strongly is their attitude towards the internet. AOL sees it as a natural resource to exploit, rather than a community. They take and take, but they do not accept any responsibility for problems they cause. In the environment of the internet, AOL is one of the largest polluters.
Last year a luser at AOL was running a barrage of Denial of Service attacks on our webserver. I don't know why (s)he did this but I do know that I received absolutely ZERO help from AOL resolving the issue. After a many attempts to talk to someone who could understand what a DoS attack is, I was told the equivalent of "tough luck". They wouldn't give me the time of day unless the FBI was involved.
When we discover cracking activity from other ISPs, those ISPs are usually very helpful in taking care of the problem.
This is just one example, but this newsgroup issue and earlier IRC issues seem to indicate a pattern of behavior. AOL needs to realize that the rest of the net doesn't exist for them to exploit. AOL needs to step up and take some kind of responsibility for the problems they create.
The biggest problem is that they've created an accountability nightmare. No one can effectively deal with an abuser armed with a box of AOL CDs, except for AOL. And AOL doesn't really care.
If the UDP forces them to improve their abuse management, I think that it's a good thing. I don't think they will change until there is damage to their reputation/bottom line.
- OT, who would not recommend AOL to anyone.
I'd say there's one important difference between the Australian govt. and the ISP's in question.
Australia is trying to dictate what every australian ISP, and user is allowed to download, view, read, carry on their computer systems or internet access. Here the people have no choice in the matter neither do the ISP's who to comply with the new laws will have to invest hundreds to thousands of dollars a piece so that they can filter out and block "unreasonable" content and possibly monitor the activity's of their users.
This on the other hand is nothing more than a specific group of ISP's choosing not to carry certain content. As they own the services they provide they also have the right and the freedom to choose what services they do provide and what content they allow to be stored on their servers and harddrives. No different than me placing a filter in my news group reader to filter out and delete any posts from @aol.com, as I have the right and freedom to view and download what I choose.
Because an ISP chooses not to carry certain content, that does effect their users but those users still have a choice, if they feel the ISP doesn't provide enough services they want or need that have full ability to switch to a new one, subscribe to an online news service where they will probably get access to far more groups than their ISP has ever carried, etc.
So the difference is that in the German ISP situation every person involved has a choice, the ISP's have a choice on what they want to carry and pass thru their equiptment, and their users have a choice of sticking with the ISP's new policy's, switching ISP's, or finding their news posts somewhere else.
Australia no one has a choice, the govt. says this is how it will be and short of moving out of the country you will obey the rules and only see what we want you to see.
I missed reading those articles when I met them because I never thought it could happen to me. Now I would like a second chance...
I use AOL.
i know quite abit about computers (I like to think anyway...)
The reasons are many, kinda long, but I used to travel alot and you can always dial in from anywhere. They even have an 800 number which you can use. Check Email, telnet. Its just really easy. I've had no problems with them.
Thats the problem with AOL is that they make things really too easy. Newbies can do anything. But the AOL admin are not clueless, if you go to use Usenet, they have instruction (unsenet FAQ and Edicite.) right there for people to use. Most probably don't bother to read the instructions (go figure..) They're so big and basically they're turning into the countries biggest ISP. There seems to be less and less AOL content and more internet content now. Its hard to police that many members.
As such, with that TCP/IP connection you can do a lot of things. With their I month free trial, You can get an account, do whatever and be thrown off with out paying.
AOL does bring in people who aren't computer savy into the net. It adds alot to have more non technically oriented people using the internet. They bring a different perspect to NET which is good. The explosive growth of the internet has been helped by AOL getting Main ST. USA onto the internet.
Families like it because for little kids you can block alot of features (web, chat, etc...) I let your kids romp around the relatively safe (abiet boring for adults) AOL stuff.
So in summary you have to take the good with the bad sometimes. throwing of 50 +million people off the internet won't help solve the problem. The problem with just spread to many smaller isps.
/A
"(Your parenthesis is not closed. Tee hee hee..."
:)
Neither are yours.. harharhar.
I do that all the time, I'm just not good at using parens IRL
Lowmag.net
Babelfish makes the translation up until 4 para. in, then gives me "**Translation ends here**" with a link to "babelfish.altavista" (an incomplete address.
I get the drift of the paper, however. In the past, and in the future I suspect, AOL will be a force to be reckoned with as far as spam is concerned. They are so fixated on protecting their users from spam (which they can't) that they don't realise that the users are the spammers. This is certainly unfortunate, as the trend does not seem to be a stoppable one. The best thing to do is to stay away from groups that are prone to spam, and stick to the web for your information.
Lowmag.net
IdIoTs who are the problem. Any savvy user (such
as, say, yourself) will just go get a real ISP.
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
It's about time someone decided to ban AOL. Maybe if those of us in the US decided to ban them too, AOL would clean up their act. Ah well, there's always Usenet2.
When I was able to do my own spam-armoring, you got a chance to email me. Now you can only hope I see your reply.
Something in this discussion doesn't seem right. Most people were adamantly against the new Australian laws on controlling content on the internet on behalf of their population or any other way of "controlling" the internet, but when it comes to stopping spam it seems that for some people everything is allowed.
If you say that AOL should be banned from USENET altogether, you are in fact not that much different from the Australian government as you pretend to be.
It seems to me that some people here define their freedom by limiting other people's freedom. This is not what i would call freedom.
I am not saying that if people abuse their rights on an online service, we shouldn't punish them. But punishing individuals is not the same as excluding a large internetprovider and all it's clients.
I, for one, think that a lot of people are a bit over-sensitive to spam. They will classify anything they read that does not concern them or has a slight commercial reference as spam. If you don't want to read it there are plenty of ways to avoid it, especially on usenet. I use several filters myself to get rid of the usual crap.
Message on our company Intranet:
"You have a sticker in your private area"
beauty is only a light switch away
1. AOL trial accounts don't have access to the internet, period. A lot of local and semi-local ISPs offer short-term access for free.
2. AOL software doesn't have inlinded pre-configured internet facilities. It can automatically set up your internet access but it doesn't install configure a newsreader to use it. If you want usenet you have to install and configure it yourself.
The chance this'll happen is less than the chance that a bug in Windows 2000 will re-write Bill Gate's will putting my name in the "beneficairies" slot just before he prints it and then he gets killed the next day, but then again, who knows.
The trouble is, this is an extreme action that may well actively harm the net access of a lot of people. I can appreciate the problem, but I don't think this is an acceptable solution.
There are a lot of worthy and intelligent people using AOL. There are also a lot of idiots. Without doubt it's bad to have AOL's anonymous trial-type accounts unlimited. And AOL's own attitude towards this is often vaguely comical.
But, IMHO, the legitimate users of AOL already have enough problems of their own, without having those problems added to by being UDP'ed simply because of the network provider they choose to use. That's insanity. It's overkill. It's fly-swatting with a flamethrower. And it's not, IMHO, the solution.
--
Tralala butterflies butterflie sbutter fliesbu tterfl iesbutter flies rattle rattle post-marital-sex post-marital sex post-marital sex jesus jesus jesus have a nice day have a nice day
community community community slf-denial self denial self denial
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Rob Malda should in fact delete my username cynicthe had this been a real spam flood.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
http://www.aclu.org/congress/flag1999.html/ malaysia_censorship.alert i tias/unabomber.manifesto b er/hr1004_s652_s314_cato.paper
http://www.efa.org.au/Campaigns/alert99.html
http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/Foreign_and_local
http://www.eff.org/pub/Censorship/Terrorism_mil
http://www.eff.org/pub/Legislation/Bills_by_num
These are examples of censorship for political, "decency for simpletons", totalitarian, etc. reasons. Search for "fan sites banned" to get a flood of more censorship.
It's ironic that the cluebie attitude to throw in disruptive (not disgusting) material into the same box with the useful and probably disgusting material that should available is identical to the attitude that says I get my freedoms for free, I can do anything I want, and the Constitution will protect me. In that attitude you are in fact asking the Constitution to be your Big brother. something it was not designed to do. If you follow the Constititution properly you would realize that biggest threat to democracy is the public itself. People who don't understand. People who would subvert democracy.
The Constitution is a device for balancing powers, you idiot. It is designed to keep distant entities from having an influence on your life without your consent which is finalized by vote.
The Constitution protects you from the force of the Federal government, a disengaged and distant entity regardless of the availabity of representation. It protects you against the force of the State, a disengaged and distant entity regardless of the availability of representation.
The Constitution does not protect you from the acts of fellow citizens. This is why we make laws. Nature gives us the basic rules of the game. Laws take care of exceptions to those rules that the public specifies. Nature says survival of the fittest. Law says homicide is illegal.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
What you mean is you don't like someone telling through what channel you can e-mail. Must be what you really mean because you did clearly read the post you are responding to. As you probably realize by now the ISP was banning the domain side not the username side of username@domainame in username@aol.com. Perhaps you should complain to aol and see that they are held accountable. Oh and by the way there a billion or so ISP independent e-mail services that do not require a setup disk, a fee, or such nonsense, but you knew that.
Signing up is no more difficult than filling out a form. You can do that can you not?
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
I love Usenet - always have (well, since 1995 when I first got online). There seem to be two major problems:
1) SPAM. Offtopic adverts crossposted to multiple groups.
2) Bandwidth wasters. The me-to, off-topic and trolling posters.
Perhaps the first can be solved using technical methods (some form of intelligent crossposting management?).
I believe that given time, the second will sort itself out. There are more and more websites that offer message boards, and online chat bulletin boards. Considering most newbies associate the Internet with the Web, in a few years it could be the case that Usenet is treated like other valid Internet applications such as Gopher - useful but replaced by the web for the majority of users. If this becomes the case, then the "elite" can regain control of Usenet, simply because most newbies don't know it exists.
Wow...and I thought I was the only one using trn. It's definitely the only way to cut through all the chaff that's on Usenet nowadays. I've tried nn, gnus, and a bunch of Win9x-based newsreaders, but I keep going back to trn.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
This makes me very HAPPY. I just wish the EFNet admins would G-line *aol.com. Kicking their server off the network was good, but AOL still causes me too many headaches on IRC