The unreachable blacklist is probably SPEWS. I use SPEWS, and people who use SPEWS know full well that it blocks companies, not servers.
Rackspace is a spam supporting colocation service. SPEWS is listing you, yes, you, on purpose. Yes, you specifically. You are being listed as someone who support a spam operation.
The only way to get off SPEWS, like any blacklist, is to stop doing the action that they listed for you. If this was ORBS, you'd have to close your open relay. As this is SPEWS, you have to stop giving money to the scum at rackspace, which means you're going to have to get colo somewhere else. As an extra bonus, you don't have to go though any forms or get 'retested' when you fix the problem, your new IP address will automatically be not listed.
Disclaimer: I am not SPEWS, but I think it would be funny if you assumed I was.
They will post this letter to news.admin.net-abuse.email. You will end up in thousands of private blacklists and will never be removed. You will be stuck in most major blacklists for months. You will have people who route your network to/dev/null so your customers can't access anything, not just email, at your site.
And, finally, you may also be sued for barretry (sp?), which is threatening groundless lawsuits.
Hey, Chad, it's David. Yes, that David, from high school. Lookie, I'm not hiding behind anything, you know me personally.
And, unlike you, I don't like spam, and I consider it theft. Yes, that's right, not an inconvience, but theft, pure and simple. And I think putting White Lion in SPEWS was the right idea considering this. I can understand how WL would want money from spammers, but that means I don't want mail from them, and a lot of people agree with me.
And I don't want email from them even after they decide that spammers cost to much, who knows when they'll start questioning if hosting spammer's web pages costs too much, or hosting a list that claims to be opt-in but they know isn't, etc.
At the best, they'll be unresponsive because the longer they keep the spammer, the more money they get. You see the problem as being added to the lists, but the problem is that you have no respect for private property and the AUP you signed with uunet. The list is a symptom of the problem, not the problem.
I would tell you to email me, but, gosh-darn-it, I doubt it would get through.
I hate netmasks, because I can never figure out how to do non-even-octal ones, like/26.
Look at that, I can't even figure out the example. I have to go and write the friggin number down and convert it to decimal.
11000000, so...
I mean, that should be.128+.64, right? So...255.255.255.196. Is that right?
And what happens if you get it wrong and do 255.255.255.198? That's 11000010, so have fun trying to figure out why.5 and.6 go to one network, and.7 and.8 go to another, and.9 and.10 go back to the first, etc...;)
I still won't get spam from the open relays. Passing around lists of open relays is like passing around security holes. Sure, evil people will be able to exploit stupid people, but it allows smart people to protect themselves. As someone would eventually figure out it's an open relay (or a security hole) later on, the list just evens the playing field, where everyone finds it out at once.
As time goes on, all the stupid people will Darwin themselves off of the internet as their bandwidth costs skyrocket and their connectivity plummets. And I still won't be getting spam relayed from them as they fail due to their own crapulence.
As far as I know, the US government doesn't own any parts of 'the internet' except their own networks and servers. In other words, unless you get on.gov, you're using privately owned wires. So, no, spammers do not own any part of the network. They have merely purchased access to it, and are actually in violation of their AUP, so it's not like they can complain when their AUP violation doesn't work.
This may or may not apply to other countries, I dunno.
Frankly, I consider blocking all of Rackspace the sign of a good blacklist.;)
I don't want a single IP blocked after some place sends a spam from it, I want ranges blocked that refuse to do anything about spam and continue to profit from it. That's where spammer flock, and that's where I block.
Most servers don't 'bounce' the messages, they give a 550 during a receive. The message never actually enters the receiving end, and thus it can't 'bounce' the message, much less bounce it to the wrong perosn.
This error usually ends up looking like a bounce message, but it's entirely generated by mail client, or the SMTP server trying to send it.
550 errors never end up going to the wrong person, unless you have a strangely configured open relay that spammers are using, and then it's merely shunting a spam message from one person to another, and I fail to see the harm there.
As this is all simply poorly remembered crap on your part with no evidence to back it up, I don't know how to respond to it, but let me try:
According to him, my home machine could end up on their list because it was an un-authorized mail server. Regardless of the fact NO-ONE except me could ever send mail from it.
Yes, it's called a DUL, there are a few of them. Some people choose not to accept mail from dialup users who don't use their provider's SMTP server, so blacklist people sending mail from their dialup addresses straight to their servers. Providers usually want their IP ranges listed in these, as they do not want people sending spam using an SMTP server on their own machine (But they don't want to firewall outbound SMTP because some people have other mail accounts.), and it has nothing to do with whether or not you're actually running an SMTP server. It's simply s an cable modem user can't decide to send out 2m/s worth of spam directly to various email accounts.
As a side note, if you have a static IP, and are actually running a server, you can contact these lists and get your IP whitelisted off of them. Of course, that means anyone who gets spam from you can look up who you are.
He also acknowledged they would put a server on the list if it sent mail out but could not be tested. If a firewall prevented their accessing the box they would ASSUME it was hostile and put it on the list.
Some morons have decided the way to 'fix' open relays is to simply block the tests. If relay testers cannot connect to an SMTP server you're running from their network, but can from other networks, they will assume you firewalled them to keep from having to fix the problem, and will list you anyway. Obviously, if you firewall off everything but your internal network, they wouldn't even know you were a mail server, so wouldn't list you as an open relay anyway. It's when you keep an open relay for 'convenience' but try to cleverly firewall off the testers that you'll get busted.
As an aside, why should they be in a hurry to remove you from their lists? It's called a deterrent, and it will certainly keep you from setting up another open relay ever again if you can't send email to a major provider for a week. They don't have any obligation to allow you to send them email if you've proven to be an incompetent mail administrator.
Do you think you can wait for the next update? Guess again. If you didn't start letting the e-mail through again within 48 hours, I would be taking you to court.
And the second you mention 'court' your message get posted to news.admin.net-abuse.email and you get added, forever, to dozens of private blocklists for posting a cartooney threat. (Some people would literally add you to their blocklist now if they knew who you were, just for posting that you would sue under such circumstances.)
Here's a heads up, in advance. Their servers, their rules. You threaten lawsuits, many people choose never to accept mail from you again, as does anyone who hears about it.
That's for that PETA comment, it clarified something I was trying to verbalize about this whole thing. People seem to be saying 'If you, as a parent, don't find this objectionable, then you can rent or buy the game for them.'
But that's not the point. The point is that the government (my government, I live in GA, I'm over 21, and I have no kids, in case anyone cares) has decided that portrayals of violence are morally objectionable to show to young children, and to outlaw them, unless a parent gives consent.
When did this become allowable? When did the government become moral judge of the things? When did the government gain the right to say 'This is wrong. You can show it to your children if you like, but we're making the default be morally objectionable.'?
The government does not dictate morality. Even if the system is totally optional, and you have to opt your child in, the government still cannot dicate what is 'wrong' and what is 'right'.
Re:Red Hat's up2date, and a size 13EE up the butt.
on
Read the Fine Print
·
· Score: 1
Wellm, no one's claiming that EULAs will actually stand up in court, but MS pretends they do, and that means MS thinks it has permission to come into your computer.
It's not trespassing, assuming the EULA is legal, as you granted them permission. (Note it could be breaking and entering, still, if they have to get pat a firewall.) If someone has permission to log into your computer, then it's legal, and people clicked 'okay'.
Now, as to whether or not this is legal, I don't know, I get a minor to install my software. I seriously doubt it, though.
But that doesn't mean MS doesn't think it's legal. They think they have a perfect right to play around inside any computer running XP. That's what's upsetting.
Nothing illegal about having unlicensed software on a machine. It's right there in copyright law, you have the right to copy software to the extent needed to use it, onto a hard drive and into memory, and even can make one backup of the original media.
In other words, if I write a program, compile the EXE, and hand you the disk, you have the right to copy that disk once for yourself, copy the exe onto one computer's hard drive, and copy it into memory/swap whenever you run it. No license needed, and in fact that's pretty much proven by GPL'd software, which needs no license to run.
Here's the real point: MS doesn't ahve to listen to what you say. The EULA says they can go into your computer. It doesn't say 'unless you say we can't'. MS legally doesn't have to pay any attention to that checkbox.
That's the point. MS appears to have it where you can opt-out now, but a) they might be lying, or b) they might change it in the future with no warning and no legal recourse.
When you add that to the fact that they don't give any assurance of fitness of the software, it is legal for them to break into your computer and 'update' it to a non-functioning state, and you have no recourse, and cannot stop them except with firewalls.
As you haven't been paying attention, the point isn't the software, the point is they have the legal right to have a backdoor somewhere that does the same thing, or claims to do the same thing. Or an innocent looking update for your sound driver could remove the checkbox, etc.
People know you can uncheck the box, but you can't uncheck the EULA. Even if you uncheck the box, MS has a legal right to poke around in your system to check for 'updates'.
If the EULA said 'At the user's request, blah blah blah', no one would have a problem. If fact, they wouldn't even need that in the EULA, it's legal for them to poke around in your system at your request. The EULA gives them the right to do it even if you explictedly tell them not to.
In the present, yes, it appears they're only looking around at your request. That doesn't change the terms of the EULA.
Sorry, you're just 100% wrong. There are many kind of software that you own, GPL software is one of them. You own what is legally refered to as 'a copy of the copyrighted work'. Yes, you own that copy, just like you own a copy of a book or a copy of of a movie. You need no license to use it, and in fact you don't need a license to use any software you've, anymore then you need a license to read a book.
EULA attempt to rewrite the rules after purchase, but as all they do is take away rights, and as it's usually impossible to undo the sale at that point, sp even if you agree to them they may not even apply, contracts have to provide something to both parties, hence the 'for one dollar' that shows up in one-sided contracts all the time. MS's EULA gives you nothing you didn't have before, so the legality is dubious at best. If you break the license, they can't really do anything to you, as they didn't give you anything to begin with, they don't have any damages from you breaking the license.
Not to mention nowhere was it mentioned at time of purchase that you were buying a 'license', and they sell software to minors all the time, who cannot enter into contracts. The pretense that there is a 'contract' between you and the software manufactor is just that, a pretense. To agree to a contract, you have to actually agree when money changes hands, you can't 'purchase' something, take it home, and find that it wasn't a purchase, and, even worse, you can't get your money back. There's actually very good grounds for fraud there.
Or there would be if EULA's has a chance in hell of standing up in court, which they don't.
And you don't have to agree to any 'license' to use GPL software. You can just use it.
Now, you can't legally copy any software you don't hold the copyright on, without some special license, just like you can't legally copy a book with a license. But that's copyright law, and has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with a license.
The GPL grants certain kinds of copying, that's it. You don't have to agree to it to use it.
(As a side note, I'm sorry, but anyone who's just this misinformed has taken no time to actually look up the facts, and has decided to blindly swallow anything the media tells them. You really need to read a little about copyright and contract law.)
Slashdot Mirror
Rackspace is a spam supporting colocation service. SPEWS is listing you, yes, you, on purpose. Yes, you specifically. You are being listed as someone who support a spam operation.
The only way to get off SPEWS, like any blacklist, is to stop doing the action that they listed for you. If this was ORBS, you'd have to close your open relay. As this is SPEWS, you have to stop giving money to the scum at rackspace, which means you're going to have to get colo somewhere else. As an extra bonus, you don't have to go though any forms or get 'retested' when you fix the problem, your new IP address will automatically be not listed.
Disclaimer: I am not SPEWS, but I think it would be funny if you assumed I was.
On the other hand, this explains why I couldn't get spellcheck to recognize it. ;)
And, finally, you may also be sued for barretry (sp?), which is threatening groundless lawsuits.
And, unlike you, I don't like spam, and I consider it theft. Yes, that's right, not an inconvience, but theft, pure and simple. And I think putting White Lion in SPEWS was the right idea considering this. I can understand how WL would want money from spammers, but that means I don't want mail from them, and a lot of people agree with me.
And I don't want email from them even after they decide that spammers cost to much, who knows when they'll start questioning if hosting spammer's web pages costs too much, or hosting a list that claims to be opt-in but they know isn't, etc.
At the best, they'll be unresponsive because the longer they keep the spammer, the more money they get. You see the problem as being added to the lists, but the problem is that you have no respect for private property and the AUP you signed with uunet. The list is a symptom of the problem, not the problem.
I would tell you to email me, but, gosh-darn-it, I doubt it would get through.
Did your 'confirms' include an ad? Why, I bet they did!
Hopefully, this got a lot of people's attention. ;)
Look at that, I can't even figure out the example. I have to go and write the friggin number down and convert it to decimal.
11000000, so...
I mean, that should be .128+.64, right? So...255.255.255.196. Is that right?
And what happens if you get it wrong and do 255.255.255.198? That's 11000010, so have fun trying to figure out why .5 and .6 go to one network, and .7 and .8 go to another, and .9 and .10 go back to the first, etc... ;)
To repeat: I hate netmasks. :) Give me /26 any day.
Who the hell lets random people send them email with pictures in it?
I still won't get spam from the open relays. Passing around lists of open relays is like passing around security holes. Sure, evil people will be able to exploit stupid people, but it allows smart people to protect themselves. As someone would eventually figure out it's an open relay (or a security hole) later on, the list just evens the playing field, where everyone finds it out at once.
As time goes on, all the stupid people will Darwin themselves off of the internet as their bandwidth costs skyrocket and their connectivity plummets. And I still won't be getting spam relayed from them as they fail due to their own crapulence.
This may or may not apply to other countries, I dunno.
I don't want a single IP blocked after some place sends a spam from it, I want ranges blocked that refuse to do anything about spam and continue to profit from it. That's where spammer flock, and that's where I block.
This error usually ends up looking like a bounce message, but it's entirely generated by mail client, or the SMTP server trying to send it.
550 errors never end up going to the wrong person, unless you have a strangely configured open relay that spammers are using, and then it's merely shunting a spam message from one person to another, and I fail to see the harm there.
According to him, my home machine could end up on their list because it was an un-authorized mail server. Regardless of the fact NO-ONE except me could ever send mail from it.
Yes, it's called a DUL, there are a few of them. Some people choose not to accept mail from dialup users who don't use their provider's SMTP server, so blacklist people sending mail from their dialup addresses straight to their servers. Providers usually want their IP ranges listed in these, as they do not want people sending spam using an SMTP server on their own machine (But they don't want to firewall outbound SMTP because some people have other mail accounts.), and it has nothing to do with whether or not you're actually running an SMTP server. It's simply s an cable modem user can't decide to send out 2m/s worth of spam directly to various email accounts.
As a side note, if you have a static IP, and are actually running a server, you can contact these lists and get your IP whitelisted off of them. Of course, that means anyone who gets spam from you can look up who you are.
He also acknowledged they would put a server on the list if it sent mail out but could not be tested. If a firewall prevented their accessing the box they would ASSUME it was hostile and put it on the list.
Some morons have decided the way to 'fix' open relays is to simply block the tests. If relay testers cannot connect to an SMTP server you're running from their network, but can from other networks, they will assume you firewalled them to keep from having to fix the problem, and will list you anyway. Obviously, if you firewall off everything but your internal network, they wouldn't even know you were a mail server, so wouldn't list you as an open relay anyway. It's when you keep an open relay for 'convenience' but try to cleverly firewall off the testers that you'll get busted.
As an aside, why should they be in a hurry to remove you from their lists? It's called a deterrent, and it will certainly keep you from setting up another open relay ever again if you can't send email to a major provider for a week. They don't have any obligation to allow you to send them email if you've proven to be an incompetent mail administrator.
And the second you mention 'court' your message get posted to news.admin.net-abuse.email and you get added, forever, to dozens of private blocklists for posting a cartooney threat. (Some people would literally add you to their blocklist now if they knew who you were, just for posting that you would sue under such circumstances.)
Here's a heads up, in advance. Their servers, their rules. You threaten lawsuits, many people choose never to accept mail from you again, as does anyone who hears about it.
Erm..how about the 1st?
'Short novels' are traditionally called novelettes.
Geez, no one got that joke, did that? Oh well.
But that's not the point. The point is that the government (my government, I live in GA, I'm over 21, and I have no kids, in case anyone cares) has decided that portrayals of violence are morally objectionable to show to young children, and to outlaw them, unless a parent gives consent.
When did this become allowable? When did the government become moral judge of the things? When did the government gain the right to say 'This is wrong. You can show it to your children if you like, but we're making the default be morally objectionable.'?
The government does not dictate morality. Even if the system is totally optional, and you have to opt your child in, the government still cannot dicate what is 'wrong' and what is 'right'.
It's not trespassing, assuming the EULA is legal, as you granted them permission. (Note it could be breaking and entering, still, if they have to get pat a firewall.) If someone has permission to log into your computer, then it's legal, and people clicked 'okay'.
Now, as to whether or not this is legal, I don't know, I get a minor to install my software. I seriously doubt it, though.
But that doesn't mean MS doesn't think it's legal. They think they have a perfect right to play around inside any computer running XP. That's what's upsetting.
Hey, don't go around comparing lawyers to prostitutes. Prostitutes only screw you if you ask for it.
In other words, if I write a program, compile the EXE, and hand you the disk, you have the right to copy that disk once for yourself, copy the exe onto one computer's hard drive, and copy it into memory/swap whenever you run it. No license needed, and in fact that's pretty much proven by GPL'd software, which needs no license to run.
Sometimes I want to beat michael over the head.
Here's the real point: MS doesn't ahve to listen to what you say. The EULA says they can go into your computer. It doesn't say 'unless you say we can't'. MS legally doesn't have to pay any attention to that checkbox.
That's the point. MS appears to have it where you can opt-out now, but a) they might be lying, or b) they might change it in the future with no warning and no legal recourse.
When you add that to the fact that they don't give any assurance of fitness of the software, it is legal for them to break into your computer and 'update' it to a non-functioning state, and you have no recourse, and cannot stop them except with firewalls.
People know you can uncheck the box, but you can't uncheck the EULA. Even if you uncheck the box, MS has a legal right to poke around in your system to check for 'updates'.
If the EULA said 'At the user's request, blah blah blah', no one would have a problem. If fact, they wouldn't even need that in the EULA, it's legal for them to poke around in your system at your request. The EULA gives them the right to do it even if you explictedly tell them not to.
In the present, yes, it appears they're only looking around at your request. That doesn't change the terms of the EULA.
EULA attempt to rewrite the rules after purchase, but as all they do is take away rights, and as it's usually impossible to undo the sale at that point, sp even if you agree to them they may not even apply, contracts have to provide something to both parties, hence the 'for one dollar' that shows up in one-sided contracts all the time. MS's EULA gives you nothing you didn't have before, so the legality is dubious at best. If you break the license, they can't really do anything to you, as they didn't give you anything to begin with, they don't have any damages from you breaking the license.
Not to mention nowhere was it mentioned at time of purchase that you were buying a 'license', and they sell software to minors all the time, who cannot enter into contracts. The pretense that there is a 'contract' between you and the software manufactor is just that, a pretense. To agree to a contract, you have to actually agree when money changes hands, you can't 'purchase' something, take it home, and find that it wasn't a purchase, and, even worse, you can't get your money back. There's actually very good grounds for fraud there.
Or there would be if EULA's has a chance in hell of standing up in court, which they don't.
And you don't have to agree to any 'license' to use GPL software. You can just use it.
Now, you can't legally copy any software you don't hold the copyright on, without some special license, just like you can't legally copy a book with a license. But that's copyright law, and has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with a license.
The GPL grants certain kinds of copying, that's it. You don't have to agree to it to use it.
(As a side note, I'm sorry, but anyone who's just this misinformed has taken no time to actually look up the facts, and has decided to blindly swallow anything the media tells them. You really need to read a little about copyright and contract law.)
If you're going to use more than one cmputer, you should just use two, and just quickly swap the cabling out.