So basically, the GPL is preventing Wallace and others from being able to create monopolies to fix their own higher pricing.
The GPL isn't creating a monopoly or doing any price fixing. But what it is doing is creating a lot of competitors. Hence the supply is way up relative to demand, and thus prices are way down. Some happen to be 0.
It might seem that way. However, the GPL does not set pricing. I can sell a copy of Linux at whatever price I like. And there are people out there that do pay money for it. What the GPL is doing is making a way for more people to get involved in the business.
What if I came up with way to build something that currently costs $9000 to manufacture, but with my method it now only costs $9. I patent it and start licensing it to hundreds of companies that proceed to manufacture it for $9 each, and add a $6 markup and sell it for $15. Is that a price fixing scheme? To the manufacturer that originally made it for $9000, and didn't get a license, it sure might seem that way. They just have to get with the new way things are done, get a license for my method, and live with $6 instead of $6000 profit per unit, and hundreds of competitors (many of which are doomed to fail because the market will be saturated very quickly).
The GPL is certainly not a monopoly. As for the potential of driving others out of the software selling business, and creating a software service business, I'd say that those who are selling software, and giving away the services, are just as guilty at price fixing the services.
This is yet another example why filtering based on content is the wrong way to go about it. What might be one person's spam could be another person's fantastic offer they really wanted. Spam is about consent, not content, and the tests should be made appropriately. My spam filtering is currently about 99.5% effective, with less than 0.01% false positive, and this is without applying any tests to content or subject (and in fact the decision is made entirely before any message data is received).
I think you're talking about distributing a built system to multiple machines in a file farm. At least that's what Brian built SystemImager for, originally, to mass install a system image to a server farm. As long as the source image is in a stable state, that's fine. But if you are making backups of machines, backing up their actively mounted and working partition by the disk image is the bad idea, regardless of the tool. I used to do that once after I built a system just so I have an image of the whole drive to get it back to a bootable state real fast. But in practice I found I never needed to do that because I could always get a system to boot, even if by a CD (I made my own custom rescue CDs), and then have net access to restore the individual files by rsync.
In most cases, file backups are better. Imaging a drive that is currently mounted writable and actively updated can produce a corrupt image on the backup. This is worse that what can happen when a machine is powered off and restarted. Because the sectors are read from the partition over a span of time, things can be extremely inconsistent. Drive imaging is safest only when the partition being copied is unmounted.
The way I make backups is to run duplicate servers. Then I let rsync keep the data files in sync on the backups. If the primary machine has any problems, the secondary can take over. There are other things that need to be done for this, like separate IP addresses for administrative access, and the network services being provided (so that the service addresses can be moved between machines as needed while the administrator can still SSH in to each one individually).
"Microsoft claims the change is necessary for security," Fyodor said. "This is funny since all of the other platforms Nmap supports (eg Mac OS X, Linux, the BSD variants) offer raw sockets and yet they haven't become the wasp nest of spambots, worms and spyware that infest so many Windows boxes."
The suggestion in this statement is that the other operating systems are rock solid and cannot be broken into. But in reality, they are certainly harder to break into, but it can be done in large numbers due to either some bugs in some applications, or poor administrative practice, or some combination of both. But we also don't see so many infiltrations of these other operating systems because the Windows machines make the larger target (h4q0r g3tz 2 0wn m0r3), and are (mis)used by the least security conscious and naive of the population. If it were a certain distribution of Linux being used in place of Windows everywhere, perhaps there might not be as big of a problem, but there will definitely be a big problem.
OTOH, I believe Microsoft's action is only going to reduce the problem for a short while. Someone will find a way.
Assert calls tend to result in error messages that are uninformative to end users. They would be fine for things that can only happen as a result of programmer error. They should never be used for user errors. Instead, check all user input conditions as soon as they are input, or at least as soon as the information needed to verify them is available. Then given informative information about the error. Additionally, the program should continue to perform as much additional user input checks as possible before aborting, so that a user who has multiple errors can correct them all at once.
The commentary should justify why the code needs to be there. If you can't justify it, remove it. But comments like
/* this program dies if this code is removed */
don't really cut it. The comment should explain what role this code has in the overall design. For example if you have a call to the fopen() function, it should be obvious that a file is being opened. But answer the question "why?" to make the comment informative.
/* re-read the config file */
Of course, having good names for things can also help:
I've been holding back going into digital photography. I have a few thousand dollars invested in film based cameras and associated lenses and equipment, all of which is currently Nikon (with the exception of about 30 filters being Hoya). With digital having about reached the level that satisfies me, I am now looking into moving that way. But clearly, I cannot continue with Nikon. I had hoped I would be able to because so many of my older lenses would still be usable, even though they don't focus automatically (I never did like that... in fact I'm even a manual exposure setting guy).
I've never really looked at the other camera brands before. Recently I've started to do so. It does seem Canon is on par with Nikon, if not exceeding it, in terms of the flexibility of the system. And many people have suggested Canon. But if we had a vote on which to move to, which would you suggest?
Or maybe I'll just stick with film and move up to medium or large format.
The blog linked to by Slashdot actually links to a Baltimore Sun story (use email "bselig@dodgeit.com" and password "bseli" to log in) dated March 8 (well before April 1). Maybe you should RTFB.
I read about a case once where someone paid a several thousand dollar bill using all ones. In this particular case the person offered the payment refused it. The guy just walked out; there was not arrest. The owner of the debt later sued because the debt was unpaid. Apparently the guy had documented the payment offer and the judge ruled that it was payment refused and the debt cancelled. I don't know how he carried thousands of bills in, but I can just imagine he brought it all in a suitcase or grocery bag or something, maybe wrapped 100 bills at a time.
This was over 25 years ago. Now days the government actually trying to get people to stop using cash for anything... while at the same time screwing so many people financially that they can't get credit cards or even bank accounts.
I did get hassled at a store once for paying for a $25 purchase with 25 Susan B. Anthony dollar coins because that was all I had at the time. The clerk didn't know coins were made in dollar denomination. She finally called the manager who came over, looked, laughed, and pulled $25 in bills out of his wallet and traded with me. I guess the clerk got to add a few new words to her limited English vocabulary.
Still, it should be the ISP that asks online for the listing to be removed, not one of their customers, since the listing is for the ISP. SPEWS may accept a statement on faith from the ISP at the expense that if the statement turns out to be false, future statements cannot be accepted. But a customer cannot put their ISP into that by making a statement on their behalf.
If they are listing half a class B, then you have to resolve the root cause of that listing itself, first. One aspect of SPEWS is that they do lead to boycotting of ISPs that harbor spammers. Customers don't get exceptions because that dilutes the ability to pressure the ISP to remove the spammers. Maybe instead of trying to get a special whitelist, you should get your ISP to remove all the spammers. Note... I know a little about how SPEWS operates, and if a listing grows on an ISP with more than one spammer, they have to get rid of all of them to get the listing even unlocked, much less downgraded.
I can't give you specific advice because I don't know which listing you are referring to.
Above.net is no innocent party, either. But that doesn't give Peer 1 a free pass.
Sure, you do need to pressure your ISP to cure their problems when they fail to. But don't assume so many listings exist because customers don't care. More often it's a case of ignorance. Many times the ISPs will lie to the customers. I've heard of more than one telling their customers that they are in negotiation with SPEWS to get SPEWS listings removed; which is a lie because SPEWS does not work by negotiation. Another huge ISP has actually made legal threats against their own customers if they leave due to the blacklisting.
I disagree about looking at the servers through which spam travels. I believe all services a spammer uses should be target. But with that comes the responsibility to verify this. They should actually check the referenced web sites to see if something servicing the spammer is actually there. If not, don't use that info. Trouble is, the spam problem is so huge, the blacklists have had to automate much of this, and that, I think, is where much of the difficulty comes from.
First, the mod of "Funny" for the parent post is really inappropriate. I'm sure he is serious.
That said, I do know from my activities of the past few years in trying to help networks get off blacklists (mostly customers of ISPs that harbor spammers) that Peer 1 does have a soiled reputation. And just because an ISP has a AUP or ToS posted does not mean they enforce them against high paying customers like spammers (or do so quickly). And in many cases ISPs have written specific contracts exempting the customer from those rules for a premium price. Lots of ISPs are worse than Peer 1. Lots are better. But don't make any assumptions whatsoever based on what the provider tells you, or posts on their web site. Peer 1's AUP does lack one important clause which you, since you have contact with them, could perhaps get them to include. That clause is a "binding covenant to the internet community" that they do not and will not serve any customer under any special contact terms that are less restrictive than this AUP that is binding on all customers. In other words, they have to testify that there are no "pink contracts".
As for support, yes, I do want to support this. MAPS itself is in question, but they have been since they went commercial after using the community to build them up. ISPs that drag their feet in kicking out spammers need to be dealt with, and harshly. The only case a spammer should not be immediately terminated is if that is their first and only spam run ever anywhere. I do believe in giving people a 2nd chance. But if they spammed somewhere else, and spammed again, they are gone.
One of the reasons you get that low price at ThePlanet is because they subsidize their bottom line with lots of spammers. So in a way, you are partaking of the riches of spamming... which is stolen from recipient networks because the spammers would rather waste other people's mail server time and network bandwidth to send email to the 99.99% of people that don't want the junk, than trim their mailing lists down to the few that do.
As for the spam activity at ThePlanet, it is far more extensive than "7 incidents in 3 years".
One is to block the spammers themselves specifically. This kind of ban would be expect to happen any time, and immediately, without warning, for any spam run discovered anywhere.
Then there are the bans that cover ISPs that leave spammers connected for days or weeks (this is a bad thing because even if the spammers are blocked, they are still banging away and costing the intended recipient networks a lot of resources). These are generally only done after some time period giving the ISP plenty of time to shut down a spammer, like a week or two. These are the only listings that would affect other customers of the ISP, and these should only be turned on in time frames where contact is possible for a few hours thereafter.
And MAPS does have a bad reputation for being uncontactable about anything, including wanting to pay for their service.
Everyone has different ideas what they think the rules of the internet are. I don't think MAPS has done anything significant in terms of making rules because spammers are considered bad by virtually everyone, and a significant majority think an ISP that drags their feet on removing spammers is equally responsible for the costly abuses. Assuming your ISP has no bad intentions (which many other ISPs, including many of the largest ones, do), at the very least they were sloppy in handling this. But if MAPS operates with the intent to have a way to contact them regarding being listed, at least they should be contactable for some number of hours following a closing of a period in which listings can be added (except for emergency listings of ongoing spam runs).
SPEWS is your next worry. I hope you've brought your ISP's SPEWS listings up, too.
I presume you had email blocked due to this listing (or else why would this be of concern to you). Could you tell us what servers were contacted that refused to accept the email on the basis of a MAPS listing? Some of us would like to know.
FWIW, I don't use MAPS. Back when they went commercial I contacted them about paying to use their service... three times. Never got an answer. So they don't get my business. So I don't use them.
I do use SPEWS. Your colo provide is listed in SPEWS, too. SPEWS does de-list when spammers go away, but it can take a while to detect the lack of spamming activities, or the lack of other services in that network. It would be up to your provider to report these things (to newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting) to expedite checking and de-listing.
But you'll find SPEWS is even harder to contact than MAPS. In fact, as far as anyone can tell, they are impossible to contact in a direct way. The newsgroup is pretty much it. But all this secrecy is necessary to provide a free service, since any such service is always a target for lawsuits from spammers and hosters of spammers trying to get the lawyers to punch a special hole just for them.
So tell me what some of the time frames were? Just how fast does MAPS expect them to respond? And does MAP have a web site form for this response?
One thing I have found is that a lot of the larger ISPs and colo facilities are actually quite ignorant of the anti-spam world. Many of the posted requests to get out of SPEWS indicate they only recently found out. Maybe these places need to hire some more knowledgeable network administrators or managers.
The dust gets on your space suit. You go back inside. Some of the dust falls off and floats in the air inside. Later you breath it in.
Sounds to me like they are going to need some really good washdown. And a vacuum cleaner can actually work with air being sucked in to pull some particles along with it. The big question is just how much of an effort is needed.
Also, the dust is littered with bonded shards of glass and minerals known as agglutinates, which were formed in the heat of meteorite impacts. Agglutinates have not been found on Earth, and scientists worry that the human body may not be able to expel them efficiently if inhaled.
The only information that can be considered reliable in an SMTP connection is the IP address. The reverse DNS name can be forged. But then, it can be looked up to see if the domain owner recognizes that IP address. If that works, then any trust of that domain can be a trust of that IP. Any email address you receive over the connection can only be trusted as much as you trust the source (you can, of course, choose to trust the IP without a DNS lookup... something I do for someone I know is using a statically assigned IP address and has a damned good reason for not having reverse DNS on it).
If you want to send email from your home broadband connection with a sender address naming your office email server domain, then fine for you. But not everyone trusts that this isn't a case where some spammer running a zombie is forging it. Your close friends will surely whitelist you if they otherwise have blocking in place that would affect your delivery. But if you are reply "out of the blue" to someone who doesn't know you based on some forum or blog posting, then good luck.
This is something that sucks about the whole damned spam situation, but it is your responsibility to make your email somehow stand out above the pink noise... all the while that spammers are trying to raise the noise level in an effort to make their own crap stand out.
But do understand this clearly... a few spammers have already started to collect "circle of friends" relationship info (much of it from infected zombies... does anyone that keeps your email address in their address list have an infected or infectable machine?) and are already starting to test it out in some spam runs. You'll get spam that appears to be from someone you know. And in many cases it may even be through their computer, or some computer on their ISP. The spammer will try as much as they can to make themselves appear to be your friend. And your friends can get spam that appears to be from you. You and your friends will have to figure out how to combat that.
Yes, I do get some backscatter. I blacklist any server that sends any backscatter... so there is my filter (if I sent the mail myself, and it bounces I do not blacklist in that case, since they could have queued the mail based on the fact that the sender address does validate through the SMTP client rDNS). Legitimate mail servers will reject (SMTP 550 response) back to the spammer. Queueing mail and sending a bounce message is not valid unless and until the return address is known to be valid, and that validity cannot be established in cases of spammers. No one should get bounce messages that result from spammers forging their addresses (but we can expect it to happen if the spammer is using a common mail server for their mail runs... doesn't make the whole thing right, though).
Slashdot Mirror
... it were offered by the RIAA and MPAA.
So basically, the GPL is preventing Wallace and others from being able to create monopolies to fix their own higher pricing.
The GPL isn't creating a monopoly or doing any price fixing. But what it is doing is creating a lot of competitors. Hence the supply is way up relative to demand, and thus prices are way down. Some happen to be 0.
It might seem that way. However, the GPL does not set pricing. I can sell a copy of Linux at whatever price I like. And there are people out there that do pay money for it. What the GPL is doing is making a way for more people to get involved in the business.
What if I came up with way to build something that currently costs $9000 to manufacture, but with my method it now only costs $9. I patent it and start licensing it to hundreds of companies that proceed to manufacture it for $9 each, and add a $6 markup and sell it for $15. Is that a price fixing scheme? To the manufacturer that originally made it for $9000, and didn't get a license, it sure might seem that way. They just have to get with the new way things are done, get a license for my method, and live with $6 instead of $6000 profit per unit, and hundreds of competitors (many of which are doomed to fail because the market will be saturated very quickly).
The GPL is certainly not a monopoly. As for the potential of driving others out of the software selling business, and creating a software service business, I'd say that those who are selling software, and giving away the services, are just as guilty at price fixing the services.
This is yet another example why filtering based on content is the wrong way to go about it. What might be one person's spam could be another person's fantastic offer they really wanted. Spam is about consent, not content, and the tests should be made appropriately. My spam filtering is currently about 99.5% effective, with less than 0.01% false positive, and this is without applying any tests to content or subject (and in fact the decision is made entirely before any message data is received).
I think you're talking about distributing a built system to multiple machines in a file farm. At least that's what Brian built SystemImager for, originally, to mass install a system image to a server farm. As long as the source image is in a stable state, that's fine. But if you are making backups of machines, backing up their actively mounted and working partition by the disk image is the bad idea, regardless of the tool. I used to do that once after I built a system just so I have an image of the whole drive to get it back to a bootable state real fast. But in practice I found I never needed to do that because I could always get a system to boot, even if by a CD (I made my own custom rescue CDs), and then have net access to restore the individual files by rsync.
In most cases, file backups are better. Imaging a drive that is currently mounted writable and actively updated can produce a corrupt image on the backup. This is worse that what can happen when a machine is powered off and restarted. Because the sectors are read from the partition over a span of time, things can be extremely inconsistent. Drive imaging is safest only when the partition being copied is unmounted.
The way I make backups is to run duplicate servers. Then I let rsync keep the data files in sync on the backups. If the primary machine has any problems, the secondary can take over. There are other things that need to be done for this, like separate IP addresses for administrative access, and the network services being provided (so that the service addresses can be moved between machines as needed while the administrator can still SSH in to each one individually).
The suggestion in this statement is that the other operating systems are rock solid and cannot be broken into. But in reality, they are certainly harder to break into, but it can be done in large numbers due to either some bugs in some applications, or poor administrative practice, or some combination of both. But we also don't see so many infiltrations of these other operating systems because the Windows machines make the larger target (h4q0r g3tz 2 0wn m0r3), and are (mis)used by the least security conscious and naive of the population. If it were a certain distribution of Linux being used in place of Windows everywhere, perhaps there might not be as big of a problem, but there will definitely be a big problem.
OTOH, I believe Microsoft's action is only going to reduce the problem for a short while. Someone will find a way.
Assert calls tend to result in error messages that are uninformative to end users. They would be fine for things that can only happen as a result of programmer error. They should never be used for user errors. Instead, check all user input conditions as soon as they are input, or at least as soon as the information needed to verify them is available. Then given informative information about the error. Additionally, the program should continue to perform as much additional user input checks as possible before aborting, so that a user who has multiple errors can correct them all at once.
The commentary should justify why the code needs to be there. If you can't justify it, remove it. But comments like
don't really cut it. The comment should explain what role this code has in the overall design. For example if you have a call to the fopen() function, it should be obvious that a file is being opened. But answer the question "why?" to make the comment informative.Of course, having good names for things can also help:I've been holding back going into digital photography. I have a few thousand dollars invested in film based cameras and associated lenses and equipment, all of which is currently Nikon (with the exception of about 30 filters being Hoya). With digital having about reached the level that satisfies me, I am now looking into moving that way. But clearly, I cannot continue with Nikon. I had hoped I would be able to because so many of my older lenses would still be usable, even though they don't focus automatically (I never did like that ... in fact I'm even a manual exposure setting guy).
I've never really looked at the other camera brands before. Recently I've started to do so. It does seem Canon is on par with Nikon, if not exceeding it, in terms of the flexibility of the system. And many people have suggested Canon. But if we had a vote on which to move to, which would you suggest?
Or maybe I'll just stick with film and move up to medium or large format.
The blog linked to by Slashdot actually links to a Baltimore Sun story (use email "bselig@dodgeit.com" and password "bseli" to log in) dated March 8 (well before April 1). Maybe you should RTFB.
I read about a case once where someone paid a several thousand dollar bill using all ones. In this particular case the person offered the payment refused it. The guy just walked out; there was not arrest. The owner of the debt later sued because the debt was unpaid. Apparently the guy had documented the payment offer and the judge ruled that it was payment refused and the debt cancelled. I don't know how he carried thousands of bills in, but I can just imagine he brought it all in a suitcase or grocery bag or something, maybe wrapped 100 bills at a time.
This was over 25 years ago. Now days the government actually trying to get people to stop using cash for anything ... while at the same time screwing so many people financially that they can't get credit cards or even bank accounts.
I did get hassled at a store once for paying for a $25 purchase with 25 Susan B. Anthony dollar coins because that was all I had at the time. The clerk didn't know coins were made in dollar denomination. She finally called the manager who came over, looked, laughed, and pulled $25 in bills out of his wallet and traded with me. I guess the clerk got to add a few new words to her limited English vocabulary.
Still, it should be the ISP that asks online for the listing to be removed, not one of their customers, since the listing is for the ISP. SPEWS may accept a statement on faith from the ISP at the expense that if the statement turns out to be false, future statements cannot be accepted. But a customer cannot put their ISP into that by making a statement on their behalf.
You post the dork's name in your slashdot signature.
If they are listing half a class B, then you have to resolve the root cause of that listing itself, first. One aspect of SPEWS is that they do lead to boycotting of ISPs that harbor spammers. Customers don't get exceptions because that dilutes the ability to pressure the ISP to remove the spammers. Maybe instead of trying to get a special whitelist, you should get your ISP to remove all the spammers. Note ... I know a little about how SPEWS operates, and if a listing grows on an ISP with more than one spammer, they have to get rid of all of them to get the listing even unlocked, much less downgraded.
I can't give you specific advice because I don't know which listing you are referring to.
Above.net is no innocent party, either. But that doesn't give Peer 1 a free pass.
Sure, you do need to pressure your ISP to cure their problems when they fail to. But don't assume so many listings exist because customers don't care. More often it's a case of ignorance. Many times the ISPs will lie to the customers. I've heard of more than one telling their customers that they are in negotiation with SPEWS to get SPEWS listings removed; which is a lie because SPEWS does not work by negotiation. Another huge ISP has actually made legal threats against their own customers if they leave due to the blacklisting.
I disagree about looking at the servers through which spam travels. I believe all services a spammer uses should be target. But with that comes the responsibility to verify this. They should actually check the referenced web sites to see if something servicing the spammer is actually there. If not, don't use that info. Trouble is, the spam problem is so huge, the blacklists have had to automate much of this, and that, I think, is where much of the difficulty comes from.
First, the mod of "Funny" for the parent post is really inappropriate. I'm sure he is serious.
That said, I do know from my activities of the past few years in trying to help networks get off blacklists (mostly customers of ISPs that harbor spammers) that Peer 1 does have a soiled reputation. And just because an ISP has a AUP or ToS posted does not mean they enforce them against high paying customers like spammers (or do so quickly). And in many cases ISPs have written specific contracts exempting the customer from those rules for a premium price. Lots of ISPs are worse than Peer 1. Lots are better. But don't make any assumptions whatsoever based on what the provider tells you, or posts on their web site. Peer 1's AUP does lack one important clause which you, since you have contact with them, could perhaps get them to include. That clause is a "binding covenant to the internet community" that they do not and will not serve any customer under any special contact terms that are less restrictive than this AUP that is binding on all customers. In other words, they have to testify that there are no "pink contracts".
As for support, yes, I do want to support this. MAPS itself is in question, but they have been since they went commercial after using the community to build them up. ISPs that drag their feet in kicking out spammers need to be dealt with, and harshly. The only case a spammer should not be immediately terminated is if that is their first and only spam run ever anywhere. I do believe in giving people a 2nd chance. But if they spammed somewhere else, and spammed again, they are gone.
One of the reasons you get that low price at ThePlanet is because they subsidize their bottom line with lots of spammers. So in a way, you are partaking of the riches of spamming ... which is stolen from recipient networks because the spammers would rather waste other people's mail server time and network bandwidth to send email to the 99.99% of people that don't want the junk, than trim their mailing lists down to the few that do.
As for the spam activity at ThePlanet, it is far more extensive than "7 incidents in 3 years".
There are 2 kinds of bans.
One is to block the spammers themselves specifically. This kind of ban would be expect to happen any time, and immediately, without warning, for any spam run discovered anywhere.
Then there are the bans that cover ISPs that leave spammers connected for days or weeks (this is a bad thing because even if the spammers are blocked, they are still banging away and costing the intended recipient networks a lot of resources). These are generally only done after some time period giving the ISP plenty of time to shut down a spammer, like a week or two. These are the only listings that would affect other customers of the ISP, and these should only be turned on in time frames where contact is possible for a few hours thereafter.
And MAPS does have a bad reputation for being uncontactable about anything, including wanting to pay for their service.
Everyone has different ideas what they think the rules of the internet are. I don't think MAPS has done anything significant in terms of making rules because spammers are considered bad by virtually everyone, and a significant majority think an ISP that drags their feet on removing spammers is equally responsible for the costly abuses. Assuming your ISP has no bad intentions (which many other ISPs, including many of the largest ones, do), at the very least they were sloppy in handling this. But if MAPS operates with the intent to have a way to contact them regarding being listed, at least they should be contactable for some number of hours following a closing of a period in which listings can be added (except for emergency listings of ongoing spam runs).
SPEWS is your next worry. I hope you've brought your ISP's SPEWS listings up, too.
I presume you had email blocked due to this listing (or else why would this be of concern to you). Could you tell us what servers were contacted that refused to accept the email on the basis of a MAPS listing? Some of us would like to know.
FWIW, I don't use MAPS. Back when they went commercial I contacted them about paying to use their service ... three times. Never got an answer. So they don't get my business. So I don't use them.
I do use SPEWS. Your colo provide is listed in SPEWS, too. SPEWS does de-list when spammers go away, but it can take a while to detect the lack of spamming activities, or the lack of other services in that network. It would be up to your provider to report these things (to newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting) to expedite checking and de-listing.
But you'll find SPEWS is even harder to contact than MAPS. In fact, as far as anyone can tell, they are impossible to contact in a direct way. The newsgroup is pretty much it. But all this secrecy is necessary to provide a free service, since any such service is always a target for lawsuits from spammers and hosters of spammers trying to get the lawyers to punch a special hole just for them.
So tell me what some of the time frames were? Just how fast does MAPS expect them to respond? And does MAP have a web site form for this response?
One thing I have found is that a lot of the larger ISPs and colo facilities are actually quite ignorant of the anti-spam world. Many of the posted requests to get out of SPEWS indicate they only recently found out. Maybe these places need to hire some more knowledgeable network administrators or managers.
Still, the dust can do damage in that entry way. Redundant entries will be needed, as well as ways to repair or even replace them.
The dust gets on your space suit. You go back inside. Some of the dust falls off and floats in the air inside. Later you breath it in.
Sounds to me like they are going to need some really good washdown. And a vacuum cleaner can actually work with air being sucked in to pull some particles along with it. The big question is just how much of an effort is needed.
Sounds like the makings of a "dirty bomb".
The only information that can be considered reliable in an SMTP connection is the IP address. The reverse DNS name can be forged. But then, it can be looked up to see if the domain owner recognizes that IP address. If that works, then any trust of that domain can be a trust of that IP. Any email address you receive over the connection can only be trusted as much as you trust the source (you can, of course, choose to trust the IP without a DNS lookup ... something I do for someone I know is using a statically assigned IP address and has a damned good reason for not having reverse DNS on it).
If you want to send email from your home broadband connection with a sender address naming your office email server domain, then fine for you. But not everyone trusts that this isn't a case where some spammer running a zombie is forging it. Your close friends will surely whitelist you if they otherwise have blocking in place that would affect your delivery. But if you are reply "out of the blue" to someone who doesn't know you based on some forum or blog posting, then good luck.
This is something that sucks about the whole damned spam situation, but it is your responsibility to make your email somehow stand out above the pink noise ... all the while that spammers are trying to raise the noise level in an effort to make their own crap stand out.
But do understand this clearly ... a few spammers have already started to collect "circle of friends" relationship info (much of it from infected zombies ... does anyone that keeps your email address in their address list have an infected or infectable machine?) and are already starting to test it out in some spam runs. You'll get spam that appears to be from someone you know. And in many cases it may even be through their computer, or some computer on their ISP. The spammer will try as much as they can to make themselves appear to be your friend. And your friends can get spam that appears to be from you. You and your friends will have to figure out how to combat that.
Yes, I do get some backscatter. I blacklist any server that sends any backscatter ... so there is my filter (if I sent the mail myself, and it bounces I do not blacklist in that case, since they could have queued the mail based on the fact that the sender address does validate through the SMTP client rDNS). Legitimate mail servers will reject (SMTP 550 response) back to the spammer. Queueing mail and sending a bounce message is not valid unless and until the return address is known to be valid, and that validity cannot be established in cases of spammers. No one should get bounce messages that result from spammers forging their addresses (but we can expect it to happen if the spammer is using a common mail server for their mail runs ... doesn't make the whole thing right, though).