The "risk" is dealing with hundreds of petty brats who think they're experts on the law, and think we've harmed them personally. Maybe we're overestimating it. Doesn't matter. Looks like we were scared off.
Most companies prefer to make a profit than proving their manliness.
No. That would be silly and counter productive. Deciding not to invest in a new business area costs nothing. Replacing al our software would be expensive.
Yes, we know what the legal situation with all of these is. The point is, does the entire GPL community know?
And by reimplementing portions, I was talking about reimplementing an entire application that forms part of a suite. Typically a plug in replacement will look a lot like a GPL violation.
What's stopping somebody from claiming that right now, without you having used GPL software?
Nopthing at all. But there's no reason for them to consider that we might be. If we start releasing the source to some of our software, people will ask what we're hiding.
You know, there's this thing called common sense. A lot of people have it. When somebody says "they are illegally using GPLed code", that common sense will expect a little something called proof.
Common sense... Interesting. I'll suggest this to the braying mod of zealots who are screaming "release the source" to code they have no right to.
Yeah. The moderation system has always been broken. It's just as easy to whore for +5 mods. Unfortunately the solution to a brken mod system always involves adding more arbitrary rules, and sticking with them whether they work or not.
The admins who run it are jumped up petty control freaks who think the internet should be run according to their whims..
The admins that run it refuse to modify their own behaviour and demand everyone else does so. They are inflexible. They overrate their own impotance. They expect everyone else to do things their way. Hey, take it as an insult if you like.
..self appointed elite..
They are self appointed in that they make the rules. They are an elite in that the barrier to entry is high enough to stop other people from having any say in the matter.
Well, that's your right. I still think that these people are fucking morons.
My personal opinion. I didn't accuse them of anything.
No one is telling you how to behave. They're simply offering a list of IP addresses belonging to known spam-supporters freely to anyone who wishes to see it for whatever purpose they might have.
Bullshit! They're offering it as a email blocking list. You're still sounding like a 12 year old. I mean talk about evading responsibility. It's only useful purpose is to block emails. It is advertised as a list in association with technology to block emails.
But if you prefer to be a total immature wit about it then that is your right.
But I wasn't talking about them. I'm talking abou the people who use the list on order to pressure ISPs to pressure their providers.
You didn't answer my other question. What makes you think I'm a spammer?
Actually, it doesn't matter. Some people do find it to be useful. I find it to be useful. They don't need to state what their service does, as this can be determined through their very consistent actions. Words don't matter; actions do. And SPEWS has carried out some very effective actions.
It seems a lot of people who use it don't consider what it does and just assume that by using it they'll block all spam. Which they probably will, but they'll do that by turning off their server as well. If ISPs are responsible for the actions of their customers, then I believe SPEWS should also be responsible for at least some of the actions of the list users.
They who? I bet YOU have NEVER spoken with the people that run SPEWS. If you have, say who they are to back up your statement.
Specifically, I can't say. If I were to give you a list of names of people I suspect, it would pretty much be a list of the top 20 posters on NANAE. It's an ediucated guess. But perhaps I'm wrong. Does it matter? I consider people who run it and the people who encourage its use all to be at fault.
This is entirely false. I have seen numerous ISPs stop hosting spammers and turn around and clean up their act as a result. In fact I have actually helped 3 of them do that.
I said it has made no impact on spam at all. I didn't say it made no impact on ISPs that were unfortunate enough to host spammers. The spammers just find another host. Has any spammer ever gone out of business because he couldn't afford hosting fees?
Maybe about 10 pieces of email per year that I actually wanted get lost as a result. It's easier to deal with than to deal with the onslaught of spam. Maybe your email box just doesn't get enough for you to realize the scope of the problem.
Well, if you use it for your own email then that's up to you. I still think you're using a crappy product, but what do I care?
There are other solutions to the problem. There are better solutions. Disconnecting your computer from the internet would solve the problem, but not in a satisfactory way. The fact that you have an inadequate partial solution to the problem does not mean that is the only solution.
But my guess is you are most likely pissed off about SPEWS because SPEWS has listed your home email server. Because you want to use cheap services, and not make any effort to make your own email server stand out above the crowd the the ghetto in an obvious way, you want to find someone else to blame.
Never happened to me. I just have a lot of sympathy for the little guy. It's not about the spammer. It's not about the ISP, who I quite agree should take a tough line against spammers. The problem is the ISP's other customers. I do not see it as their responsibility to deal with spam. That's your problem. Not theirs. I don't see them at fault for not knowing about the ISP's other customers. I see them as being deliberately targetted by a lot of admins for something that is beyond their control.
Wow. Name calling. Let me guess.. you're 12 years old.
Here's the deal. I get irritated by a self appointed elite telling people how they should and shouldn't behave, using the excuse "We're just trying to stop spam".
It works as an explanation, but still... There's no reason this had to be the case. After all, as far as I can see, the real reason was that 1970's audiences hadn't really experienced the fast paced combat sequences we're used to these days.
It wouldn't be like that though. Have you seen the remake of Psycho? Most people haven't because it was so poor a remake that people only remember the original. Oceans 11 was good enough that people see the remake as the definitive version.
A special edition involves fooling around with something we know and love. Unless it's really improved people are going to feel it's a desecration. A remake will live or die on its own merits. The creator can do whatever they like, but the fans will know they can always go back to the original.
RTFA: TELEWEST DID *NOT* CARE UNTIL *AFTER* THEY GOT 56/18 BLOCKS LISTED IN SPEWS.
Where does it say that?
That's the bottom line. They are cleaning up their act because their customers are complaining.
It doesn't say that either.
Telewest were trying to deal with the spam. They still are. Well done to SPEWS for making them do what they were already doing.
SPEWS WORKS. You may not like their methods, but they get results when other gentler attempts have failed.
Does it work? I still seem to be getting spam. Seems to me a bad idea to clobber the effectiveness of the internet for a trivial reduction in spam.
As a long-time NANAer (heck, I supported its initial RFD/CFV) I can tell you that SPEWS has very simple rules, they follow those rules, and anyone who has argued with you about SPEWS is in fact NOT SPEWS.
Ah! great. So you happen to know who runs SPEWS then. Perhaps you should point out that telewest is not a spam support organisation since they're not hosting spammers.
Just because SPEWS doesn't work for you, doesn't mean that it doesn't fit the needs of others. I have no problem with your dislike of SPEWS and I endorse your decision not to use it. I draw issue with your choice to attempt to berate those that find SPEWS meets their needs.
Well, that's your right. I stil think that these people are fucking morons.
You also cross the line when you begin putting your words in SPEWS mouth.
If SPEWS has an opinion on this matter I invite them to respond to this post. I think it's quite clear that some of the regulars in NANAE are responsible for the list. Any statement of the purpose of functionality of SPEWS that is frequently made in that group, and is not contradicted, I will consider to be something that SPEWS administrators agree with.
But I should clarify... If you want to use SPEWS on your own network, then that's fine. I think it's a poor product, but I'm pleased it works for you. If you run servers as a service for other people or on behalf of a company and use SPEWS then you show a complete lack of understanding of the requirements of your users.
No they fucking don't! It's quite simple - if you don't like their policies or justifications don't use their fucking list. That's all it is - a list.
I don't fucking know what their fucking policy is. Their FAQ is not clear. If it was it would make it exceedingly clear that it lists IP ranges that are in the same block as those of spammers. and would make it totally clear that a "spam friendly ISP" is any ISP that hosts spammers and doesn't deal with them in the SPEWS accepted manner. Did you actually read what I said?
This is the real problem. SPEWS apologists like you don't care what opther people have to say, don't even read what other people have to say and come up with a stock response that is so full of holes I don't know where to start.
But it does affect me, it's more than a list, and oly idiots use it.
Slashdot Mirror
The "risk" is dealing with hundreds of petty brats who think they're experts on the law, and think we've harmed them personally. Maybe we're overestimating it. Doesn't matter. Looks like we were scared off.
Most companies prefer to make a profit than proving their manliness.
What would you suggest then? Seems MS will invade whatever we do unless we use their software. Which wouldn't be practical.
Because we all know Microsoft can't afford lawyers.
Surely MS haven't sued simply because they can see no legal grounds to do so. Otherwise they would have used this against Lindows.
No. That would be silly and counter productive. Deciding not to invest in a new business area costs nothing. Replacing al our software would be expensive.
Not happened yet.
If it does we'll have to look at the legal situation.
Yes, we know what the legal situation with all of these is. The point is, does the entire GPL community know?
And by reimplementing portions, I was talking about reimplementing an entire application that forms part of a suite. Typically a plug in replacement will look a lot like a GPL violation.
What's stopping somebody from claiming that right now, without you having used GPL software?
Nopthing at all. But there's no reason for them to consider that we might be. If we start releasing the source to some of our software, people will ask what we're hiding.
You know, there's this thing called common sense. A lot of people have it. When somebody says "they are illegally using GPLed code", that common sense will expect a little something called proof.
Common sense... Interesting. I'll suggest this to the braying mod of zealots who are screaming "release the source" to code they have no right to.
Gah! Sorry. Stupid mistake. In order.. out of order.. What's the difference?
Yeah. The moderation system has always been broken. It's just as easy to whore for +5 mods. Unfortunately the solution to a brken mod system always involves adding more arbitrary rules, and sticking with them whether they work or not.
Rockets are bulky and inefficient.
We need to switch to trebuchets.
But when they show a series out of order, and are constantly pre-empting it, it's difficult for it to get a following.
When they showed it on a minor channel in the UK, out of order, it gained quite a following.
The admins who run it are jumped up petty control freaks who think the internet should be run according to their whims..
..self appointed elite..
The admins that run it refuse to modify their own behaviour and demand everyone else does so. They are inflexible. They overrate their own impotance. They expect everyone else to do things their way. Hey, take it as an insult if you like.
They are self appointed in that they make the rules. They are an elite in that the barrier to entry is high enough to stop other people from having any say in the matter.
Well, that's your right. I still think that these people are fucking morons.
My personal opinion. I didn't accuse them of anything.
No one is telling you how to behave. They're simply offering a list of IP addresses belonging to known spam-supporters freely to anyone who wishes to see it for whatever purpose they might have.
Bullshit! They're offering it as a email blocking list. You're still sounding like a 12 year old. I mean talk about evading responsibility. It's only useful purpose is to block emails. It is advertised as a list in association with technology to block emails.
But if you prefer to be a total immature wit about it then that is your right.
But I wasn't talking about them. I'm talking abou the people who use the list on order to pressure ISPs to pressure their providers.
You didn't answer my other question. What makes you think I'm a spammer?
Perhaps some of their customers might actually want to use port 25. I hear it's quite useful for email.
Actually, it doesn't matter. Some people do find it to be useful. I find it to be useful. They don't need to state what their service does, as this can be determined through their very consistent actions. Words don't matter; actions do. And SPEWS has carried out some very effective actions.
It seems a lot of people who use it don't consider what it does and just assume that by using it they'll block all spam. Which they probably will, but they'll do that by turning off their server as well. If ISPs are responsible for the actions of their customers, then I believe SPEWS should also be responsible for at least some of the actions of the list users.
They who? I bet YOU have NEVER spoken with the people that run SPEWS. If you have, say who they are to back up your statement.
Specifically, I can't say. If I were to give you a list of names of people I suspect, it would pretty much be a list of the top 20 posters on NANAE. It's an ediucated guess. But perhaps I'm wrong. Does it matter? I consider people who run it and the people who encourage its use all to be at fault.
This is entirely false. I have seen numerous ISPs stop hosting spammers and turn around and clean up their act as a result. In fact I have actually helped 3 of them do that.
I said it has made no impact on spam at all. I didn't say it made no impact on ISPs that were unfortunate enough to host spammers. The spammers just find another host. Has any spammer ever gone out of business because he couldn't afford hosting fees?
Maybe about 10 pieces of email per year that I actually wanted get lost as a result. It's easier to deal with than to deal with the onslaught of spam. Maybe your email box just doesn't get enough for you to realize the scope of the problem.
Well, if you use it for your own email then that's up to you. I still think you're using a crappy product, but what do I care?
There are other solutions to the problem. There are better solutions. Disconnecting your computer from the internet would solve the problem, but not in a satisfactory way. The fact that you have an inadequate partial solution to the problem does not mean that is the only solution.
But my guess is you are most likely pissed off about SPEWS because SPEWS has listed your home email server. Because you want to use cheap services, and not make any effort to make your own email server stand out above the crowd the the ghetto in an obvious way, you want to find someone else to blame.
Never happened to me. I just have a lot of sympathy for the little guy. It's not about the spammer. It's not about the ISP, who I quite agree should take a tough line against spammers. The problem is the ISP's other customers. I do not see it as their responsibility to deal with spam. That's your problem. Not theirs. I don't see them at fault for not knowing about the ISP's other customers. I see them as being deliberately targetted by a lot of admins for something that is beyond their control.
Wow. Name calling. Let me guess.. you're 12 years old.
Here's the deal. I get irritated by a self appointed elite telling people how they should and shouldn't behave, using the excuse "We're just trying to stop spam".
What makes you think I'm a spammer?
It works as an explanation, but still... There's no reason this had to be the case. After all, as far as I can see, the real reason was that 1970's audiences hadn't really experienced the fast paced combat sequences we're used to these days.
Huh?
Telewest are the victims here. You might as well blame the people who are receiving the spam.
Yeah.. it makes sense... But it's not as cool!
It wouldn't be like that though. Have you seen the remake of Psycho? Most people haven't because it was so poor a remake that people only remember the original. Oceans 11 was good enough that people see the remake as the definitive version.
A special edition involves fooling around with something we know and love. Unless it's really improved people are going to feel it's a desecration. A remake will live or die on its own merits. The creator can do whatever they like, but the fans will know they can always go back to the original.
Not tongue in cheek. Also I'm not totally sure it's a good idea, but I did think it was worth suggesting.
RTFA: TELEWEST DID *NOT* CARE UNTIL *AFTER* THEY GOT 56 /18 BLOCKS LISTED IN SPEWS.
Where does it say that?
That's the bottom line. They are cleaning up their act because their customers are complaining.
It doesn't say that either.
Telewest were trying to deal with the spam. They still are. Well done to SPEWS for making them do what they were already doing.
SPEWS WORKS. You may not like their methods, but they get results when other gentler attempts have failed.
Does it work? I still seem to be getting spam. Seems to me a bad idea to clobber the effectiveness of the internet for a trivial reduction in spam.
As a long-time NANAer (heck, I supported its initial RFD/CFV) I can tell you that SPEWS has very simple rules, they follow those rules, and anyone who has argued with you about SPEWS is in fact NOT SPEWS.
Ah! great. So you happen to know who runs SPEWS then. Perhaps you should point out that telewest is not a spam support organisation since they're not hosting spammers.
No they're not. Spammers are costing them money. They're trying to keep the costs down, but this is a long shot from actually making money from them.
Just because SPEWS doesn't work for you, doesn't mean that it doesn't fit the needs of others. I have no problem with your dislike of SPEWS and I endorse your decision not to use it. I draw issue with your choice to attempt to berate those that find SPEWS meets their needs.
Well, that's your right. I stil think that these people are fucking morons.
You also cross the line when you begin putting your words in SPEWS mouth.
If SPEWS has an opinion on this matter I invite them to respond to this post. I think it's quite clear that some of the regulars in NANAE are responsible for the list. Any statement of the purpose of functionality of SPEWS that is frequently made in that group, and is not contradicted, I will consider to be something that SPEWS administrators agree with.
But I should clarify... If you want to use SPEWS on your own network, then that's fine. I think it's a poor product, but I'm pleased it works for you. If you run servers as a service for other people or on behalf of a company and use SPEWS then you show a complete lack of understanding of the requirements of your users.
No they fucking don't! It's quite simple - if you don't like their policies or justifications don't use their fucking list. That's all it is - a list.
I don't fucking know what their fucking policy is. Their FAQ is not clear. If it was it would make it exceedingly clear that it lists IP ranges that are in the same block as those of spammers. and would make it totally clear that a "spam friendly ISP" is any ISP that hosts spammers and doesn't deal with them in the SPEWS accepted manner. Did you actually read what I said?
This is the real problem. SPEWS apologists like you don't care what opther people have to say, don't even read what other people have to say and come up with a stock response that is so full of holes I don't know where to start.
But it does affect me, it's more than a list, and oly idiots use it.