I disagree. Remember that spam is essentially free for the sender. All that is required is to find one sucker who will pay you to send spam thinking they will generate leads from it. End results of spam recipients acting on the spam by buying products is not required for spammers to continue their business. Suprise, it's a scam.
Marketing is a black art and marketers often have no idea which of their campaigns are actually driving more business. They will try anything if it gets the word out. Even if each small business learns after one or two spam campaigns that it is not generating more business for us, that's still enough suckers in America alone to keep spammers happily in business forever even if everyone in the world stops clicking those links.
codepunk, why are you repeating this garbage in every spam thread with no reasoning to back it up? Why do you feel so strongly that CAN-SPAM gives you... I mean gives spammers the right to spam me? My reply to you from the last thread you said this:
Where in CAN-SPAM do you see it giving "high volume e-mail deployers" the RIGHT to put e-mail in my Inbox? I have the right to filter my incoming e-mail, and I still have the right to pay Spamcop to assist me in making those decisions. My server, my property, my rules. How is this not clear to you?
Wish I had access to Slashdot access logs so I could see if all the "spammers have rights too d00ds!" idiots are coming from the same IP in CO or FL...
Where in CAN-SPAM do you see it giving "high volume e-mail deployers" the RIGHT to put e-mail in my Inbox? I have the right to filter my incoming e-mail, and I still have the right to pay Spamcop to assist me in making those decisions. My server, my property, my rules. How is this not clear to you?
Wish I had access to Slashdot access logs so I could see if all the "spammers have rights too d00ds!" idiots are coming from the same IP in CO or FL...
Mars Terraforming Debate
on
Our Man In Black
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I saw him not too long ago since he participated in the Mars Terraforming Debate in Mountain View CA covered on Slashdot. It's great to see that NASA not only has someone on the job, but they are participating in public conversations about these questions. Very smart, funny guy. This must be one of the coolest job titles on the planet.
BTW, since this is Slashdot I should mention to people that if you plan on running Linux, avoid this board like the plague. It is HORRIBLE under Linux.
I've been using the A7N8X running Suse 9 as my primary desktop at home since the board first came out. For the first month I had terrible stability problems, until I figured out it was a bad IDE cable. Since then this motherboard has been rock solid under Linux for months now. Of course, that might change now that I've bought this SATA drive...:-)
I've talked to the DrDOS guys a few times... they're pretty cool and are very pro-Linux. They were pushing their Drlx product that lets you use Linux device drivers in a DOS environment to get things like USB support which is nice.
Anyone who thinks DOS is dead does not work anywhere near the embedded world. It's very much alive and kicking in little boxes all around you and new products are still being developed based on it. Problem is that nobody is putting out device drivers for "new" technology like USB for DOS so unless they find a way to utilize existing drivers they're in trouble as older standards like ISA fade. Linux to the rescue.:-)
The documentation in the DDK help is has improved greatly since the dark NT4 days.
It's off topic, but can you recommend any good websites on Windows driver development? To an outsider it seems almost completely undocumented on the web. Specifically I'm interested in knowing how to do two things:
1) How to write a generic interrupt service routine for Win2k/XP that will be called when an IRQ occurs on a specific interrupt level. It's not a serial port, network device, or anything specific that needs those APIs. I'm looking for a generic API for interrupt handling.
2) Documentation on how that routine should pass data to user space with minimal latency.
Tell me, would you people also be willing to jump off a bridge to get driver support if the hardware manufacturers demanded it?
Who's this WE you're talking about? Some of us ARE the hardware manufacturers! While we are great Linux supporters, we are damn tired of taking support calls, writing FAQs, and loosing business because of customers can't make use of our drivers. I have conversations like this all the time... who is this benefiting?
CUSTOMER: I need the kernel? US: No, the kernel source. You need to download the source to the kernel so you can compile the module. What version are you running? CUSTOMER: I have no idea! Why do I have to "compile" a "module". Can't you just send it to me? US: No. Type "uname -a" CUSTOMER: It says linux 2.4.19-17-xm5 US: I have no idea what that is. Where did you get this system? CUSTOMER: I got it from AcmeSoft. It's part of their SupraRealTimeKernel package. US: Great. You have to call them and ask for the source. CUSTOMER: Screw this, I'm going back to WinCE.
I just had to port a kernel module I wrote for my employer a year or so ago. Told my boss it'd probably take a week. Instead it took me 15 minutes. I grabbed a Makefile from an example, compiled, noticed that the return type for interrupt handlers had changed, fixed that, done. Thanks to the kernel developers out there for making it so easy!
It would be quite another thing to ask all the gas stations to stop selling fuel to people driving ford trucks.
Is this really the best metaphor you can come up with for the practice of mail admins refusing to accept mail from spam supporting ISPs? That's just silly. Okay, I'm sure I'm just being trolled now, but lets try to make your example work.
Say that the gas station was actually a free kissing booth. And say that the lady working at the kissing booth noticed that pretty much all Ford drivers smell like a sewer, haven't brushed their teeth in weeks, and often crash into her booth while fumbling with their open beer can. Don't you think the lady at the kissing booth would be justified in hanging her "the kissing booth is closed" sign every time she sees a Ford swerving her way? Yes, that's a much better example. I hope this cleared things up for you.
What if this theoretical ISP published a page which explained the blocklists and filters it uses and linked to the home pages and objective documentation available online for those blocklists and filters including the risks of lost mail? The now fully informed customer would then be free to decide if they want to do business with that ISP or take their business elsewhere. Would you then be satisfied that the blocklist/filter admins, the ISP, and the customer are all behaving ethically?
We are fully in agreement that the ISP *must* inform the customer that blocklisting/filtering is taking place. If your problems with blocklisting are resolved by the customer being fully informed, we have nothing to argue about. However, if you belive that even if the customer is fully informed, use of blocklists is unethical, your arguments so far are misdirected. You will have to explain why a blocklist is in itself unethical, even if all involved are aware that it is in use.
The point of this is not to block the spammer directly but to punish the spammer's neighbours so that they will act to stop the spamming from their neighbourhood. This is called collective punishment and in meat-space it's considered a crime against humanity.
It's simply a boycott. If an ISP supports spam, I don't want to get mail from it. You call this violence and a crime against humanity? How is a simple boycott so difficult to understand? Do you disagree with a striking union's right to ask a community not to shop at specific stores? Do you disagree with PETA's right to list companies which test harmfull chemicals on animals so I can stop buying their products? Crime against humanity? Sheesh.
Then when called on it, they point at the mail admins and say "its only our opinion, its the mail admins doing the blocking". The mail admins (when called on it) say "It's not my fault, I do what I can with SPEWS. Go talk to them!"
You're just proving my point over and over again. Yes, you are describing an incompetent ISP. Yes, there are many of these out there. ISPs sucked before blocklisting, and continue to suck now that we have blocklisting. What in the world does this have to do with SPEWS or any other blocklist? The blocklist maintainer has no contact with your ISP, has no idea who they are, and has not "authorized" them to use their list.
The fact that your ISP is incompentant or uncommunicative about their spam policies has nothing to do with blocklist creator's right to create their boycott list, and my right to use it to participate in the boycott to put spammers out of business.
OK. I'm going to find out where your server is and report you to every RBL I can find.
Have fun. The funny thing is that you've just pointed out something great about SPEWS. The SPEWS admins do not accept reports from the public. Instead they have their own spam traps, and their own unknown e-mail accounts they send complaints from. So you *cant* get me listed on SPEWS unless my provider is providing support to spammers. Thanks for reminding me of this valuable quality control feature of SPEWS!
Then I'll sit back and laugh when some guy in NANAE flames the fuck out of you
Wow, it sounds like you had a bad newsgroup experience. Can we give you a group hug? Are you okay? I know, people can be really rude sometimes. Don't worry, some day you'll get over it... we've all been there little buddy.
And what of your customers? Do you inform THEM of who YOU are boycotting?
This is my mail server, which I run for my circle of aquaintances. We all knowingly participate in this system.
If your argument is that ISPs apply spam filtering without informing their users, then I fail to see that that has anything to do with SPEWS. If an ISP uses any blocklist or filter it is their responsibility to inform the user that they have enabled these protections. Spamassassin, Spamcop, MAPS... any of these tools can potentially stop delivery of mail a user was expecting. If the ISP didn't warn the user of this possibility then their customers obviously should complain to the ISP. What does SPEWS have to do with that? Nothing.
Pay attention: SPEWS is blocking e-mail that people DID WANT.
Are you sure you're paying attention? SPEWS does not control my mail server, I do. You are welcome to complain that SomeISP.com (as a SPEWS user) is blocking e-mail their users did want, but it's intellectually sloppy (or just technically ignorant) to claim that SPEWS is blocking anything.
If YOU were paying attention you'd know there are highly effective ways to block spam that don't involve IPs or headers and that don't inflict collateral damage.
Really? Name that method. By the way, solutions which do not actually reduce the bandwidth and storage resources consumed by spam do not count, since clearly they are only masking the problem from the end user, not solving it. The spammer is still there, stealing terabytes of resources year after year. Also, solutions which result in automated mail being sent to the From: address of all new senders you see don't count, since it just results in uninvolved 3rd parties getting your spam bounces since these addresses are always forged..
No, it's [...] idiocy that lands them there. Classic blame the victim.
You are SO right. So stop blaming the victim (me, the mail admin, who is sick and tired of getting all this spam) for the spam problem. Hey, I have an idea... why don't you blame the ISPs that are knowingly selling the spammers hosting instead? It's THEIR idiocy in ignoring abuse complaints that have gotten them into my boycott.
You know, dumb people that put there email address places and don't read find print. They deserve the spam, IMO.
Nice attitude. Post the SPEWS ID of your block so we can discuss if you're accurately describing this marketing company... are you sure you're not one of their employees? From your attitude towards the people complaining about getting their spam I'm guessing you probably are.
It's a boycott system. We as mail server admins are boycotting spam supporting ISPs. The phrase "collateral damage" just isn't involved here. If you are spam supporting ISP, I don't want to talk to you. It's pretty simple. Isn't it obvious that this also means that I do not want to talk to customers of the ISP I am boycotting? What would be the point of an ISP boycott if I still talk to its customers?
If I stand in front of a store and physically prevent people from going in, I'll get thrown in jail. Preventing solicitors that the store didn't want anyway is one thing. Blocking legitimate customers is quite another.
Your example is idiotic. I run my own mail server. I get to decide who can send me e-mail. SPEWS publishes a list, which I trust, and I act on that list by personally boycotting the ISPs on that list. SPEWS does not prevent anyone from doing anything. *I* as the admin of my own mail server do the blocking. Also, the blocklisted ISP is not affected directly by my decision. People who do not act on the SPEWS list can still happily do business with the blocklisted ISP.
Here's a counter example. Imagine that Safeway (a grocery store) is treating its employees like crap, and that a group of anonymous Safeway employees put up a website where they ask Safeway customers to boycott the stores in support for their labor negotiations.
Do I as a former Safeway customer have the right to NOT shop at Safeway? Do they as current employees have the right to publish their request for a boycott?
This story fits very well into the "Your Rights Online" category. It's my mail server, and it's my right to decide who can talk to it. As the admin of my mail server, I am participating in a boycott of spam supporting ISPs. It's that simple.
Nobody has "the right" to call me at midnight to sell me stuff, or junk fax me, or bang on my door until I open it. Similarly, nobody has "the right" to put an e-mail into my inbox.
This is a boycott. I as a mail server admin am participating in the boycott of ISPs listed under SPEWS. I don't care in the slightest if you are "to blame" for patronizing an ISP I am boycotting. That phrase doesn't even make sense in this situation. And your example is horrible. A post office refusing to deliver mail is analogous to me refusing to accept mail from a spam supporting ISP? That makes no sense. It's *my* server. Do you wish I did not have the right I decide what hosts can communicate with my server?
SPEWS is just a list of IP blocks of organizations which do not respond and act on SPEWS spam reports in a timely manor. So far this has proven to be the most effective anti-spam solution available to me. Filtering at the mailbox does not elminate the spammer taking up my valuable bandwith or disk space, and the same spam will still use those resources day after day since the same spammer is still in business. Sender verification just means I am contributing to the useless e-mail problem by generating more automated bounce e-mail. SPEWS and blocklisting actually generates real fear and anger in spammers. I love it.
Post the SPEWS record number that you were blocked under so we can see if your story is true or not, and if you have left out any details. Otherwise... your anecdote is nice, but it doesn't shed any light at all on SPEWS's effectiveness.
What do you want to bet that Bush will propose paying for this mission by cutting taxes? Since tax cuts are both the solution to high deficits and low deficits I'm sure it's also the solution to paying for $20 billion dollar space missions. After all, unless we cut taxes, businesses cannot succeed! And unless businesses succeed, who will build the rockets for us? Suddenly it all makes sense... I'm voting for Bush from now on!
I have mixed feelings about this book. As a great scifi idea book it is a lot of fun. Really interesting and entertaining exploration of a bunch of futuristic ideas, social currencies, alternate forms of government, things like that. I grew up a few minutes drive from Disney Land and had many friends who worked there, so I find his obsession with the Cult of the Mouse very entertaining. If that's all you need to get out of a book, I heartily recommend it. The main character of the book is well developed and believable.
However, the book is structured as a kind of whodoneit mystery, and I found it painfully transparent. It was clear that Mr Doctorow was way out of his element writing this kind of plotline. The mystery was completely obvious almost from the start, and the character development of those involved felt very ham handed, as he dropped hammer sized clues on the reader is if he were being subtle. Everyone in the book except for the main character are moved about like foils for his mystery and are cardboard cutouts otherwise. It felt almost insulting. Yes Cory, your readers are smart! Don't worry, you aren't loosing us. You don't have to have your characters wave huge red flags saying, "I did it! I did it!"
In the end I enjoyed the experience of reading it, but along the way several times I almost abandoned it as he focused on developing the mystery instead of his big ideas. I hope in the future Mr Doctorow sticks to what he does well... if so I will happily pick up his next book.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. Remember that spam is essentially free for the sender. All that is required is to find one sucker who will pay you to send spam thinking they will generate leads from it. End results of spam recipients acting on the spam by buying products is not required for spammers to continue their business. Suprise, it's a scam.
Marketing is a black art and marketers often have no idea which of their campaigns are actually driving more business. They will try anything if it gets the word out. Even if each small business learns after one or two spam campaigns that it is not generating more business for us, that's still enough suckers in America alone to keep spammers happily in business forever even if everyone in the world stops clicking those links.
codepunk, why are you repeating this garbage in every spam thread with no reasoning to back it up? Why do you feel so strongly that CAN-SPAM gives you... I mean gives spammers the right to spam me? My reply to you from the last thread you said this:
Where in CAN-SPAM do you see it giving "high volume e-mail deployers" the RIGHT to put e-mail in my Inbox? I have the right to filter my incoming e-mail, and I still have the right to pay Spamcop to assist me in making those decisions. My server, my property, my rules. How is this not clear to you?
Wish I had access to Slashdot access logs so I could see if all the "spammers have rights too d00ds!" idiots are coming from the same IP in CO or FL...
Where in CAN-SPAM do you see it giving "high volume e-mail deployers" the RIGHT to put e-mail in my Inbox? I have the right to filter my incoming e-mail, and I still have the right to pay Spamcop to assist me in making those decisions. My server, my property, my rules. How is this not clear to you?
Wish I had access to Slashdot access logs so I could see if all the "spammers have rights too d00ds!" idiots are coming from the same IP in CO or FL...
I saw him not too long ago since he participated in the Mars Terraforming Debate in Mountain View CA covered on Slashdot. It's great to see that NASA not only has someone on the job, but they are participating in public conversations about these questions. Very smart, funny guy. This must be one of the coolest job titles on the planet.
This can boost the price of the stock and is sometimes called a short bounce.
:-)
This effect is also known as a "dead cat bounce". This is my favorite phrase I've learned from The Economist.
I've been using the A7N8X running Suse 9 as my primary desktop at home since the board first came out. For the first month I had terrible stability problems, until I figured out it was a bad IDE cable. Since then this motherboard has been rock solid under Linux for months now. Of course, that might change now that I've bought this SATA drive... :-)
I've talked to the DrDOS guys a few times... they're pretty cool and are very pro-Linux. They were pushing their Drlx product that lets you use Linux device drivers in a DOS environment to get things like USB support which is nice.
:-)
Anyone who thinks DOS is dead does not work anywhere near the embedded world. It's very much alive and kicking in little boxes all around you and new products are still being developed based on it. Problem is that nobody is putting out device drivers for "new" technology like USB for DOS so unless they find a way to utilize existing drivers they're in trouble as older standards like ISA fade. Linux to the rescue.
The documentation in the DDK help is has improved greatly since the dark NT4 days.
It's off topic, but can you recommend any good websites on Windows driver development? To an outsider it seems almost completely undocumented on the web. Specifically I'm interested in knowing how to do two things:
1) How to write a generic interrupt service routine for Win2k/XP that will be called when an IRQ occurs on a specific interrupt level. It's not a serial port, network device, or anything specific that needs those APIs. I'm looking for a generic API for interrupt handling.
2) Documentation on how that routine should pass data to user space with minimal latency.
Tell me, would you people also be willing to jump off a bridge to get driver support if the hardware manufacturers demanded it?
Who's this WE you're talking about? Some of us ARE the hardware manufacturers! While we are great Linux supporters, we are damn tired of taking support calls, writing FAQs, and loosing business because of customers can't make use of our drivers. I have conversations like this all the time... who is this benefiting?
CUSTOMER: I need the kernel?
US: No, the kernel source. You need to download the source to the kernel so you can compile the module. What version are you running?
CUSTOMER: I have no idea! Why do I have to "compile" a "module". Can't you just send it to me?
US: No. Type "uname -a"
CUSTOMER: It says linux 2.4.19-17-xm5
US: I have no idea what that is. Where did you get this system?
CUSTOMER: I got it from AcmeSoft. It's part of their SupraRealTimeKernel package.
US: Great. You have to call them and ask for the source.
CUSTOMER: Screw this, I'm going back to WinCE.
I just had to port a kernel module I wrote for my employer a year or so ago. Told my boss it'd probably take a week. Instead it took me 15 minutes. I grabbed a Makefile from an example, compiled, noticed that the return type for interrupt handlers had changed, fixed that, done. Thanks to the kernel developers out there for making it so easy!
It would be quite another thing to ask all the gas stations to stop selling fuel to people driving ford trucks.
Is this really the best metaphor you can come up with for the practice of mail admins refusing to accept mail from spam supporting ISPs? That's just silly. Okay, I'm sure I'm just being trolled now, but lets try to make your example work.
Say that the gas station was actually a free kissing booth. And say that the lady working at the kissing booth noticed that pretty much all Ford drivers smell like a sewer, haven't brushed their teeth in weeks, and often crash into her booth while fumbling with their open beer can. Don't you think the lady at the kissing booth would be justified in hanging her "the kissing booth is closed" sign every time she sees a Ford swerving her way? Yes, that's a much better example. I hope this cleared things up for you.
What if this theoretical ISP published a page which explained the blocklists and filters it uses and linked to the home pages and objective documentation available online for those blocklists and filters including the risks of lost mail? The now fully informed customer would then be free to decide if they want to do business with that ISP or take their business elsewhere. Would you then be satisfied that the blocklist/filter admins, the ISP, and the customer are all behaving ethically?
We are fully in agreement that the ISP *must* inform the customer that blocklisting/filtering is taking place. If your problems with blocklisting are resolved by the customer being fully informed, we have nothing to argue about. However, if you belive that even if the customer is fully informed, use of blocklists is unethical, your arguments so far are misdirected. You will have to explain why a blocklist is in itself unethical, even if all involved are aware that it is in use.
The point of this is not to block the spammer directly but to punish the spammer's neighbours so that they will act to stop the spamming from their neighbourhood. This is called collective punishment and in meat-space it's considered a crime against humanity.
It's simply a boycott. If an ISP supports spam, I don't want to get mail from it. You call this violence and a crime against humanity? How is a simple boycott so difficult to understand? Do you disagree with a striking union's right to ask a community not to shop at specific stores? Do you disagree with PETA's right to list companies which test harmfull chemicals on animals so I can stop buying their products? Crime against humanity? Sheesh.
Then when called on it, they point at the mail admins and say "its only our opinion, its the mail admins doing the blocking". The mail admins (when called on it) say "It's not my fault, I do what I can with SPEWS. Go talk to them!"
You're just proving my point over and over again. Yes, you are describing an incompetent ISP. Yes, there are many of these out there. ISPs sucked before blocklisting, and continue to suck now that we have blocklisting. What in the world does this have to do with SPEWS or any other blocklist? The blocklist maintainer has no contact with your ISP, has no idea who they are, and has not "authorized" them to use their list.
The fact that your ISP is incompentant or uncommunicative about their spam policies has nothing to do with blocklist creator's right to create their boycott list, and my right to use it to participate in the boycott to put spammers out of business.
OK. I'm going to find out where your server is and report you to every RBL I can find.
Have fun. The funny thing is that you've just pointed out something great about SPEWS. The SPEWS admins do not accept reports from the public. Instead they have their own spam traps, and their own unknown e-mail accounts they send complaints from. So you *cant* get me listed on SPEWS unless my provider is providing support to spammers. Thanks for reminding me of this valuable quality control feature of SPEWS!
Then I'll sit back and laugh when some guy in NANAE flames the fuck out of you
Wow, it sounds like you had a bad newsgroup experience. Can we give you a group hug? Are you okay? I know, people can be really rude sometimes. Don't worry, some day you'll get over it... we've all been there little buddy.
And what of your customers? Do you inform THEM of who YOU are boycotting?
This is my mail server, which I run for my circle of aquaintances. We all knowingly participate in this system.
If your argument is that ISPs apply spam filtering without informing their users, then I fail to see that that has anything to do with SPEWS. If an ISP uses any blocklist or filter it is their responsibility to inform the user that they have enabled these protections. Spamassassin, Spamcop, MAPS... any of these tools can potentially stop delivery of mail a user was expecting. If the ISP didn't warn the user of this possibility then their customers obviously should complain to the ISP. What does SPEWS have to do with that? Nothing.
Pay attention: SPEWS is blocking e-mail that people DID WANT.
Are you sure you're paying attention? SPEWS does not control my mail server, I do. You are welcome to complain that SomeISP.com (as a SPEWS user) is blocking e-mail their users did want, but it's intellectually sloppy (or just technically ignorant) to claim that SPEWS is blocking anything.
If YOU were paying attention you'd know there are highly effective ways to block spam that don't involve IPs or headers and that don't inflict collateral damage.
Really? Name that method. By the way, solutions which do not actually reduce the bandwidth and storage resources consumed by spam do not count, since clearly they are only masking the problem from the end user, not solving it. The spammer is still there, stealing terabytes of resources year after year. Also, solutions which result in automated mail being sent to the From: address of all new senders you see don't count, since it just results in uninvolved 3rd parties getting your spam bounces since these addresses are always forged..
No, it's [...] idiocy that lands them there. Classic blame the victim.
You are SO right. So stop blaming the victim (me, the mail admin, who is sick and tired of getting all this spam) for the spam problem. Hey, I have an idea... why don't you blame the ISPs that are knowingly selling the spammers hosting instead? It's THEIR idiocy in ignoring abuse complaints that have gotten them into my boycott.
You know, dumb people that put there email address places and don't read find print. They deserve the spam, IMO.
Nice attitude. Post the SPEWS ID of your block so we can discuss if you're accurately describing this marketing company... are you sure you're not one of their employees? From your attitude towards the people complaining about getting their spam I'm guessing you probably are.
It's a boycott system. We as mail server admins are boycotting spam supporting ISPs. The phrase "collateral damage" just isn't involved here. If you are spam supporting ISP, I don't want to talk to you. It's pretty simple. Isn't it obvious that this also means that I do not want to talk to customers of the ISP I am boycotting? What would be the point of an ISP boycott if I still talk to its customers?
If I stand in front of a store and physically prevent people from going in, I'll get thrown in jail. Preventing solicitors that the store didn't want anyway is one thing. Blocking legitimate customers is quite another.
Your example is idiotic. I run my own mail server. I get to decide who can send me e-mail. SPEWS publishes a list, which I trust, and I act on that list by personally boycotting the ISPs on that list. SPEWS does not prevent anyone from doing anything. *I* as the admin of my own mail server do the blocking. Also, the blocklisted ISP is not affected directly by my decision. People who do not act on the SPEWS list can still happily do business with the blocklisted ISP.
Here's a counter example. Imagine that Safeway (a grocery store) is treating its employees like crap, and that a group of anonymous Safeway employees put up a website where they ask Safeway customers to boycott the stores in support for their labor negotiations.
Do I as a former Safeway customer have the right to NOT shop at Safeway? Do they as current employees have the right to publish their request for a boycott?
This story fits very well into the "Your Rights Online" category. It's my mail server, and it's my right to decide who can talk to it. As the admin of my mail server, I am participating in a boycott of spam supporting ISPs. It's that simple.
Nobody has "the right" to call me at midnight to sell me stuff, or junk fax me, or bang on my door until I open it. Similarly, nobody has "the right" to put an e-mail into my inbox.
This is a boycott. I as a mail server admin am participating in the boycott of ISPs listed under SPEWS. I don't care in the slightest if you are "to blame" for patronizing an ISP I am boycotting. That phrase doesn't even make sense in this situation. And your example is horrible. A post office refusing to deliver mail is analogous to me refusing to accept mail from a spam supporting ISP? That makes no sense. It's *my* server. Do you wish I did not have the right I decide what hosts can communicate with my server?
SPEWS is just a list of IP blocks of organizations which do not respond and act on SPEWS spam reports in a timely manor. So far this has proven to be the most effective anti-spam solution available to me. Filtering at the mailbox does not elminate the spammer taking up my valuable bandwith or disk space, and the same spam will still use those resources day after day since the same spammer is still in business. Sender verification just means I am contributing to the useless e-mail problem by generating more automated bounce e-mail. SPEWS and blocklisting actually generates real fear and anger in spammers. I love it.
Post the SPEWS record number that you were blocked under so we can see if your story is true or not, and if you have left out any details. Otherwise... your anecdote is nice, but it doesn't shed any light at all on SPEWS's effectiveness.
What do you want to bet that Bush will propose paying for this mission by cutting taxes? Since tax cuts are both the solution to high deficits and low deficits I'm sure it's also the solution to paying for $20 billion dollar space missions. After all, unless we cut taxes, businesses cannot succeed! And unless businesses succeed, who will build the rockets for us? Suddenly it all makes sense... I'm voting for Bush from now on!
I have mixed feelings about this book. As a great scifi idea book it is a lot of fun. Really interesting and entertaining exploration of a bunch of futuristic ideas, social currencies, alternate forms of government, things like that. I grew up a few minutes drive from Disney Land and had many friends who worked there, so I find his obsession with the Cult of the Mouse very entertaining. If that's all you need to get out of a book, I heartily recommend it. The main character of the book is well developed and believable.
However, the book is structured as a kind of whodoneit mystery, and I found it painfully transparent. It was clear that Mr Doctorow was way out of his element writing this kind of plotline. The mystery was completely obvious almost from the start, and the character development of those involved felt very ham handed, as he dropped hammer sized clues on the reader is if he were being subtle. Everyone in the book except for the main character are moved about like foils for his mystery and are cardboard cutouts otherwise. It felt almost insulting. Yes Cory, your readers are smart! Don't worry, you aren't loosing us. You don't have to have your characters wave huge red flags saying, "I did it! I did it!"
In the end I enjoyed the experience of reading it, but along the way several times I almost abandoned it as he focused on developing the mystery instead of his big ideas. I hope in the future Mr Doctorow sticks to what he does well... if so I will happily pick up his next book.