I also demand that everyone else does not treat me as though I'm a wrongdoer if I have done no wrong. There is such a thing as politeness, or doesn't that apply to the internet?
No one is treating you as though you've done something wrong. They're treating your ISP as though your ISP has done something wrong (and they have by hosting spammers) and as such they're rejecting packets from your ISP.
Then why don't they have a contact address?
Why do you need to contact them?
Why is it so hard to get off the list?
It isn't hard. When the ISP terminates all of the spam support services and makes it known by posting a message in news.admin.net-abuse.email, the listing goes away.
Why do they keep blocking ranges that they know are not spammers?
They don't block jack shit. This has been restated so many times that the only reasons for repeating it are utter stupidity or outright dishonesty. Are you lying, or just an idiot?
SPEWS does not claim to list only spammers. SPEWS openly states that they list IP ranges owned by spam support services. This is what they do. ISPs that support spammers get their IP blocks listed in SPEWS. That's it.
And how do SPEWS make this determination?
Repeat spam runs with no action taken by the ISP -- spamvertised websites staying up despite numerous spam runs.
Perhaps they made a mistake in their AUP, and have to go through legal action to get rid of the spammers.
Their failure to write a sensible AUP is their own problem. It is not the problem of SPEWS, and it is not the problem of an ISP that chooses to filter mail based upon listings in SPEWS.
Does SPEWS do any checking to find out what people are doing about the spammers?
Yes. If the spamvertised website is still up and running, then nothing satisfactory has been done about the spammers.
Oh, I've just realised - They're allegedly accountable. I'm sure they can simply be called, and someone can explain the situation.
No personal contact is needed. The effect of a proper abuse policy at an ISP should be readily apparent by the disapperance of a spamvertised website within a very short time after the first spam run.
Fine. I configured the text file that configured the firewall. TrinityOS did not, however, configure my firewall no matter how you look at it. Similarly, Dan Pollock is not blocking web banners on my computer, even though I use his list in my hosts file.
Spammers use relays to hide their true origins of operation.
Spammers typically use illegally hijacked mail relays. He is legally using another person's mail relay with their permission. This is suggested quite often on NANAE when someone is stuck under a SPEWS listing because their ISP allows criminals to run rampant.
There is a difference: he doesn't deserve to be shot for what he's doing.
As for this guilt by assocation apprach its BS, saying i should buy out of my contract, and spend a fortune moving to another ISP is like saying that If a landlord breaks the law then all the tenats should go to jail.
SPEWS isn't putting anyone in jail. SPEWS is just listing IP ranges of spam-support providers. It's more like publishing the locations where landlords openly allow crack dealers and muggers to hang out so that delivery places can refuse service to them.
Many of the contracts between an ISP and a customer imply a commitment of months or years to stay with a particular ISP. How can small customers negotiate a term of a contract that terminates the commitment once the ISP becomes widely thought of as harboring spammers?
Argue that the ISP is not fulfilling the agreement by making their netspace such a scummy place that no one wants packets anymore (thus they've become an Intranet Service Provider rather than an Internet Service Provider).
Ultimately, however, this is the problem of the ISP being listed. SPEWS just lists information, it's not their fault that your ISP hosts criminals.
So, essentially, you were forced to use a technique commonly used by spammers to avoid blacklists, in order for you, as a non-spamming site to avoid the same blacklist? Am I the only one that sees the irony of this?
It sounds to me like he was explicitly allowed to use said mailserver. That's not what spammers do -- spammers illegally hijack insecure third party mailservers without the consent of the owner. What he did is actually a recommended means of sending mail when your normal IP space is listed in SPEWS. It's called "smarthosting".
Perhaps you could ask, "You're not going to tell me that you think that this would be a problem. I mean, you don't knowingly support spammers, do you?"
It might be fun to watch the salesdroid squirm. Then again, they might have some smarmy response.
Had my sanity not been restored by a recent and very odd sharp decline of spam in my inbox, I'd be asking for the address of that particular location so that I could pay a visit with a hatchet.
SPEWS lists addresses because they think ISPs should block them. If nobody blocked them, they wouldn't bother listing them. Hence, SPEWS listing causes web addresses to be blocked. Therefore, SPEWS blocks sites, and does not "only give advice".
No, the ISPs who filter on SPEWS listings block mail. SPEWS just publishes the list.
TrinityOS provided me with information that was useful for configuring my firewall. If no one thought that the TrinityOS project was a useful source of information, then no one would use it and chances are the TrinityOS project wouldn't exist. Under your logic, it was TrinityOS that configured my firewall, rather than me, which is odd given that I recall spending quite a few hours tweaking the settings.
I merely demand that they have a better approach to their policy on what they allow on the network.
Are you giving them money? Do you have any contractual agreements with them? If not, then how the hell are you in a position to "demand" that their policies bend to your will?
Yet you choose to delegate that responsibility to an organisation that is totally unaccountable.
SPEWS is accountable. If they were irresponsible and caused ISPs who filter with their lists to block loads and loads of legitimate mail (and keep in mind that SPEWS lists less than 1% of all available IP addresses), then no one would use them.
They list IP blocks that are not responsible for spamming time and time again.
They list IP blocks owned by organizations responsible for spamming time and time again. Just because you're unable to understand that an ISP not kicking off spammers is effectively supporting spammers does not mean that the methods employed by SPEWS are invalid.
SPEWS is interfering with my very legitimate, legal business.
How, exactly, are they doing this?
If that business was large enough, I'd have a lawyer deal with them, since they are interfering with interstate commerce, which is generally considered fraud punishable by trible damages plus legal fees.
Really? How would you track down SPEWS to file this lawsuit, anyway? Keep in mind that "big" companies have thrown about quite a bluster with legal threats against SPEWS, but thus far no challenge has been filed -- it probably helps that no one has been able to find out who SPEWS really is. How is SPEWS interfering with interstate commerce. Be specific. Cite the laws that SPEWS is breaking.
And, no "crap" comes out of my servers. That's the whole point, dim bulb. I don't spam, yet I get punished for it.
SPEWS is targeting your spam-friendly ISP. Your ISP (or possibly their ISP) became a mess with whom no one wants to trade packets. You should be blaming your ISP for allowing their users to engage in conduct that caused everyone else on the 'net to shun their packets. Instead, you blame SPEWS for posting factual information about your ISP. I guess that it's easier to shoot the messenger.
As well they should. HE's spam-support is either a result of incompetence or malice, but their reputation of being spam-friendly is well-deserved.
Look - it's easy to say "you should move or force your ISP to change" -- but that's really not an option for most operations. Moving is *expensive* - say you move to another ISP (a nightmare to begin with), and there are service problems, etc. -- more cost. And after you're happily settled in, what if SPEWS blocks the new ISP? Start over?
You know what? None of this is the problem of SPEWS. None of this is MY problem. If YOUR ISP is the only ISP in town and they openly allow criminals to break into machines and send out a constant stream of unsolicited email, don't whine to SPEWS or to me when you find out that no one wants to trade packets with your ISP. Call your ISP and bitch to them -- find the home phone number of the owner and call at all hours of the night. Stop blaming SPEWS for posting accurate information and stop blaming ISPs with whom you have no contractual agreements when they choose not to accept your traffic.
Our company sends out legitimate advertising email from time to time. A couple of our customers decided they didn't want our ads anymore and reported us to SPEWS and Spamhaus (rather than using the provided 'remove' link in the mail).
SPEWS does not solicit reports. SPEWS does not add entries upon request. SPEWS only adds entries at the whims of the people who run it, and only the email spam that they personally receive will determine a SPEWS listing.
Perhaps you could offer a SPEWS reference ID so that we can research your little story?
You can get listed for one spammer. I had one of our new Admins accidently open a relay once about a year ago. Within 6 hours a spammer found it, used it and we were listed.
You were listed in SPEWS for an open relay? Odd. SPEWS isn't a list of open relays.
The problem is, those notices are sent to the spammer and the ISP, and NOT the innocent bystander who shares the block with the spammer.
What, should I now CC my spam complaints to every user hosting by the ISP to whom I'm addressing the complaint?
SPEWS may go to great lengths to work with the spammer, and the ISP hosting them, but they do NOTHING for the innocent bystander.
SPEWS doesn't work with anyone. SPEWS lists spam-friendly ISP netblocks, and removes them when the ISP is spam-friendly no more. They don't communicate with anyone in any way except through the list, and that's not addressed to anyone personally.
I had our mail server blocked suddenly this way one day; some spammer shared an IP block with us and one day BOOM: all of our clients were having problems with mail because SPEWS decided to list the entire block.
Got a SPEWS reference ID handy? I find it hard to believe that your netspace was listed one day after a spammer set up shop.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: FUCK SPEWS. I'm 1000x more upset at what they did that one single time than all the upset I have from getting junk mail combined.
What, exactly, did SPEWS do apart from listing the IP range of a known spam-friendly ISP?
Let me put it this way. If anyone went after SPEWS and asked for donations to their legal fund to get them shut-down, I'd be a donor.
So you oppose the rights of mail admins to choose to accept or deny traffic into their servers as they please? You oppose the right of a group of people to make publically known the identities of spam-friendly ISPs?
Guess you're just a jackass who blames the messenger rather than the true problem -- the ISPs that allow the abuse to go on.
Do you have documentation of actual "long-term" errors? Also, I said that SPEWS only lists (and I admit that I should have commented on the few documented cases of errors that were corrected as soon as they were identified as such). SPEWS does not block jack squat.
You can be lazy and ineffective (use SPEWS) or be intelligent and effective.
Odd, the people who use SPEWS for filtering don't find it lazy and ineffective. I guess that you're just talking out of your ass.
I don't consider it a waste of CPU cycles to get rid of spam without losing a single legitimate e-mail.
Many people who use SPEWS report that they've not lost a single legitimate mail. This isn't surprising, given that the SPEWS list covers less than 1% of all available IP addresses.
I see you've chosen the lazy, ineffective, "napalm the village" method of SPEWS.
Once again, your analogy is asinine. "Napalm the village" implies a direct attack upon a target. SPEWS does not direct attacks upon anyone. They just list spam-support services by IP address. That's it. They do not launch denial of service attacks against ISPs and they do not crack into mailservers and illegally prevent mail from reaching its intended destination.
Constantly repeating your stupid analogy does not make it any more valid.
No thought goes into their method.
The idea is that by blocking all mail from known crime-ridden ISPs, the ISPs are either pressured to change their policies or lose their legitimate customers and go out of business. That doesn't sound like a "no-thought" plan to me, but then I'm not a fucking idiot.
Okay, so blame the terrorist friendly nation for the need to nuke the citizens.
SPEWS isn't "nuking" anyone. SPEWS just publishes a list of IP addresses owned by known spammers and spam-friendly ISPs.
One day you'll get a clue.
Already got one. That's why I support the right of mail admins to filter mail as they see fit, including using SPEWS for filtering if they so choose. You, apparently, think that mail admins should be forced to accept all traffic and the expenses resulting therefrom, even from IP addresses known only for a constant stream of garbage.
I noticed that you snipped my correction of your claim that SPEWS blocks mail, since SPEWS doesn't block any mail at all. Apparently you're too much of a coward to admit one little mistake.
Filtering out his domains is as good as blocking him.
No, filtering out his domains requires accepting his spam messages for analyzing. Blocking spam-friendly ISPs at the router level means that I don't waste bandwidth or storage space on garbage. Filtering out his domain names is ineffective when he has a new domain name every week.
I've been getting "viagra" spams by the dozen lately. All of them have different domains referenced in them, yet after checking my logs and USENET, I discovered that it's just a very small pool of IP addresses amongst them. If filtered on domain name, I'd not stop a single spam, because each one comes with a new domain being advertised.
Why do you think SPEWS has to napalm an ISP to claim any sort of effectivness?
SPEWS does not "napalm" anyone. SPEWS only lists IP ranges and they are very up-front about the nature of their listings.
You apparently think that it's my job to just put up with spam-friendly ISPs. I disagree. Spam-friendly ISPs need to be punished. Unfortunately, it's not yet legal to have their upper management killed. Until that is legal, SPEWS is an effective and significantly less controversial choice.
I'm aware of the... ah... controversy surrounding FR. Suffice it to say, however, that there are exactly two people espousing such anti-Linux views and everyone else on the site regards them as total nutcases.
...seriously, I've seen someone on FreeRepublic who rails against Linux specifically because it's open-source nature allows governments that we don't like (his primary concern is the ChiComs) to access the code. I asked how my usage of Linux aids the Chinese government. His exact words:
"Simple. You install the software. You (or any of a thousand others) encounter minor issues and seek help online. Bugs are discovered, are fixed, which in turn benefits the ChiComs. You are a link in the chain. It's just like voting for the Democratic Party. You don't like their position on abortion but you cover your eyes and vote for them, anyway. "It's not me who's performing abortions. My vote isn't responsible for an abortion." But you're still enabling it to happen."
Slashdot Mirror
I also demand that everyone else does not treat me as though I'm a wrongdoer if I have done no wrong. There is such a thing as politeness, or doesn't that apply to the internet?
No one is treating you as though you've done something wrong. They're treating your ISP as though your ISP has done something wrong (and they have by hosting spammers) and as such they're rejecting packets from your ISP.
Then why don't they have a contact address?
Why do you need to contact them?
Why is it so hard to get off the list?
It isn't hard. When the ISP terminates all of the spam support services and makes it known by posting a message in news.admin.net-abuse.email, the listing goes away.
Why do they keep blocking ranges that they know are not spammers?
They don't block jack shit. This has been restated so many times that the only reasons for repeating it are utter stupidity or outright dishonesty. Are you lying, or just an idiot?
SPEWS does not claim to list only spammers. SPEWS openly states that they list IP ranges owned by spam support services. This is what they do. ISPs that support spammers get their IP blocks listed in SPEWS. That's it.
And how do SPEWS make this determination?
Repeat spam runs with no action taken by the ISP -- spamvertised websites staying up despite numerous spam runs.
Perhaps they made a mistake in their AUP, and have to go through legal action to get rid of the spammers.
Their failure to write a sensible AUP is their own problem. It is not the problem of SPEWS, and it is not the problem of an ISP that chooses to filter mail based upon listings in SPEWS.
Does SPEWS do any checking to find out what people are doing about the spammers?
Yes. If the spamvertised website is still up and running, then nothing satisfactory has been done about the spammers.
Oh, I've just realised - They're allegedly accountable. I'm sure they can simply be called, and someone can explain the situation.
No personal contact is needed. The effect of a proper abuse policy at an ISP should be readily apparent by the disapperance of a spamvertised website within a very short time after the first spam run.
Fine. I configured the text file that configured the firewall. TrinityOS did not, however, configure my firewall no matter how you look at it. Similarly, Dan Pollock is not blocking web banners on my computer, even though I use his list in my hosts file.
Spammers use relays to hide their true origins of operation.
Spammers typically use illegally hijacked mail relays. He is legally using another person's mail relay with their permission. This is suggested quite often on NANAE when someone is stuck under a SPEWS listing because their ISP allows criminals to run rampant.
There is a difference: he doesn't deserve to be shot for what he's doing.
No, the admins who chose to use SPEWS lists for filtering (when they could have just have easily been used for tagging) have blocked it.
I use Dan Pollock's hosts file for blocking banner ads. I am the one who blocks the banner ads on my computer, not Dan Pollock.
Proof?
You want proof?
As for this guilt by assocation apprach its BS, saying i should buy out of my contract, and spend a fortune moving to another ISP is like saying that If a landlord breaks the law then all the tenats should go to jail.
SPEWS isn't putting anyone in jail. SPEWS is just listing IP ranges of spam-support providers. It's more like publishing the locations where landlords openly allow crack dealers and muggers to hang out so that delivery places can refuse service to them.
I did talk to NAc and the spammers are gone..
NAC.net lied.
Many of the contracts between an ISP and a customer imply a commitment of months or years to stay with a particular ISP. How can small customers negotiate a term of a contract that terminates the commitment once the ISP becomes widely thought of as harboring spammers?
Argue that the ISP is not fulfilling the agreement by making their netspace such a scummy place that no one wants packets anymore (thus they've become an Intranet Service Provider rather than an Internet Service Provider).
Ultimately, however, this is the problem of the ISP being listed. SPEWS just lists information, it's not their fault that your ISP hosts criminals.
So, essentially, you were forced to use a technique commonly used by spammers to avoid blacklists, in order for you, as a non-spamming site to avoid the same blacklist? Am I the only one that sees the irony of this?
It sounds to me like he was explicitly allowed to use said mailserver. That's not what spammers do -- spammers illegally hijack insecure third party mailservers without the consent of the owner. What he did is actually a recommended means of sending mail when your normal IP space is listed in SPEWS. It's called "smarthosting".
Perhaps you could ask, "You're not going to tell me that you think that this would be a problem. I mean, you don't knowingly support spammers, do you?"
It might be fun to watch the salesdroid squirm. Then again, they might have some smarmy response.
Had my sanity not been restored by a recent and very odd sharp decline of spam in my inbox, I'd be asking for the address of that particular location so that I could pay a visit with a hatchet.
Would suggest that your only means of argument is to discredit the opponent rather than the opponent's arguments.
Which is interesting, because I see that tactic often employed by people who criticize SPEWS.
SPEWS lists addresses because they think ISPs should block them. If nobody blocked them, they wouldn't bother listing them. Hence, SPEWS listing causes web addresses to be blocked. Therefore, SPEWS blocks sites, and does not "only give advice".
No, the ISPs who filter on SPEWS listings block mail. SPEWS just publishes the list.
TrinityOS provided me with information that was useful for configuring my firewall. If no one thought that the TrinityOS project was a useful source of information, then no one would use it and chances are the TrinityOS project wouldn't exist. Under your logic, it was TrinityOS that configured my firewall, rather than me, which is odd given that I recall spending quite a few hours tweaking the settings.
I merely demand that they have a better approach to their policy on what they allow on the network.
Are you giving them money? Do you have any contractual agreements with them? If not, then how the hell are you in a position to "demand" that their policies bend to your will?
Yet you choose to delegate that responsibility to an organisation that is totally unaccountable.
SPEWS is accountable. If they were irresponsible and caused ISPs who filter with their lists to block loads and loads of legitimate mail (and keep in mind that SPEWS lists less than 1% of all available IP addresses), then no one would use them.
They list IP blocks that are not responsible for spamming time and time again.
They list IP blocks owned by organizations responsible for spamming time and time again. Just because you're unable to understand that an ISP not kicking off spammers is effectively supporting spammers does not mean that the methods employed by SPEWS are invalid.
SPEWS is interfering with my very legitimate, legal business.
How, exactly, are they doing this?
If that business was large enough, I'd have a lawyer deal with them, since they are interfering with interstate commerce, which is generally considered fraud punishable by trible damages plus legal fees.
Really? How would you track down SPEWS to file this lawsuit, anyway? Keep in mind that "big" companies have thrown about quite a bluster with legal threats against SPEWS, but thus far no challenge has been filed -- it probably helps that no one has been able to find out who SPEWS really is. How is SPEWS interfering with interstate commerce. Be specific. Cite the laws that SPEWS is breaking.
And, no "crap" comes out of my servers. That's the whole point, dim bulb. I don't spam, yet I get punished for it.
SPEWS is targeting your spam-friendly ISP. Your ISP (or possibly their ISP) became a mess with whom no one wants to trade packets. You should be blaming your ISP for allowing their users to engage in conduct that caused everyone else on the 'net to shun their packets. Instead, you blame SPEWS for posting factual information about your ISP. I guess that it's easier to shoot the messenger.
Hurricane Electric got listed by SPEWS
As well they should. HE's spam-support is either a result of incompetence or malice, but their reputation of being spam-friendly is well-deserved.
Look - it's easy to say "you should move or force your ISP to change" -- but that's really not an option for most operations. Moving is *expensive* - say you move to another ISP (a nightmare to begin with), and there are service problems, etc. -- more cost. And after you're happily settled in, what if SPEWS blocks the new ISP? Start over?
You know what? None of this is the problem of SPEWS. None of this is MY problem. If YOUR ISP is the only ISP in town and they openly allow criminals to break into machines and send out a constant stream of unsolicited email, don't whine to SPEWS or to me when you find out that no one wants to trade packets with your ISP. Call your ISP and bitch to them -- find the home phone number of the owner and call at all hours of the night. Stop blaming SPEWS for posting accurate information and stop blaming ISPs with whom you have no contractual agreements when they choose not to accept your traffic.
Our company sends out legitimate advertising email from time to time. A couple of our customers decided they didn't want our ads anymore and reported us to SPEWS and Spamhaus (rather than using the provided 'remove' link in the mail).
SPEWS does not solicit reports. SPEWS does not add entries upon request. SPEWS only adds entries at the whims of the people who run it, and only the email spam that they personally receive will determine a SPEWS listing.
Perhaps you could offer a SPEWS reference ID so that we can research your little story?
You can get listed for one spammer. I had one of our new Admins accidently open a relay once about a year ago. Within 6 hours a spammer found it, used it and we were listed.
You were listed in SPEWS for an open relay? Odd. SPEWS isn't a list of open relays.
The problem is, those notices are sent to the spammer and the ISP, and NOT the innocent bystander who shares the block with the spammer.
What, should I now CC my spam complaints to every user hosting by the ISP to whom I'm addressing the complaint?
SPEWS may go to great lengths to work with the spammer, and the ISP hosting them, but they do NOTHING for the innocent bystander.
SPEWS doesn't work with anyone. SPEWS lists spam-friendly ISP netblocks, and removes them when the ISP is spam-friendly no more. They don't communicate with anyone in any way except through the list, and that's not addressed to anyone personally.
I had our mail server blocked suddenly this way one day; some spammer shared an IP block with us and one day BOOM: all of our clients were having problems with mail because SPEWS decided to list the entire block.
Got a SPEWS reference ID handy? I find it hard to believe that your netspace was listed one day after a spammer set up shop.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: FUCK SPEWS. I'm 1000x more upset at what they did that one single time than all the upset I have from getting junk mail combined.
What, exactly, did SPEWS do apart from listing the IP range of a known spam-friendly ISP?
Let me put it this way. If anyone went after SPEWS and asked for donations to their legal fund to get them shut-down, I'd be a donor.
So you oppose the rights of mail admins to choose to accept or deny traffic into their servers as they please? You oppose the right of a group of people to make publically known the identities of spam-friendly ISPs?
Guess you're just a jackass who blames the messenger rather than the true problem -- the ISPs that allow the abuse to go on.
Every "Level 0" entry (which is not used for filtering, and isn't even available for filtering) is a removed IP listing from the SPEWS blocklists.
Do you have documentation of actual "long-term" errors? Also, I said that SPEWS only lists (and I admit that I should have commented on the few documented cases of errors that were corrected as soon as they were identified as such). SPEWS does not block jack squat.
Click on the link in my sig.
What link in your sig?
You can be lazy and ineffective (use SPEWS) or be intelligent and effective.
Odd, the people who use SPEWS for filtering don't find it lazy and ineffective. I guess that you're just talking out of your ass.
I don't consider it a waste of CPU cycles to get rid of spam without losing a single legitimate e-mail.
Many people who use SPEWS report that they've not lost a single legitimate mail. This isn't surprising, given that the SPEWS list covers less than 1% of all available IP addresses.
I see you've chosen the lazy, ineffective, "napalm the village" method of SPEWS.
Once again, your analogy is asinine. "Napalm the village" implies a direct attack upon a target. SPEWS does not direct attacks upon anyone. They just list spam-support services by IP address. That's it. They do not launch denial of service attacks against ISPs and they do not crack into mailservers and illegally prevent mail from reaching its intended destination.
Constantly repeating your stupid analogy does not make it any more valid.
No thought goes into their method.
The idea is that by blocking all mail from known crime-ridden ISPs, the ISPs are either pressured to change their policies or lose their legitimate customers and go out of business. That doesn't sound like a "no-thought" plan to me, but then I'm not a fucking idiot.
Okay, so blame the terrorist friendly nation for the need to nuke the citizens.
SPEWS isn't "nuking" anyone. SPEWS just publishes a list of IP addresses owned by known spammers and spam-friendly ISPs.
One day you'll get a clue.
Already got one. That's why I support the right of mail admins to filter mail as they see fit, including using SPEWS for filtering if they so choose. You, apparently, think that mail admins should be forced to accept all traffic and the expenses resulting therefrom, even from IP addresses known only for a constant stream of garbage.
I noticed that you snipped my correction of your claim that SPEWS blocks mail, since SPEWS doesn't block any mail at all. Apparently you're too much of a coward to admit one little mistake.
Filtering out his domains is as good as blocking him.
No, filtering out his domains requires accepting his spam messages for analyzing. Blocking spam-friendly ISPs at the router level means that I don't waste bandwidth or storage space on garbage. Filtering out his domain names is ineffective when he has a new domain name every week.
I've been getting "viagra" spams by the dozen lately. All of them have different domains referenced in them, yet after checking my logs and USENET, I discovered that it's just a very small pool of IP addresses amongst them. If filtered on domain name, I'd not stop a single spam, because each one comes with a new domain being advertised.
Why do you think SPEWS has to napalm an ISP to claim any sort of effectivness?
SPEWS does not "napalm" anyone. SPEWS only lists IP ranges and they are very up-front about the nature of their listings.
You apparently think that it's my job to just put up with spam-friendly ISPs. I disagree. Spam-friendly ISPs need to be punished. Unfortunately, it's not yet legal to have their upper management killed. Until that is legal, SPEWS is an effective and significantly less controversial choice.
I'm aware of the ... ah ... controversy surrounding FR. Suffice it to say, however, that there are exactly two people espousing such anti-Linux views and everyone else on the site regards them as total nutcases.
...seriously, I've seen someone on FreeRepublic who rails against Linux specifically because it's open-source nature allows governments that we don't like (his primary concern is the ChiComs) to access the code. I asked how my usage of Linux aids the Chinese government. His exact words:
"Simple. You install the software. You (or any of a thousand others) encounter minor issues and seek help online. Bugs are discovered, are fixed, which in turn benefits the ChiComs. You are a link in the chain. It's just like voting for the Democratic Party. You don't like their position on abortion but you cover your eyes and vote for them, anyway. "It's not me who's performing abortions. My vote isn't responsible for an abortion." But you're still enabling it to happen."
There are several examples of SPEWS (links elsewhere) of spews either listing people by mistake, or failing to remove blocks when they should have.
I've seen those links. The incidents are rare, and SPEWS fixes errors soon after they're pointed out -- if indeed they are in error.