The callee speaks very quietly, to try and get the telemarketer to raise the volume of their phone/earpiece. After a few seconds, the callee blows an air horn right into the phone, blasting the telemarketer.
It was up when I posted it, and down later, then up again later in the day. It seems to be coming up and down due to some crook's attack on the webserver (not that the attacks do anything to the DNSbls which is how mail is filtered -- the website is just an information zone).
Try again later in the day and you might have better luck. Also look at http://www.spews.org/ -- which goes up and down at the same frequency. In any case, I know of a few mirrors, and some of them are currently functioning (spews.sorbs.net)
Spam is an imposed cost-shifted advertising wherein the unwilling recipient is required to pay for storage and resources used for the advertisement. That's just like someone spraypainting advertisements on your house and charging you for the materials.
Let's see the SPEWS case ID. We can look it up and see for ourselves whether or not your listing is "justified".
Re:Analogies are inherently logically flawed...
on
Good Guys 2, Spammers 0
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
When all else fails, fall back to mindless venom.
I assert that spam is very much like spray-painting advertisements onto unwilling people's property and making them pay for the materials. In fact, I assert that spamming is actually doing exactly that. You seem to be trying to refute it through ridicule rather than intelligence.
Not that I'm surprised. Your "Internet destroyer" comment means that you're either a spammer, or someone who is just as stupid as a spammer.
I like you how you just said that the analogy was bad without actually explaining where it goes wrong. Instead, you toss out a mindless ad-hominem regarding my pro-SPEWS stance.
Good point. I mean, if I want to spray-paint advertisements on the side of your house, and then charge you for the materials used, that's my right! Free speech and freedom and all that, right?
But I'd still like to see SPEWS sued into the stone age.
What, exactly, would be the basis for such a lawsuit? That they report accurate information? That ISPs voluntarily use that information to reject their mail, even though they have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to see that your mail arrives on their private equipment?
SPEWS does (not past-tense -- the SPEWS DNSbls are still active and up-to-date and the SPEWS info website is accessable when some crook isn't pingflooding it) disclose that they list spam-support organizations and that they are a list of that and not just "spammers" very clearly in their FAQ. It's not the fault of SPEWS if no one reads the documentation.
SPEWS does not represent their lists as just being spammers. If they did, then you might have a point because falsely labelling someon a spammer would be libel.
While your praise of a criminal act of vandalism is telling of your personality, it's interesting to note just how ineffective the DDoS against SPEWS really is. It's so far knocked the main SPEWS information website offline (though there are active mirrors) and it's taken out one DNSbl that happened to incorporate, among various other lists, the SPEWS level 1 list. The other DNSbls with SPEWS information are still up and running and up-to-date, allowing admins to filter out traffic from known crime-ridden netspaces as they please.
Not to mention that if SPEWS really did die, the consequences would be rather dire. For all the venom and bile spit at SPEWS, the alternative -- permanent blocklisting in thousands of individual filters -- is arguably much worse. That is the reason that the netspace that once belonged to AGIS is now effectively "no man's land" on the 'net.
They've already appeared in news.admin.net-abuse.email (not by my doing), which is a rich harvest-target by stupid spammers (yeah, I know that's redundant). Posting them here won't do any more damage than that which has already been done.
Why are you comparing spamming to white-hat hacking or file-trading?
Spam is theft of service and trespass to chattel. It is a crime where there is a clear victim and clear damages. In file-trading the damage is much less tangible and with white-hat hacking it's nonexistent.
I had complained countless times to the Chinese whois contacts without positive result.
I managed to get a Viagra shill site yanked. That happened after a mail filter misconfiguration caused over 4000 e-mails to be sent to to the host (china-netcom.com)
I've heard that people have had some results by CCing their complaints to every known Chinese ambassador contact address:
Let the innocent ones fight to get back on - isn't that basically the way it works here with blacklists?
No. Good blacklists specifically target sources of spam, such as spam-friendly ISPs. They do not list a huge chunk of IP addresses pulled at random with the hope that some of them are spammers/spam-friendly ISPs.
http://spews.sorbs.net/ is up now (was down yesterday). The spews.org site was apparently up earlier today, but it's down again (though I can resolve the domain, which is an improvement).
Rumours of the death of SPEWS are greatly exaggerated.:)
SPEWS is deliberately set up to cover more than just spammer IPs. SPEWS openly states that they list spammer-friendly ISPs and that this could cause collateral damage. This is the intent of filtering based upon SPEWS. As such, blocking "legitimate" mail from customers of crime-ridden ISPs like Verio or cogentco does nt amount to a "false positive" because the intent from the beginning was to block mail from that domain.
Deny filters are useful because they greatly offset the cost of spamming. Content-based filtering still requires storage and CPU cycles for processing the message. That costs money. If an ISP is known for letting their customers spew out nothing but garbage despite repeated complaints, then it's perfectly acceptable to drop all packets from said ISP at the router. If you don't like that idea, then don't do it for yourself -- leave those of us who want to stop the flow of cram from criminal-controlled ISPs like Qwest alone.
Spammers didn't care about their individual IPs being blocklisted. Spam-friendly ISPs would just move them to new IP addresses anyway. Spammers are constantly seeking means to evade filters. SPEWS works because it forces the crime-friendly ISPs to act or go out of business. If you have a better, more effective solution for getting rid of spammers short of killing them (I don't know why more people don't take that suggestion seriously), then please present it.
Actually, in this case the spammer is VERY stupid.
The SPEWS website just offers a direct download text list of its listings, as well as documentation for the listings. Most admins don't use that -- they use DNSbl sites, and those aren't down. The website's presence has no bearing on the ability of an admin to filter based upon current SPEWS listings. In other words, SPEWS is still alive and kicking, even if the website is inaccessable.
Thanks to this attack, SomethingAwful will remain blocked forever, because no one will be able to update their filters from the SPEWS listings should cogentco clean up its act.
Slashdot Mirror
The callee speaks very quietly, to try and get the telemarketer to raise the volume of their phone/earpiece. After a few seconds, the callee blows an air horn right into the phone, blasting the telemarketer.
Ever have that happen?
So they're trying to sell me on an antivirus product that informs me of an infection when I'm not infected. Brilliant marketing move.
spews.org is up again. It seems to go up and down throughout the day, but there does seem to be more uptime (that I've observed) than downtime.
It was up when I posted it, and down later, then up again later in the day. It seems to be coming up and down due to some crook's attack on the webserver (not that the attacks do anything to the DNSbls which is how mail is filtered -- the website is just an information zone).
Try again later in the day and you might have better luck. Also look at http://www.spews.org/ -- which goes up and down at the same frequency. In any case, I know of a few mirrors, and some of them are currently functioning (spews.sorbs.net)
Spam is an imposed cost-shifted advertising wherein the unwilling recipient is required to pay for storage and resources used for the advertisement. That's just like someone spraypainting advertisements on your house and charging you for the materials.
Let's see the SPEWS case ID. We can look it up and see for ourselves whether or not your listing is "justified".
When all else fails, fall back to mindless venom.
I assert that spam is very much like spray-painting advertisements onto unwilling people's property and making them pay for the materials. In fact, I assert that spamming is actually doing exactly that. You seem to be trying to refute it through ridicule rather than intelligence.
Not that I'm surprised. Your "Internet destroyer" comment means that you're either a spammer, or someone who is just as stupid as a spammer.
I like you how you just said that the analogy was bad without actually explaining where it goes wrong. Instead, you toss out a mindless ad-hominem regarding my pro-SPEWS stance.
or really hate freedom.
Good point. I mean, if I want to spray-paint advertisements on the side of your house, and then charge you for the materials used, that's my right! Free speech and freedom and all that, right?
Falsely claiming that the owner of the IPs are also spammers?
SPEWS doesn't do this.
Falsely claiming that the new owners of other IPs that ONCE belonged tos pammers are spammers and refusing to remove the listing?
I'm sure that you can provide documentation of this happening.
So then your problem is with braindead admins, not SPEWS. Stop blaming the messenger.
But I'd still like to see SPEWS sued into the stone age.
What, exactly, would be the basis for such a lawsuit? That they report accurate information? That ISPs voluntarily use that information to reject their mail, even though they have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to see that your mail arrives on their private equipment?
SPEWS does (not past-tense -- the SPEWS DNSbls are still active and up-to-date and the SPEWS info website is accessable when some crook isn't pingflooding it) disclose that they list spam-support organizations and that they are a list of that and not just "spammers" very clearly in their FAQ. It's not the fault of SPEWS if no one reads the documentation.
SPEWS does not represent their lists as just being spammers. If they did, then you might have a point because falsely labelling someon a spammer would be libel.
While your praise of a criminal act of vandalism is telling of your personality, it's interesting to note just how ineffective the DDoS against SPEWS really is. It's so far knocked the main SPEWS information website offline (though there are active mirrors) and it's taken out one DNSbl that happened to incorporate, among various other lists, the SPEWS level 1 list. The other DNSbls with SPEWS information are still up and running and up-to-date, allowing admins to filter out traffic from known crime-ridden netspaces as they please.
Not to mention that if SPEWS really did die, the consequences would be rather dire. For all the venom and bile spit at SPEWS, the alternative -- permanent blocklisting in thousands of individual filters -- is arguably much worse. That is the reason that the netspace that once belonged to AGIS is now effectively "no man's land" on the 'net.
They've already appeared in news.admin.net-abuse.email (not by my doing), which is a rich harvest-target by stupid spammers (yeah, I know that's redundant). Posting them here won't do any more damage than that which has already been done.
Why are you comparing spamming to white-hat hacking or file-trading?
Spam is theft of service and trespass to chattel. It is a crime where there is a clear victim and clear damages. In file-trading the damage is much less tangible and with white-hat hacking it's nonexistent.
I had complained countless times to the Chinese whois contacts without positive result.
n l, inf2@fmprc.gov.cn, chinaemb_in@mfa.gov.cn,china@opendf.com.br, webmaster@chinaembassy.bg,chinaemb@soficom.com.eg, info@chinaembassy.org.nz,consul@chinaembassy.org.n z, administration@chinaembassy.org.nz,culture@chinaem bassy.org.nz, science@chinaembassy.org.nz,defence@chinaembassy.o rg.nz, education@chinaembassy.org.nz,chinaeco@paradise.ne t.nz, webmaster@chinaembassy.nl,adm@chinaembassy.nl, culture@chinaembassy.nl,commercial@chinaembassy.nl , jiaoyu@xs4all.nl,military@chinaembassy.nl, scitech@chinaembassy.nl,culture@chinese-embassy.no , webmaster@chinaconsulate.org.nz,webmaster@chinaemb assy.org.tr, webmaster@chinaembassy.org.zw,webmaster@embajadach ina.org.pe, press@chinemb.fi,consulate@chinemb.fi, culture@chinemb.fi, edse@chinemb.fi,office@chinemb.fi, fin.shangwu@kolumbus.fi, chinaemb@simnet.is,chinacom@islandia.is, chinaemb@012.net.il, info@china-embassy.or.jp,consular@chinaembassy.org .np, culture@chinaembassy.org.np,embchina@adetel.net.mx , chnempng@daltron.com.pg,embaixador@embaixadachina. pt, conselheiro@embaixadachina.pt,politica@embaixadach ina.pt, cultura@embaixadachina.pt,militar@embaixadachina.p t, chancelaria@embaixadachina.pt,consular@embaixadach ina.pt, chinaemb_sa@mfa.gov.cn,political@chinaembassy.se, consular@chinaembassy.se,administration@chinaembas sy.se, military@chinaembassy.se,culture@chinaembassy.se, science@chinaembassy.se,moftec.swe@swipnet.se, info@cnedu.nu, protocol@chinaembassy.se,webmaster@chinaembassy.se , CHINA-EMBASSY@BLUEWIN.CH,chinaembassy_tr@fmprc.gov .cn, sinoem@zol.co.zw,chinamission_un@mfa.gov.cn, fmco_mo@mfa.gov.cn,minister@legalinfo.gov.cn
I managed to get a Viagra shill site yanked. That happened after a mail filter misconfiguration caused over 4000 e-mails to be sent to to the host (china-netcom.com)
I've heard that people have had some results by CCing their complaints to every known Chinese ambassador contact address:
chinaemb_in@mfa.gov.cn, secretary@chinaembassy.nl,political@chinaembassy.
Let the innocent ones fight to get back on - isn't that basically the way it works here with blacklists?
No. Good blacklists specifically target sources of spam, such as spam-friendly ISPs. They do not list a huge chunk of IP addresses pulled at random with the hope that some of them are spammers/spam-friendly ISPs.
http://spews.sorbs.net/ is up now (was down yesterday). The spews.org site was apparently up earlier today, but it's down again (though I can resolve the domain, which is an improvement).
:)
Rumours of the death of SPEWS are greatly exaggerated.
The GPL really is a viral license.
SPEWS is deliberately set up to cover more than just spammer IPs. SPEWS openly states that they list spammer-friendly ISPs and that this could cause collateral damage. This is the intent of filtering based upon SPEWS. As such, blocking "legitimate" mail from customers of crime-ridden ISPs like Verio or cogentco does nt amount to a "false positive" because the intent from the beginning was to block mail from that domain.
Deny filters are useful because they greatly offset the cost of spamming. Content-based filtering still requires storage and CPU cycles for processing the message. That costs money. If an ISP is known for letting their customers spew out nothing but garbage despite repeated complaints, then it's perfectly acceptable to drop all packets from said ISP at the router. If you don't like that idea, then don't do it for yourself -- leave those of us who want to stop the flow of cram from criminal-controlled ISPs like Qwest alone.
Spammers didn't care about their individual IPs being blocklisted. Spam-friendly ISPs would just move them to new IP addresses anyway. Spammers are constantly seeking means to evade filters. SPEWS works because it forces the crime-friendly ISPs to act or go out of business. If you have a better, more effective solution for getting rid of spammers short of killing them (I don't know why more people don't take that suggestion seriously), then please present it.
Actually, in this case the spammer is VERY stupid.
The SPEWS website just offers a direct download text list of its listings, as well as documentation for the listings. Most admins don't use that -- they use DNSbl sites, and those aren't down. The website's presence has no bearing on the ability of an admin to filter based upon current SPEWS listings. In other words, SPEWS is still alive and kicking, even if the website is inaccessable.
I know that we all do not like spammers, but this guy is advocating the mass murder of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people.
Spammers != "people"
Thanks to this attack, SomethingAwful will remain blocked forever, because no one will be able to update their filters from the SPEWS listings should cogentco clean up its act.
A phyrric victory, to be sure.
Bayesian filters don't offset the bulk of the cost of spamming. Deny filters do.
A perfect solution would be to track down the individual spammers and kill them. That would end the spam flow once and for all.