Apache is more deliberately used than IIS. IIS, however, has a very widespread install base amongst clueless users who don't even realise that they're running it, thanks to Microsoft's boneheaded install procedures.
If no one in a *real* position of authority cared about SPEWS, then no one would be using SPEWS and customers of criminal ISPs wouldn't be whining about their mail being blocked.
Or do you mean some government agency? Pray tell, exactly what is SPEWS doing that is illegal?
That is an unfortunate situation. Perhaps you should bring this up to your ISP and ask if there is anything that they can do about it -- such as killing the spammer sites.
Perhaps, because cogentco created the situation wherein no one wants their mail by hosting known criminals and spammers, they should have been the ones to inform SA of the potential problems.
and there are a lot of compalints of the admins, who are completely anonymous, adding entire ISPs to the blacklist just because they don't like somebody who uses that ISP.
Given that the admins are anonymous, how could you know who they like and who they do not like? Also, do you have any evidence of such abuses?
If such abuses occured within SPEWS, ISPs would cease to use SPEWS. That is the "oversight" within the system -- if it becomes unreliable, becomes a means of 'punishing' people over petty vindictiveness, then no one will use it anymore.
Spamhaus SBL is a better list, IMHO, because there is oversight, and they confirm that the ISP is aware, and has chosen not to do anything about it.
SPEWS listings only occur when complaints regarding a spammer go ignored for many weeks. What excuse, exactly, does an ISP have to claim that they were "not aware" of the conditions that landed them into SPEWS?
SPEWS can be used to pressure spam-friendly ISPs into dropping their spamming customers. It's perfectly legal, but then you'll get a bunch of whiners who think that they shouldn't be blocked just for giving money to an outfit that they know is run by criminals.
I'm not so sure... consider the case of a local phone company who blocks *all* incoming calls from another carrier because that carrier has a client who is a telemarketer who violates do-not-call rules.
Phone companies have a status called "common carrier". This status gives them certain rights over other companies, but also regulates them on a number of levels; for example, they are not allowed to filter traffic based upon content.
ISPs are not common carriers. Spammers have tried this argument in the past, but it has never been held in a court of law that ISPs qualify as common carriers. There are all kinds of other regulations/fees that would apply if they were -- it's not just a 'de facto' application.
I said that I did not feel that $699 was fair with respect to the level of infringement that they allege in the kernel given that they have not yet proven their claims and that I don't even use an SMP kernel. I decided to negotiate, and I offered them "the finger".
In the event that they can show that their SMP code is indeed in the Linux kernel, I offered to remove said code -- since I don't use it anyway -- and I offered "the finger" again, since I have two hands.
I wonder how long it will be until some of these ISPs / mail services get sued for blocking e-mail ?
Cyberpromo tried this with AOL years ago. It didn't work.
ISPs are private entities. They are perfectly within their rights to reject e-mail from other third parties for any reason -- even if it's just "I think that the CEO of that ISP has an ugly haircut". There is no "right to send e-mail" anywhere, and unless there is a contractual agreement on the part of the ISP to receive mail, they can drop packets all that they please.
Your question makes no sense, as there is no impromper blocking. SPEWS is functioning exactly as it should.
That doesn't fix the problem where he's still giving money to a company that enables, through provided services, people to break the law and tolerating said lawbreaking even after it has been brought to their attention rather than disconnecting the identified lawbreakers.
...then present it. Come up with a means to convince cogentco to dump their spammers other than the SPEWS method. I'm sure that e-mail admins everywhere would love to hear about it so that they can stop having whiny little snots bitching that it's so "unfair!" that no one wants SomethingAwful.com's mail packets because they are comming from a cesspit of an ISP.
Also, those "restrictions" don't seem to apply to sending out unsolicited commercial e-mail, nor do they apply to committing various computer crimes, such as illegally hijacking third party web proxies.
Another perspective is that the amount of money being pumped back into the economy by so-called unsolicited commercial e-mail is nothing to scoff at, and perhaps legislating it in some tolerable form such as limiting a company to one commercial message per person per day would create a new legitimate business method in this country.
Are you seriously suggesting that I should have to wade through the thousands of e-mail advertisements sent to me every day by every single "legitimate" business on the Internet, effectively legalizing the theft of billions of dollars from unwilling recipient IPSs per year?
No. The only "legitimate" form of e-mail marketing is confirmed opt-in. Sending advertising e-mail without the prior permission of the recipient is spamming, and the "business" that does this should have their servers nuked off of the Internet.
Something Awful has been having issues with the SPEWS list, a popular spam blacklister, who according to Something Awful blacklisted a whole chunk of IP addresses that happened to include their own unabused server without offering recourse or explanation simply because it had the misfortune of sharing address space unknowingly and unwillingly
This is inaccurate. Somethingawful has three easy means of escaping the blacklisting.
They can move to an ISP who isn't spam-friendly. They can convince cogentco to get rid of their spammers. They can route their mail through a smarthost.
The purpose of SPEWS is to list spam-friendly ISPs. SPEWS is doing this. It is not the purpose of SPEWS to help clients of spam-friendly ISPs to deal with the fallout of being on a network from which no one wants to accept packets.
...and cogentco doesn't want to get rid of their known criminals. It's hardly my fault that SomethingAwful is hosted on an ISP from which I will never want to accept mail.
If shutting down spamhavens involves hurting a few "innocents" who are giving money to the spam supporters, then I don't care.
I don't piggyback. I actually use two different newsservers. I use my ISP's newsserver combined with the nn newsreader for discussion forums, and I use supernews with Forte Agent (running via wine) for binaries.
Microsoft--for better or for worse--wants to open Usenet to a more mainstream audience.
AOL did this several years ago. Back then it was called "The September that Never Ended".
(for those who don't get the reference, September was a famous month for all of the new college students who saw USENET for the first time, jumped in, and made idiots of themselves. College students, however, typically learned to wise up or go away. AOLers, unfortunately, did not -- seeing USENET as a service for AOL rather than an Internet resource that they were being granted the privledge of using).
Note that once the stigma of aol began to fade, webtv dumped their users onto it with even less concern for nettiquete.
Microsoft's Outlook-based newsreader has a means of auto-detecting UU-encoded postings. Unfortunately it is an incredibly stupid method that simply checks for the presence of the word "begin" at the start of a line, followed by two spaces, which can cause all kinds of problems. Rather than fix such a grevious and utterly stupid error, Microsoft has offered the workaround "tell people not to have non UU-encoded postings with that line in it".
Brilliant. Also typical Microsoft. Tell the rest of the world to accomidate their stupidity.
I feel lucky. I once purchased a "LucasArts Collection" just for AfterLife (my at-the-time boyfriend was interested in the game and the collection was actually cheaper than the boxed standalone game), and it included both Monkey Island games on a CD (and MI1 was the "enhanced" one with CD audio). Also had The Dig and Full Throttle, though FT does not yet work in ScummVM. I already had DoTT, Maniac Mansion, LOOM, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Zak McCraken so I was set.
Still, it took me awhile to find a talkie Sam and Max...
I have ADD, though I'm currently off medication (I typically take it when in school, though I've eye surgery coming up and I don't want to be on anything that might possibly complicate things). I found that my productivity dramatically increased when I uninstalled Mozilla from my work computer.
How does this allow the government to infringe upon the right to keep or bear arms? I don't see any "unless there is a time when a lot of people don't think that one is needed".
Would you mind pointing out what in the second amendment allows the government to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms? Be specific, and keep in mind that the amendment is one entire word, but there are no qualifiers on the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", at least none immediately obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
Apache is more deliberately used than IIS. IIS, however, has a very widespread install base amongst clueless users who don't even realise that they're running it, thanks to Microsoft's boneheaded install procedures.
If no one in a *real* position of authority cared about SPEWS, then no one would be using SPEWS and customers of criminal ISPs wouldn't be whining about their mail being blocked.
Or do you mean some government agency? Pray tell, exactly what is SPEWS doing that is illegal?
That is an unfortunate situation. Perhaps you should bring this up to your ISP and ask if there is anything that they can do about it -- such as killing the spammer sites.
Perhaps, because cogentco created the situation wherein no one wants their mail by hosting known criminals and spammers, they should have been the ones to inform SA of the potential problems.
and there are a lot of compalints of the admins, who are completely anonymous, adding entire ISPs to the blacklist just because they don't like somebody who uses that ISP.
Given that the admins are anonymous, how could you know who they like and who they do not like? Also, do you have any evidence of such abuses?
If such abuses occured within SPEWS, ISPs would cease to use SPEWS. That is the "oversight" within the system -- if it becomes unreliable, becomes a means of 'punishing' people over petty vindictiveness, then no one will use it anymore.
Spamhaus SBL is a better list, IMHO, because there is oversight, and they confirm that the ISP is aware, and has chosen not to do anything about it.
SPEWS listings only occur when complaints regarding a spammer go ignored for many weeks. What excuse, exactly, does an ISP have to claim that they were "not aware" of the conditions that landed them into SPEWS?
SPEWS can be used to pressure spam-friendly ISPs into dropping their spamming customers. It's perfectly legal, but then you'll get a bunch of whiners who think that they shouldn't be blocked just for giving money to an outfit that they know is run by criminals.
Hey, SA now knows exactly what cogentco is doing.
I'm not so sure
Phone companies have a status called "common carrier". This status gives them certain rights over other companies, but also regulates them on a number of levels; for example, they are not allowed to filter traffic based upon content.
ISPs are not common carriers. Spammers have tried this argument in the past, but it has never been held in a court of law that ISPs qualify as common carriers. There are all kinds of other regulations/fees that would apply if they were -- it's not just a 'de facto' application.
I said that I did not feel that $699 was fair with respect to the level of infringement that they allege in the kernel given that they have not yet proven their claims and that I don't even use an SMP kernel. I decided to negotiate, and I offered them "the finger".
In the event that they can show that their SMP code is indeed in the Linux kernel, I offered to remove said code -- since I don't use it anyway -- and I offered "the finger" again, since I have two hands.
Sorry, my "your question" statement was in reference to your comment about an ISP being sued for blocking mail.
I wonder how long it will be until some of these ISPs / mail services get sued for blocking e-mail ?
Cyberpromo tried this with AOL years ago. It didn't work.
ISPs are private entities. They are perfectly within their rights to reject e-mail from other third parties for any reason -- even if it's just "I think that the CEO of that ISP has an ugly haircut". There is no "right to send e-mail" anywhere, and unless there is a contractual agreement on the part of the ISP to receive mail, they can drop packets all that they please.
Your question makes no sense, as there is no impromper blocking. SPEWS is functioning exactly as it should.
That doesn't fix the problem where he's still giving money to a company that enables, through provided services, people to break the law and tolerating said lawbreaking even after it has been brought to their attention rather than disconnecting the identified lawbreakers.
...then present it. Come up with a means to convince cogentco to dump their spammers other than the SPEWS method. I'm sure that e-mail admins everywhere would love to hear about it so that they can stop having whiny little snots bitching that it's so "unfair!" that no one wants SomethingAwful.com's mail packets because they are comming from a cesspit of an ISP.
The price is low because the real estate sucks.
Also, those "restrictions" don't seem to apply to sending out unsolicited commercial e-mail, nor do they apply to committing various computer crimes, such as illegally hijacking third party web proxies.
Another perspective is that the amount of money being pumped back into the economy by so-called unsolicited commercial e-mail is nothing to scoff at, and perhaps legislating it in some tolerable form such as limiting a company to one commercial message per person per day would create a new legitimate business method in this country.
Are you seriously suggesting that I should have to wade through the thousands of e-mail advertisements sent to me every day by every single "legitimate" business on the Internet, effectively legalizing the theft of billions of dollars from unwilling recipient IPSs per year?
No. The only "legitimate" form of e-mail marketing is confirmed opt-in. Sending advertising e-mail without the prior permission of the recipient is spamming, and the "business" that does this should have their servers nuked off of the Internet.
Something Awful has been having issues with the SPEWS list, a popular spam blacklister, who according to Something Awful blacklisted a whole chunk of IP addresses that happened to include their own unabused server without offering recourse or explanation simply because it had the misfortune of sharing address space unknowingly and unwillingly
This is inaccurate. Somethingawful has three easy means of escaping the blacklisting.
They can move to an ISP who isn't spam-friendly.
They can convince cogentco to get rid of their spammers.
They can route their mail through a smarthost.
The purpose of SPEWS is to list spam-friendly ISPs. SPEWS is doing this. It is not the purpose of SPEWS to help clients of spam-friendly ISPs to deal with the fallout of being on a network from which no one wants to accept packets.
...and cogentco doesn't want to get rid of their known criminals. It's hardly my fault that SomethingAwful is hosted on an ISP from which I will never want to accept mail.
If shutting down spamhavens involves hurting a few "innocents" who are giving money to the spam supporters, then I don't care.
I don't piggyback. I actually use two different newsservers. I use my ISP's newsserver combined with the nn newsreader for discussion forums, and I use supernews with Forte Agent (running via wine) for binaries.
Microsoft--for better or for worse--wants to open Usenet to a more mainstream audience.
AOL did this several years ago. Back then it was called "The September that Never Ended".
(for those who don't get the reference, September was a famous month for all of the new college students who saw USENET for the first time, jumped in, and made idiots of themselves. College students, however, typically learned to wise up or go away. AOLers, unfortunately, did not -- seeing USENET as a service for AOL rather than an Internet resource that they were being granted the privledge of using).
Note that once the stigma of aol began to fade, webtv dumped their users onto it with even less concern for nettiquete.
Microsoft's Outlook-based newsreader has a means of auto-detecting UU-encoded postings. Unfortunately it is an incredibly stupid method that simply checks for the presence of the word "begin" at the start of a line, followed by two spaces, which can cause all kinds of problems. Rather than fix such a grevious and utterly stupid error, Microsoft has offered the workaround "tell people not to have non UU-encoded postings with that line in it".
Brilliant. Also typical Microsoft. Tell the rest of the world to accomidate their stupidity.
I feel lucky. I once purchased a "LucasArts Collection" just for AfterLife (my at-the-time boyfriend was interested in the game and the collection was actually cheaper than the boxed standalone game), and it included both Monkey Island games on a CD (and MI1 was the "enhanced" one with CD audio). Also had The Dig and Full Throttle, though FT does not yet work in ScummVM. I already had DoTT, Maniac Mansion, LOOM, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Zak McCraken so I was set.
Still, it took me awhile to find a talkie Sam and Max...
I work in email-marketing
Er, exactly how do you get the e-mail addresses for your mailing lists?
I have ADD, though I'm currently off medication (I typically take it when in school, though I've eye surgery coming up and I don't want to be on anything that might possibly complicate things). I found that my productivity dramatically increased when I uninstalled Mozilla from my work computer.
How does this allow the government to infringe upon the right to keep or bear arms? I don't see any "unless there is a time when a lot of people don't think that one is needed".
Would you mind pointing out what in the second amendment allows the government to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms? Be specific, and keep in mind that the amendment is one entire word, but there are no qualifiers on the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", at least none immediately obvious.