No, spiteful and angry is when you suggest that you use his home address to track him down and beat him with a baseball bat, starting with his extremities and working in so that you can maximize the pain. Personally, I believe that is what should happen to known child-pornographer Alan Ralsky.
No they won't. They'll blame the lost revenue on something else, perhaps something that would require even more strict copyright controls, such as an automatic gag-order when the DMCA is brought up so that places like fatwallet.com cannot even inform users when a legal threat is received.
Corporate CEOs are typically corrupt. Congress is demonstratably stupid. Never assume that they will work to the benefit of the 'little guy'.
This is exactly the same unreasoning garbage spouted on NANAE.
This line is most often heard from trolls or spammers.
SPEWS is causing trouble for innocent people and can't be approached.
When blacklist services were approachable, the threats came from the ISPs who were causing the trouble. They got the approachable blacklist sites shut down. Bitch to them. Bring a lawyer, though, because ISPs like Verio and Exodus and Qwest are not above breaking the law to get what they want.
If SPEWS is really causing undesirable collateral damage, people won't use it. That enough people use it for you to bitch and whine about it indicates to me that it is working and that it is effective.
Spam must be addressed by society through laws, not by a bunch of vigilantes who don't care who they injure in the process.
Spammers don't care about laws. The only "law" that I would support would be one allowing for vigilantes to execute known spammers. Spammers will seek means of evading the laws such as loopholes and non-extradition countries, ignore the laws and cry ignorance or 'restraint of trade' in court and they will have the DMA (a collection of known crooks and theieves) bribe Congress into passing laws with easy workarounds for them that will effectively legitimize their theft of service and trespass to chattel. Congress has tried to put up antispam legislation and the majority opinion, both in the government and amongst the ISPs, is that laws aren't needed and that the Internet can regulate itself. SPEWS is the Internet regulating itself. Don't like it? Too bad. Think that it isn't fair that you're being blacklisted? Whine to your ISP. Your ISP is the one causing the problem by allowing criminals to run rampant on their network. It is not MY fault, and I am not going to drop my filters just because you can't send your mail from a known spam haven.
I already explained why this is good. Previously, blacklist maintainers were subject to legal threats simply for reporting the truth: ISPs were tolerating criminal activity within their netblock. When word of these threats got out -- even if action was never filed -- many individuals added the ISPs blocks to their own personal firewall lists with a note not to remove them ever under any circumstances, ever. As a result, the ISP would find themselves blocked by hundreds of individual lists from which they could never be removed rather than one big central list where they could be removed if they just cleaned up their act.
SPEWS being anonymous and immune to legal action is a good thing for everyone. Well, except spammers, but spammers don't count. Spammers should all be shot into the sun, but not our sun. We should pick a sun that has no inhabited planets in orbit so as to avoid contaminating life.
If SPEWS became abusive, in listing ISPs simply because someone in SPEWS didn't like a person there, then people would stop using SPEWS. SPEWS works because it not only lists spam-friendly ISPs but provides information as to exactly why the ISP is listed. If that information becomes 'person X is a ninny' or it involves demonstratably false claims, people would know that it wasn't trustworthy and they would stop using it.
If you happen to be on a blocked Sprint IP, then yes, your complaint is with Sprint. Other ISPs CHOOSE to filter with SPEWS's list (one of the two, since there are two SPEWS lists) because they've decided that if an ISP tolerates spammers, nothing from that ISP is worth hearing. You don't like that, find an ISP that does not tolerate spammers or tell your ISP to stop doing it. SPEWS simply tells it like it is. Don't like it? Too bad.
Another thing to mention. If SPEWS weren't so anyonymous, his ISP could have threatened legal action. Simply the announcement that they were doing that would have triggered thousands of individual ISPs to add their own individual personal blocks of his ISP's entire IP range into their firewalls with a note not to remove it until sometime after the sun goes nova.
In other words, he should be thankful that SPEWS provided a single, central listing that ended once the spammer was gone rather than the existing in the situation that occured with AGIS many years ago: hundreds of filtered entries in thousands of ISPs firewalls that didn't end even after the spammers went away. AGIS died the death of a thousand cuts because there was no central filter list available.
The ISP in question leases servers one by one to individuals and companies. They hand over the root password, and off you go. So what exactly does slashdot think they should do?
If you were blacklisted simply for being in the same/16 block, that means that your ISP had known about the spam problem for some time and that they hadn't done anything about it. SPEWS does not initially list an entire range of IP addresses. They target the spammers first. If the spammers don't disappear, the block is expanded further and further over time until the entire ISP is listed or the ISP does something about their spammers other than moving them to a new IP (this has happened before in an attempt to escape blocks. The result is that the old blocks remain and the new location gets added as well, creating big holes of filtered space that the ISP knows are blocked and then they go and assign them to innocent customers).
SPEWS is necessary. SPEWS cannot be contacted for good reason. The RBL and other smaller filtering lists were threatened by lawyers. As a result, they were ordered to effectively stop telling the truth about what an ISP does because the ISPs lied to the courts and claimed that the services actually blocked them (the RBL did not and SPEWS does not block anything, they simply list). When that happens, hundreds of individual ISPs with anti-spam attitudes instantly add those ISPs entire IP ranges to their filters with a little message on the bounces like '550: Threatened to sue. Do not remove until heat death of universe'. As such, even if the ISP cleans up their act, they've still got thousands of individual filters not letting them in.
SPEWS is necessary because ISPs like Qwest and Verio have proven themselves to not only be tolerant but even helpful for people who wish to engage in criminal activity. It is good for everyone, because it is a central source for firewall fodder AND if an ISP cleans up, there's only one list to update rather than several thousand.
Re:Way to make the internet more useful
on
As the Spam Turns
·
· Score: 2
I suppose that since I operate a mailserver on Qwest, which is blacklisted on at least one list, that 'nothing legitimate' comes from my users or myself?
As far as I am concerned? No. Qwest has demonstrated to me that they are willing to openly tolerate criminal activity by their customers, even deliberate and malicious Denial of Service attacks, and as such I don't care what comes from them: it goes into tbe bit bucket.
Your ISP is the problem. Not the filters. The filters are there to provide incentive for ISPs to do something about their spammers. Don't like it? Complain to your ISP and tell them that you don't like being associated with various crooks and thieves and that you don't appreciate their inaction causing you undue harm.
Re:Way to make the internet more useful
on
As the Spam Turns
·
· Score: 2
Here is the deal. Verio tolerates criminal activity. This criminal activity negatively affects other ISPs. These ISPs have decided that they are going to take measures to prevent the unpleasant effects of Verio's crime tolerance. These measures involve completely filtering every packet that comes from Verio. They no longer have to deal with the crap from Verio.
This is Verio's fault. The ISPs who filter are perfectly free to do so, especially if nothing legitimate is coming from the filtered source (and in Verio's case, nothing legitimate comes from there). If Verio wants to actually have their traffic go anywhere, they should consider dealing with their spammers. Until then, they only have themselves to blame if their customers are unable to make any use of their services.
It is well documented that spammers have no concern for laws or ettiquite. It is also documented that spammers are all liars. Any spammer caught not adding the proper tag would simply lie and claim that the mailserver ate it.
Further, that does not solve the ultimate problem of spam, in that it costs the receiving ISP to accept the messages.
A better solution would be to physically tag all spammers. I'm thinking that it would be best done with a small lead 'tag', injected into the head with a combustion-powered device called a "Glock".
Wow. An ISP that tolerates criminal activity from its customers engages in criminal activity. What a surprise:\
Re:On being a gay geek...
on
Science Askew
·
· Score: 1
I think that the gay geeks typicaly have better hygene.
This isn't to say that all heterosexual geeks have bad hygene, but amongst the set of heterosexual geeks vs. homosexual geeks, a higher percentage in the homosexual group bathes regularly.
If SPEWS only put spammer IPs in their list, then ISPs would have no incentive to get rid of spammers, and ISPs would (as they have been observed doing) simply move spammers from one IP to another to avoid the blocks. Sometimes when you get a blocked IP it is because it used to belong to a spammer, but the ISP moved the spammer because that IP was blocked. In that case, the ISP was definitely selling damaged goods, because the reputation of that IP address was already sullied.
In any case, SPEWS has two levels of listing. The one where innocent third parties would be hit is typically on level 2, which is not recommended for anyone who does not want hardcore filtering with known collateral damage. SPEWS's level 1 listing typically will block the spammers but not the innocent third parties. If you're getting rejected, it's probably from a place using level 2 filtering.
If you contracted a pipe that has been blocked by a great number of sources because of your ISP's tolerance of spammers, then you could make an argument that they knowingly have hampered your services through their inaction.
Your ISP sold you connectivity with a reasonable expectation of functionality. If half of the internet is blocking that connectivity and it can be demonstrated that the blocking is being done because of your ISP's tolerance of criminals, blame your ISP. Complain to them, tell them that you won't pay for service that is less than adequate as a result of their actions.
If your ISP is selling you services, and then acting in a way that causes the services to be less valuable, then that is their fault. ISPs know about SPEWS and they know the potential consequences of tolerating spammers. If they host spammers and their IP blocks get blacklisted, then any IP block that they sell to you is damaged goods. Again, your dispute is with your ISP, and I'd consider consulting a lawyer regarding your ISP's breach of contract.
If SPEWS is blacklisting your ISP, it is because your ISP is tolerating the presence of spammers. Do you want to trust your connectivity to a company that openly tolerates criminal activity?
The philosophy of SPEWS is that if an ISP is willing to tolerate spammers, then it's probably best if that ISP is punished, and not just the spammers. If an ISP's 'legit' customers suffer the ill effects of a blacklist, then they should petition their ISP to get rid of their spammers. If that doesn't work, they should move, and deprive the ISP of any legit customers. I don't have a problem with that. The CEOs of ISPs that openly tolerate spam (Qwest) should be shot, but until that is legal, there is SPEWS. An ISP harboring criminals deserves to go under.
Sure Betty claims that people requested the information. Betty would make that claim. ALL spammers are degenerate liars. All spammers are irredeemably stupid. Betty is making up a stupid lie, and WorldCom is pretending to believe it because her check continues to clear every month.
Re:$5 to anyone who proves this statement wrong-
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 2
It has been my experience that anyone defending the unethical and often criminal actions of spammers, especially those who appeal to 'freedom of speech', are either spammers themselves, trolls, or terminally stupid.
Re:$5 to anyone who proves this statement wrong-
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 2
If you are being required to pay for junk snail mail, simply refuse to accept it. I cannot imagine that you would be legally required to pay for mail that you did not request.
I don't 'just press delete'. I spend time and effort in an attempt to have the spammers' connectivity revoked and their webpages terminated, up to and including contacting the registrar over false information in their WHOIS lookup. When killing spammers is legal (as it should be, as it wouldn't be like killing productive members of society like prostitutes or drug dealers), I'll spend my time doing that.
Re:$5 to anyone who proves this statement wrong-
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
I know that it is harsh, but in addition to being put to death, her children should be sterilized so that they are the last generation of that line of stupidity.
If what you say is true, then you're listening to well-mastered DTS tracks. A poorly mastered DTS track won't sound better than a very well-mastered DD track. Yes, DTS has potential for higher quality audio with better positioning, but there have been some DTS mixes that weren't any better than DD or even worse because the studio didn't bother putting any effort into the mix.
The intelligent claim is that DTS has greater potential than DD, which is true. The lower compression rate allows for greater frequency range. Anyone who claims that a DTS track is, by definition, superior to a Dolby Digital track, however, is an idiot. The true quality comes from the mastering of the audio.
True, but consider the market penetration of Dolby Digital as compared to dts.
Consider that you can buy a receiver with DD but not dts, but good luck finding one that supports dts but not DD.
Yes, DTS is a superior format, but it also suffers from significantly lower market share in the home theater department. DVD helped that along with DD being one of the standards (all dts DVDs are still required to contain either a DD or a PCM track to meet the DVD standard).
With that in mind, I still have to wonder why DD felt the need to pay so much, unless some people were considering 2-channel PCM audio, which would have been absolutely stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
No, spiteful and angry is when you suggest that you use his home address to track him down and beat him with a baseball bat, starting with his extremities and working in so that you can maximize the pain. Personally, I believe that is what should happen to known child-pornographer Alan Ralsky.
He's claiming to be 'ethical', but remember Rule No. 1: Spammers lie.
Also remember Rule No. 2: Spammers are stupid. As such, spammer lies are always stupid.
No they won't. They'll blame the lost revenue on something else, perhaps something that would require even more strict copyright controls, such as an automatic gag-order when the DMCA is brought up so that places like fatwallet.com cannot even inform users when a legal threat is received.
Corporate CEOs are typically corrupt. Congress is demonstratably stupid. Never assume that they will work to the benefit of the 'little guy'.
This is exactly the same unreasoning garbage spouted on NANAE.
This line is most often heard from trolls or spammers.
SPEWS is causing trouble for innocent people and can't be approached.
When blacklist services were approachable, the threats came from the ISPs who were causing the trouble. They got the approachable blacklist sites shut down. Bitch to them. Bring a lawyer, though, because ISPs like Verio and Exodus and Qwest are not above breaking the law to get what they want.
If SPEWS is really causing undesirable collateral damage, people won't use it. That enough people use it for you to bitch and whine about it indicates to me that it is working and that it is effective.
Spam must be addressed by society through laws, not by a bunch of vigilantes who don't care who they injure in the process.
Spammers don't care about laws. The only "law" that I would support would be one allowing for vigilantes to execute known spammers. Spammers will seek means of evading the laws such as loopholes and non-extradition countries, ignore the laws and cry ignorance or 'restraint of trade' in court and they will have the DMA (a collection of known crooks and theieves) bribe Congress into passing laws with easy workarounds for them that will effectively legitimize their theft of service and trespass to chattel. Congress has tried to put up antispam legislation and the majority opinion, both in the government and amongst the ISPs, is that laws aren't needed and that the Internet can regulate itself. SPEWS is the Internet regulating itself. Don't like it? Too bad. Think that it isn't fair that you're being blacklisted? Whine to your ISP. Your ISP is the one causing the problem by allowing criminals to run rampant on their network. It is not MY fault, and I am not going to drop my filters just because you can't send your mail from a known spam haven.
Why is this good?
I already explained why this is good. Previously, blacklist maintainers were subject to legal threats simply for reporting the truth: ISPs were tolerating criminal activity within their netblock. When word of these threats got out -- even if action was never filed -- many individuals added the ISPs blocks to their own personal firewall lists with a note not to remove them ever under any circumstances, ever. As a result, the ISP would find themselves blocked by hundreds of individual lists from which they could never be removed rather than one big central list where they could be removed if they just cleaned up their act.
SPEWS being anonymous and immune to legal action is a good thing for everyone. Well, except spammers, but spammers don't count. Spammers should all be shot into the sun, but not our sun. We should pick a sun that has no inhabited planets in orbit so as to avoid contaminating life.
If SPEWS became abusive, in listing ISPs simply because someone in SPEWS didn't like a person there, then people would stop using SPEWS. SPEWS works because it not only lists spam-friendly ISPs but provides information as to exactly why the ISP is listed. If that information becomes 'person X is a ninny' or it involves demonstratably false claims, people would know that it wasn't trustworthy and they would stop using it.
If you happen to be on a blocked Sprint IP, then yes, your complaint is with Sprint. Other ISPs CHOOSE to filter with SPEWS's list (one of the two, since there are two SPEWS lists) because they've decided that if an ISP tolerates spammers, nothing from that ISP is worth hearing. You don't like that, find an ISP that does not tolerate spammers or tell your ISP to stop doing it. SPEWS simply tells it like it is. Don't like it? Too bad.
Another thing to mention. If SPEWS weren't so anyonymous, his ISP could have threatened legal action. Simply the announcement that they were doing that would have triggered thousands of individual ISPs to add their own individual personal blocks of his ISP's entire IP range into their firewalls with a note not to remove it until sometime after the sun goes nova.
In other words, he should be thankful that SPEWS provided a single, central listing that ended once the spammer was gone rather than the existing in the situation that occured with AGIS many years ago: hundreds of filtered entries in thousands of ISPs firewalls that didn't end even after the spammers went away. AGIS died the death of a thousand cuts because there was no central filter list available.
The ISP in question leases servers one by one to individuals and companies. They hand over the root password, and off you go. So what exactly does slashdot think they should do?
/16 block, that means that your ISP had known about the spam problem for some time and that they hadn't done anything about it. SPEWS does not initially list an entire range of IP addresses. They target the spammers first. If the spammers don't disappear, the block is expanded further and further over time until the entire ISP is listed or the ISP does something about their spammers other than moving them to a new IP (this has happened before in an attempt to escape blocks. The result is that the old blocks remain and the new location gets added as well, creating big holes of filtered space that the ISP knows are blocked and then they go and assign them to innocent customers).
If you were blacklisted simply for being in the same
SPEWS is necessary. SPEWS cannot be contacted for good reason. The RBL and other smaller filtering lists were threatened by lawyers. As a result, they were ordered to effectively stop telling the truth about what an ISP does because the ISPs lied to the courts and claimed that the services actually blocked them (the RBL did not and SPEWS does not block anything, they simply list). When that happens, hundreds of individual ISPs with anti-spam attitudes instantly add those ISPs entire IP ranges to their filters with a little message on the bounces like '550: Threatened to sue. Do not remove until heat death of universe'. As such, even if the ISP cleans up their act, they've still got thousands of individual filters not letting them in.
SPEWS is necessary because ISPs like Qwest and Verio have proven themselves to not only be tolerant but even helpful for people who wish to engage in criminal activity. It is good for everyone, because it is a central source for firewall fodder AND if an ISP cleans up, there's only one list to update rather than several thousand.
I suppose that since I operate a mailserver on Qwest, which is blacklisted on at least one list, that 'nothing legitimate' comes from my users or myself?
As far as I am concerned? No. Qwest has demonstrated to me that they are willing to openly tolerate criminal activity by their customers, even deliberate and malicious Denial of Service attacks, and as such I don't care what comes from them: it goes into tbe bit bucket.
Your ISP is the problem. Not the filters. The filters are there to provide incentive for ISPs to do something about their spammers. Don't like it? Complain to your ISP and tell them that you don't like being associated with various crooks and thieves and that you don't appreciate their inaction causing you undue harm.
Here is the deal. Verio tolerates criminal activity. This criminal activity negatively affects other ISPs. These ISPs have decided that they are going to take measures to prevent the unpleasant effects of Verio's crime tolerance. These measures involve completely filtering every packet that comes from Verio. They no longer have to deal with the crap from Verio.
This is Verio's fault. The ISPs who filter are perfectly free to do so, especially if nothing legitimate is coming from the filtered source (and in Verio's case, nothing legitimate comes from there). If Verio wants to actually have their traffic go anywhere, they should consider dealing with their spammers. Until then, they only have themselves to blame if their customers are unable to make any use of their services.
It is well documented that spammers have no concern for laws or ettiquite. It is also documented that spammers are all liars. Any spammer caught not adding the proper tag would simply lie and claim that the mailserver ate it.
Further, that does not solve the ultimate problem of spam, in that it costs the receiving ISP to accept the messages.
A better solution would be to physically tag all spammers. I'm thinking that it would be best done with a small lead 'tag', injected into the head with a combustion-powered device called a "Glock".
Wow. An ISP that tolerates criminal activity from its customers engages in criminal activity. What a surprise :\
I think that the gay geeks typicaly have better hygene.
This isn't to say that all heterosexual geeks have bad hygene, but amongst the set of heterosexual geeks vs. homosexual geeks, a higher percentage in the homosexual group bathes regularly.
If SPEWS only put spammer IPs in their list, then ISPs would have no incentive to get rid of spammers, and ISPs would (as they have been observed doing) simply move spammers from one IP to another to avoid the blocks. Sometimes when you get a blocked IP it is because it used to belong to a spammer, but the ISP moved the spammer because that IP was blocked. In that case, the ISP was definitely selling damaged goods, because the reputation of that IP address was already sullied.
In any case, SPEWS has two levels of listing. The one where innocent third parties would be hit is typically on level 2, which is not recommended for anyone who does not want hardcore filtering with known collateral damage. SPEWS's level 1 listing typically will block the spammers but not the innocent third parties. If you're getting rejected, it's probably from a place using level 2 filtering.
If you contracted a pipe that has been blocked by a great number of sources because of your ISP's tolerance of spammers, then you could make an argument that they knowingly have hampered your services through their inaction.
Your ISP sold you connectivity with a reasonable expectation of functionality. If half of the internet is blocking that connectivity and it can be demonstrated that the blocking is being done because of your ISP's tolerance of criminals, blame your ISP. Complain to them, tell them that you won't pay for service that is less than adequate as a result of their actions.
If your ISP is selling you services, and then acting in a way that causes the services to be less valuable, then that is their fault. ISPs know about SPEWS and they know the potential consequences of tolerating spammers. If they host spammers and their IP blocks get blacklisted, then any IP block that they sell to you is damaged goods. Again, your dispute is with your ISP, and I'd consider consulting a lawyer regarding your ISP's breach of contract.
If SPEWS is blacklisting your ISP, it is because your ISP is tolerating the presence of spammers. Do you want to trust your connectivity to a company that openly tolerates criminal activity?
The philosophy of SPEWS is that if an ISP is willing to tolerate spammers, then it's probably best if that ISP is punished, and not just the spammers. If an ISP's 'legit' customers suffer the ill effects of a blacklist, then they should petition their ISP to get rid of their spammers. If that doesn't work, they should move, and deprive the ISP of any legit customers. I don't have a problem with that. The CEOs of ISPs that openly tolerate spam (Qwest) should be shot, but until that is legal, there is SPEWS. An ISP harboring criminals deserves to go under.
Sure Betty claims that people requested the information. Betty would make that claim. ALL spammers are degenerate liars. All spammers are irredeemably stupid. Betty is making up a stupid lie, and WorldCom is pretending to believe it because her check continues to clear every month.
It has been my experience that anyone defending the unethical and often criminal actions of spammers, especially those who appeal to 'freedom of speech', are either spammers themselves, trolls, or terminally stupid.
If you are being required to pay for junk snail mail, simply refuse to accept it. I cannot imagine that you would be legally required to pay for mail that you did not request.
I don't 'just press delete'. I spend time and effort in an attempt to have the spammers' connectivity revoked and their webpages terminated, up to and including contacting the registrar over false information in their WHOIS lookup. When killing spammers is legal (as it should be, as it wouldn't be like killing productive members of society like prostitutes or drug dealers), I'll spend my time doing that.
I know that it is harsh, but in addition to being put to death, her children should be sterilized so that they are the last generation of that line of stupidity.
If what you say is true, then you're listening to well-mastered DTS tracks. A poorly mastered DTS track won't sound better than a very well-mastered DD track. Yes, DTS has potential for higher quality audio with better positioning, but there have been some DTS mixes that weren't any better than DD or even worse because the studio didn't bother putting any effort into the mix.
The intelligent claim is that DTS has greater potential than DD, which is true. The lower compression rate allows for greater frequency range. Anyone who claims that a DTS track is, by definition, superior to a Dolby Digital track, however, is an idiot. The true quality comes from the mastering of the audio.
True, but consider the market penetration of Dolby Digital as compared to dts.
Consider that you can buy a receiver with DD but not dts, but good luck finding one that supports dts but not DD.
Yes, DTS is a superior format, but it also suffers from significantly lower market share in the home theater department. DVD helped that along with DD being one of the standards (all dts DVDs are still required to contain either a DD or a PCM track to meet the DVD standard).
With that in mind, I still have to wonder why DD felt the need to pay so much, unless some people were considering 2-channel PCM audio, which would have been absolutely stupid.