Easily done. If it's done for a proveable source here in the US, it can be smacked (say, if the mailbox for checks is in the US), or if it's done on behalf of a US company (PROVEABLY done on behalf, no joe-jobbing here)
Trust me, It can be done. Then the spammers really will be hurting:)
Now if We can just get a "Do Not Spam" List to go with the "Do Not Call" list.
First Post?
Re:100 million mailboxes protected?
on
As the Spam Turns
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Maybe they took the claims of the ISP's that subscribe to the list as to membership?
I see you're in the "SPEWS is Evil" camp, while you have the Constitutional Right to be wrong, I wonder as to your motives.
Subscribing to SPEWS, SBL, or any block list is done at the ISP level, and is part of their terms of service. Don't like it? Go elsewhere. The problem with public block lists is that it opens up the owner to a lifetime of harassment by these spammers.
For example, in the last month and a half, SpamCop has been joe-jobeed (ie, somebody sent lots and lots of email purporting to promote services at SpamCop in an attempt to get their account kicked off their ISP) 8 or 9 seperate times, and now is being DoS'd. Others have to face barrages of legal threats with no substance, designed to eat up their day.
SPEWS doesn't face any of that. They do not accept mail, they don't promote any service.. they just say.. "Here's a list of ISP's we consider untrustworthy, because they refuse to kick off their spammers".
Sure it can block folks from the same ISP (or the same/8,/16, etc etc), but if SPEWS blocked just the spammer, then there would be no incentive for the ISP to kick their spamming vermin off, (and in fact, would be more of a reason to KEEP them, because they get to send all the spam they want, and you don't have to worry about abuse, because they're blocked.
However, you can whitelist on the individual w/SPEWS letting individual emailers or even whole ISP's out of the blocks.
The thing is, it can be described two ways.
1) A surgeon cutting off the limb (the ISP w/the spamming vermin), to save the patient (E-Mail as a whole).
2) If you know "Crazy Willie" is really a front for stolen property, you won't do business with him, will you? Well.. by condoning (ie, ignoring abuse reports) the spammers, they are condoning the spammers illegal use of unsecured and open proxies worldwide, jacking up prices (for bandwidth and abuse staff) at the ISP's who actually give a damn.
Sure, we can filter it at the client side.. but by then, it's too late for the bandwidth (all the transit) and storage. Here's a stat for you. Last year, spam (in its various stages) was 8% of email.
This year it's 36%.
All SPEWS, SBL and other blocklists are trying to do is keep Email viable and not the latest way for advertisers to reach you, at your expense.
These blocklists ARE accountable. If no one likes the way they operate the blocklist, they go elsewhere.
None of em go as far as I want. I'd have all the spammers/Make Money Fast Fools permanently blocked at the router. AT&T wants to spam me? Hello, AT&T, talk to the blackhole hand.
Their grievance proceedures are very simple. "Don't Spam.. don't host spammers, and we'll unlist you"
Yes.. the uncapping itself is just a violation of the Terms of Service.. BUT..
The way the article is worded, the small ISP the 23 used had to pay a quarter million dollars worth of extra bandwidth charges to their ISP because of the uncapped usage.
Basically, this would have happened to anyone who broke a LEGAL, BINDING contract and caused $250,000 worth of fraudulent loss because of it.
"I'm quite sure an US court will be delighted, when you try to use a foreign precedent..."
Funny, if you READ the entire article, the MIAA and RIAA used the prior dutch court decision as part of their argument here in the US. Shoe's on the other foot so to speak now, and I'm sure KaZaA's lawyers are saying.. "If it was good enough for their side when it agreed with them, it's good enough for us when it agrees with us!"
This "new Bill" was defeated two years ago in Congress.. If I remember correctly, it didn't en make the Congress floor. Kinda tells you something when they use a Bill that didn't pass two years ago to try to bullshit their way into keeping you from complaining about spammers.
Just remember the rules when dealing with Spammers, like Bernie.
1. Spammers Lie
2. If the Spammer seems to be telling the truth, see rule 1.
3. Yes, they are actually THAT stupid!
So although legally, they are slaves to whatever Above.net wants to do, 'preferably', they should not have to be. People should not only have the right to only view that which they want to view, but also the right to view everything that they want to view (permitting legal exceptions.)
Net: There is no law that says you have the right to view anything you want to view. As long as Abovenet makes it perfectly clear, WHICH they most certainly do (linked off the main page even with the Anti-Spam link), it's not false, it's not fraudulent, it's their choice.
And I understand Full Well the rationale behind people blocking web sites that support spammers and/or Spam. Quite a few people spam to get click through hits more then to get them to buy something. This prevents the spammers from getting those click throughs, thus it is not profitable and they stop spamming
Ok.. wonder who modded this up as insightful. I'll censor (see, I can keep this on-topic ) the first few things that pop into mind, and call that interesting.
An UNCONFIRMED Opt-In setup like the one Micromedia was apparently running is wide open for abuse. Don't like somebody? Sign them up for hundreds of lists and make them jump through hoops to unsubscribe to something they didn't want. Instead, the RIGHT way of doing things is to send ONE email to the address saying:
"Hi! We've recieved a request from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx to subscribe you to the mailing list. If this was from you and you still want to join, please reply within 24 hours to this message. If you do not want to sign up, all you have to do is do nothing and this message will expire in 24 hours."
MUCH less prone to abuse, plus if someone did do a mass run of signups on somebody, the IP that the request came from would be a good starting point in stopping the abuse.
> Probably not. Because MAPs is no longer about >stopping spam, but about trying to force a way >of doing things on anyone who disagrees. Having >spent way too much time trying to detangle my >sites from MAPs mistakes and uncaring attitude > (if we screw up, you get hosed, adn we'll fix >it when we feel like it), all I suggest is that >people who enforce RBL actually go and find out >what they're REALLY enforcing for MAPs. If you >still support it once you get that -- great.
We do support RBL. Why? IT makes it a penalty to be a bad neighbor on the net. Just like you'd ask the cops to stop your neighbor from dumping garbage on your lawn. And I'd like to see HARD evidence of MAPS screwups. And "Because I said it did" is not HARD evidence.
(Once again quoted from previous speaker)
And apologies for going AC here. I have to for two reasons -- one is that I run systems that are at risk of MAPs taking punitive action against me or my company for speaking out, and I fully believe them capable of doing so based on my previous interactions with them. and second, my ISP buys bandwidth through Above.net, so if Above.net decides to attack my home network, I simply disappear without a trace (this ALSO implies that I have no choice about whether or not to do RBL enforcement; it's done for me, without my choice, by above.net) because of their TCP blocking.
I can't afford to get in a fight with MAPs, because I'd lose. And a group like MAPs shouldn't be in a position where they can do that AND NOBODY WOULD NOTICE OR KNOW. but they are.
Just hope they don't get mad at you....
(End of quote)
Don't like it? Find a provider that doesn't use it.
You don't have First Amendment Rights when it comes to a PRIVATE COMPANY! The only thing the first amendment covers is "Congress shall make no law to abridge free speech"
Spam, and Spammers do not follow "free" speech. You pay for the bandwidth so THEY can annoy you.
"Speech isn't free when it comes postage due"
Nice to see the looney tunes at Peacefire have once again gone crying to the media in a blatant attempt at attention.
After SEVERAL requests that Peacefire's host deal with a persistent spammer, the RBL listed that section of the ISP, What do they do? Fix the problem that's causing the trouble?
No way, Jose.
They move the Spammer AWAY from the block, and move Peacefire INTO the block, so Peacefire can shout "Help Help, we're being opressed! Come see the censorship inherent in the system!"
I have NO sympathy for spammers, OR Spam-Supporters. Everybody says just hit delete when it comes to spam. Or opt out.
Even if opt-out DID work, which it cannot, due to all the "Remove" instructions that turned out to be just new ways to verify live address, that means everybody has one free crack at my e-mail box. Who pays for the upgraded servers caused by junk email? Who pays for the staff to deal with crisis situations when some fool who thinks he can "Make Money Fast" Sends out a couple million pleas?
You do. I do. Joe Average does.
And despite claims to the contrary, not all sites that subscribe to the RBL drop packets from the websites listed therein. That is an OPTION that the ISP's who USE the RBL can use or not. The RBL isn't dumping people into a black hole by itself. It's coming from ISP's WHO TRUST the RBL, and confirm their judgement to say "These people do not wish to work in harmony with the rest of the Internet, therefore we do not wish to associate with them"
Anything else is blatant kookery by a Don Quixote wannabe who can't stop jousting at windmills.
"The Sims, the entire EA*Sports line (the best PC sports games on the planet)"
EA Sports.. the best PC Sports games on the planet?
(Considers this)
BWAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Stop.. you're killing me!
We ARE talking about the arcadeish, low-realism, "Take out features people want and throw in bugs that people don't want" EA Sports?
They're best in eye-candy only, IF that.
Let's look at the rules for this.
1. All guesses must be simulatneous. All players must guess or decline to guess at the same time.
2. At least ONE guess must be right. If no guesses are right, the game is over (you lose)
3. If any player guesses wrong, the game is over (you lose)
So, Looking at part 2, if all three players decline to guess, then Rule 2 comes into play, and the group loses. What this does is throw a monkey wrench into the whole works, because NOBODY knows who's going to guess, and who's going to decline to guess!
Players may be forced to guess, because since there's no communication, there's no way to figure out if the other two players are going to guess!
I'd say in this case the odds are no better then 10-15%
Slashdot Mirror
Easily done. If it's done for a proveable source here in the US, it can be smacked (say, if the mailbox for checks is in the US), or if it's done on behalf of a US company (PROVEABLY done on behalf, no joe-jobbing here)
:)
Trust me, It can be done. Then the spammers really will be hurting
Now if We can just get a "Do Not Spam" List to go with the "Do Not Call" list.
First Post?
Maybe they took the claims of the ISP's that subscribe to the list as to membership?
/8, /16, etc etc), but if SPEWS blocked just the spammer, then there would be no incentive for the ISP to kick their spamming vermin off, (and in fact, would be more of a reason to KEEP them, because they get to send all the spam they want, and you don't have to worry about abuse, because they're blocked.
I see you're in the "SPEWS is Evil" camp, while you have the Constitutional Right to be wrong, I wonder as to your motives.
Subscribing to SPEWS, SBL, or any block list is done at the ISP level, and is part of their terms of service. Don't like it? Go elsewhere. The problem with public block lists is that it opens up the owner to a lifetime of harassment by these spammers.
For example, in the last month and a half, SpamCop has been joe-jobeed (ie, somebody sent lots and lots of email purporting to promote services at SpamCop in an attempt to get their account kicked off their ISP) 8 or 9 seperate times, and now is being DoS'd. Others have to face barrages of legal threats with no substance, designed to eat up their day.
SPEWS doesn't face any of that. They do not accept mail, they don't promote any service.. they just say.. "Here's a list of ISP's we consider untrustworthy, because they refuse to kick off their spammers".
Sure it can block folks from the same ISP (or the same
However, you can whitelist on the individual w/SPEWS letting individual emailers or even whole ISP's out of the blocks.
The thing is, it can be described two ways.
1) A surgeon cutting off the limb (the ISP w/the spamming vermin), to save the patient (E-Mail as a whole).
2) If you know "Crazy Willie" is really a front for stolen property, you won't do business with him, will you? Well.. by condoning (ie, ignoring abuse reports) the spammers, they are condoning the spammers illegal use of unsecured and open proxies worldwide, jacking up prices (for bandwidth and abuse staff) at the ISP's who actually give a damn.
Sure, we can filter it at the client side.. but by then, it's too late for the bandwidth (all the transit) and storage. Here's a stat for you. Last year, spam (in its various stages) was 8% of email.
This year it's 36%.
All SPEWS, SBL and other blocklists are trying to do is keep Email viable and not the latest way for advertisers to reach you, at your expense.
Who do you want to see handle it? The Government?
These blocklists ARE accountable. If no one likes the way they operate the blocklist, they go elsewhere.
None of em go as far as I want. I'd have all the spammers/Make Money Fast Fools permanently blocked at the router. AT&T wants to spam me? Hello, AT&T, talk to the blackhole hand.
Their grievance proceedures are very simple. "Don't Spam.. don't host spammers, and we'll unlist you"
Yes.. the uncapping itself is just a violation of the Terms of Service.. BUT..
The way the article is worded, the small ISP the 23 used had to pay a quarter million dollars worth of extra bandwidth charges to their ISP because of the uncapped usage.
Basically, this would have happened to anyone who broke a LEGAL, BINDING contract and caused $250,000 worth of fraudulent loss because of it.
Funny, if you READ the entire article, the MIAA and RIAA used the prior dutch court decision as part of their argument here in the US. Shoe's on the other foot so to speak now, and I'm sure KaZaA's lawyers are saying.. "If it was good enough for their side when it agreed with them, it's good enough for us when it agrees with us!"
David
This "new Bill" was defeated two years ago in Congress.. If I remember correctly, it didn't en make the Congress floor. Kinda tells you something when they use a Bill that didn't pass two years ago to try to bullshit their way into keeping you from complaining about spammers.
Just remember the rules when dealing with Spammers, like Bernie.
1. Spammers Lie
2. If the Spammer seems to be telling the truth, see rule 1.
3. Yes, they are actually THAT stupid!
David
So although legally, they are slaves to whatever Above.net wants to do, 'preferably', they should not have to be. People should not only have the right to only view that which they want to view, but also the right to view everything that they want to view (permitting legal exceptions.)
Net: There is no law that says you have the right to view anything you want to view. As long as Abovenet makes it perfectly clear, WHICH they most certainly do (linked off the main page even with the Anti-Spam link), it's not false, it's not fraudulent, it's their choice.
And I understand Full Well the rationale behind people blocking web sites that support spammers and/or Spam. Quite a few people spam to get click through hits more then to get them to buy something. This prevents the spammers from getting those click throughs, thus it is not profitable and they stop spamming
Ok.. wonder who modded this up as insightful. I'll censor (see, I can keep this on-topic ) the first few things that pop into mind, and call that interesting.
An UNCONFIRMED Opt-In setup like the one Micromedia was apparently running is wide open for abuse. Don't like somebody? Sign them up for hundreds of lists and make them jump through hoops to unsubscribe to something they didn't want. Instead, the RIGHT way of doing things is to send ONE email to the address saying:
"Hi! We've recieved a request from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx to subscribe you to the mailing list. If this was from you and you still want to join, please reply within 24 hours to this message. If you do not want to sign up, all you have to do is do nothing and this message will expire in 24 hours."
MUCH less prone to abuse, plus if someone did do a mass run of signups on somebody, the IP that the request came from would be a good starting point in stopping the abuse.
> Probably not. Because MAPs is no longer about >stopping spam, but about trying to force a way >of doing things on anyone who disagrees. Having >spent way too much time trying to detangle my >sites from MAPs mistakes and uncaring attitude > (if we screw up, you get hosed, adn we'll fix >it when we feel like it), all I suggest is that >people who enforce RBL actually go and find out >what they're REALLY enforcing for MAPs. If you >still support it once you get that -- great.
We do support RBL. Why? IT makes it a penalty to be a bad neighbor on the net. Just like you'd ask the cops to stop your neighbor from dumping garbage on your lawn. And I'd like to see HARD evidence of MAPS screwups. And "Because I said it did" is not HARD evidence.
(Once again quoted from previous speaker)
And apologies for going AC here. I have to for two reasons -- one is that I run systems that are at risk of MAPs taking punitive action against me or my company for speaking out, and I fully believe them capable of doing so based on my previous interactions with them. and second, my ISP buys bandwidth through Above.net, so if Above.net decides to attack my home network, I simply disappear without a trace (this ALSO implies that I have no choice about whether or not to do RBL enforcement; it's done for me, without my choice, by above.net) because of their TCP blocking.
I can't afford to get in a fight with MAPs, because I'd lose. And a group like MAPs shouldn't be in a position where they can do that AND NOBODY WOULD NOTICE OR KNOW. but they are.
Just hope they don't get mad at you....
(End of quote)
You're one of two things.
1) A Spammer.
2) Incredibly Paranoid.
Don't like it? Find a provider that doesn't use it. You don't have First Amendment Rights when it comes to a PRIVATE COMPANY! The only thing the first amendment covers is "Congress shall make no law to abridge free speech" Spam, and Spammers do not follow "free" speech. You pay for the bandwidth so THEY can annoy you. "Speech isn't free when it comes postage due"
Nice to see the looney tunes at Peacefire have once again gone crying to the media in a blatant attempt at attention.
After SEVERAL requests that Peacefire's host deal with a persistent spammer, the RBL listed that section of the ISP, What do they do? Fix the problem that's causing the trouble?
No way, Jose.
They move the Spammer AWAY from the block, and move Peacefire INTO the block, so Peacefire can shout "Help Help, we're being opressed! Come see the censorship inherent in the system!"
I have NO sympathy for spammers, OR Spam-Supporters. Everybody says just hit delete when it comes to spam. Or opt out.
Even if opt-out DID work, which it cannot, due to all the "Remove" instructions that turned out to be just new ways to verify live address, that means everybody has one free crack at my e-mail box. Who pays for the upgraded servers caused by junk email? Who pays for the staff to deal with crisis situations when some fool who thinks he can "Make Money Fast" Sends out a couple million pleas?
You do. I do. Joe Average does.
And despite claims to the contrary, not all sites that subscribe to the RBL drop packets from the websites listed therein. That is an OPTION that the ISP's who USE the RBL can use or not. The RBL isn't dumping people into a black hole by itself. It's coming from ISP's WHO TRUST the RBL, and confirm their judgement to say "These people do not wish to work in harmony with the rest of the Internet, therefore we do not wish to associate with them"
Anything else is blatant kookery by a Don Quixote wannabe who can't stop jousting at windmills.
"The Sims, the entire EA*Sports line (the best PC sports games on the planet)" EA Sports.. the best PC Sports games on the planet? (Considers this) BWAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Stop.. you're killing me!
We ARE talking about the arcadeish, low-realism, "Take out features people want and throw in bugs that people don't want" EA Sports?
They're best in eye-candy only, IF that.
Let's look at the rules for this. 1. All guesses must be simulatneous. All players must guess or decline to guess at the same time. 2. At least ONE guess must be right. If no guesses are right, the game is over (you lose) 3. If any player guesses wrong, the game is over (you lose) So, Looking at part 2, if all three players decline to guess, then Rule 2 comes into play, and the group loses. What this does is throw a monkey wrench into the whole works, because NOBODY knows who's going to guess, and who's going to decline to guess! Players may be forced to guess, because since there's no communication, there's no way to figure out if the other two players are going to guess! I'd say in this case the odds are no better then 10-15%