So SPEWS has the authority to determine that an ISP is "crime-ridden?" If an ISP hosts someone that is sending spam, they do so with full knowledge? To top it all off, after making these determinations, there's every reason to blacklist whole IP blocks even when innocent bystanders use IPs on those blocks?
It's exactly that sort of presumptuousness that sickens me. I'm not running away from anything, I'm running TOWARDS common sense and accountability.
You know what? I'm sick of this line of discussion. I'm backing email regulation laws from now on. It's a free country still, isn't it? I have as much right to support legislation against tyrannies such as SPEWS as much as they have a right to behave the way they do. I'm going to look to see if anyone supports email regulation and see if I can lend them a hand.
Because it's not the ISP threatening to blacklist the IP block, that's why. When you do something that could harm innocent bystanders, it's YOUR responsiblity. SPEWS wants to blacklist innocent, non-spamming mail servers and have the ISP take the blame? Dream on! No one who gets blacklisted thinks "those nice blacklist people, such good work they do! damn my ISP!"
I have as much right as you do to send/receive email. I'll tell you something else, speaking of rights: if you want the internet to remain unregulated, people had better stop supporting irresponsible organizations like SPEWS. It's precisely their sort of activity that is going to drag government into the picture.
As to what SPEWS does, they can announce anything they want, but when it amounts to ACTION, it's not a mere boycott, it's exerting control over email distribution, and when they exert THAT much control, and do so with utter disregard for innocent bystanders, they get my vote for FUCKHEADS OF THE YEAR.
You know, the more I listen to this facist drivel, the more I am thinking maybe government SHOULD step in here. Clearly, this isn't getting regulating itself properly.
Fuck yeah you should notify all the users who are going to be affected. Show some character. How spineless could SPEWS be? Of course they'll NEVER notify the other users, because SPEWS *WANTS* those other users to get cut off because they're using them as a weapon against spammers. Who has a right to soil other's reputations as a means to backlash against spammers? If I don't consent to it, you don't have that right to use me to battle spammers.
And you're fucking-A right I would like to see SPEWS taken down. Choice can go right up your ass, hard and deep. They're MUCH worse than spammers. Spammers just want to make a buck. On a scale of 1-to-10, spammers annoy me at around a 3. Someone who effectively shuts down my mail server because a spammer once used an IP on the same block as my mail server is a fucking facist.
Yes, I would donate to have SPEWS fought in court. GLADLY GLADLY GLADLY.
So if you have thieves living on your block, how about we bulldoze your whole neighborhood to keep them from operating out of your area? Will that stop them, or will it just leave your neighborhood in ruins as they move on to another location?
This isn't a "fine cure." This punishes innocent people. It's the equivalent of shooting your gun into a crowd of people to stop a thief and then telling everyone "well you weren't helping either." It's HIGHLY irresponsible.
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. SPEWS may go to great lengths to work with the spammer, and the ISP hosting them, but they do NOTHING for the innocent bystander. 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.
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.
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.
I was once hired as a programmer and ended up spending about half my time taking tech support calls at random times throughout the day, all the while the boss's skanky girlfriend would run around chit-chatting loudly and occassionally breaking down into crying fits of hysteria.
Alright! If they make Star Wars 7, 8 and 9 that means that the MAJORITY of the Star Wars movies will suck ass! Get it done quickly Lucas and Co., so I can *not* waste my money in the theaters! I'm really looking forward to disdaining them!
I was probably the best at Graffiti than anyone else I knew personally, and I still spent WAAAAAY too much time backspacing. It always felt like the sampling rate for it was too slow for my writing and it would only catch random glimpses of what I was trying to write and I had to slow down to get it to read accurately. That really blows. The first time I tried one of those thumb keyboards, I was instantly several times faster with it than I ever got using Graffiti. As much as I dedicated myself to Graffiti, I really can't relegate my speed back down several-fold just because of its "cool factor."
Cars are to be driven as the PRIMARY activity, not one of many things you can do from the driver's seat of your moving vehicle. Eyes on the road. GPS/cell phone/computer/etc. later, when the car is safely parked.
Great cybersex, and of course I nailed a few (cute, by the way) girls on a local BBS. BBS's ruled. It was exciting just getting my computer connected to other people, sure, but the sex owned.
Do you honestly think when Chinese hackers attack U.S. servers they are held back by fear of our laws? It would be *slightly* worse without the laws.
My chances of getting caught at murder and thievery of *physical objects* are FAR greater than getting caught hacking into a system somewhere. If for no other reason, I don't steal and murder because the odds are against me. Not so with hacking and spamming.
Every crime has varying degrees of severity and a varying chance of getting caught. Hacking and spamming are both things that are easily done from countries with which the U.S. has no, or a weak, extradition treaty. Making laws isn't enough for either crime. In fact, it borders on the ludicrous to even bother. It's an activity so easily exported elsewhere that making laws against it is like peeing into the ocean to make it saltier. Yeah, ok, go spend millions of tax dollars doing that.
The only way spam is going away is to simply make it standard to use some form of sender identification. Truly. I don't even pick up the phone anymore unless I see a name I know or recognize the number. Prior to caller ID I was a babe in the woods, like we all are right now with email delivering anything and everything any yokel decides to send us. A little positive ID would go a long way; a LOT further than any dumb-ass law would.
Unprovable? That's a core tenet of the American justice system. Justice in America has several goals: revenge for the victims, safety for the population, punishment for the criminal, deterrence against future crimes.
However, as to deterrence: it's never guaranteed, and regardless of how many were deterred by Mitnick's punishment, servers I administrate are bombarded by root kits and the like CONSTANTLY. So did his punishment serve as a deterrent to any level of success? No. There's little difference to me between 500 break-in attempts a day and 1,000 break-in attempts a day.
So, scared or not, it served very little purpose. Hackers abound.
Same with spammers. Incarcerate Ralsky all you want, it won't stop successors from taking over, and will likely only cause the operations to shift to another country.
Just like with Mitnick and subsequent hackers. Laws won't help one iota because it's not the hackers themselves that are the problem, it's the opportunity we afford them. Remove the opportunity and they will go away. Laws don't remove opportunity.
Perfect analogy. Mitnick's motivation means nothing in this context. His punishment served as an example to hackers which was, promptly, ignored. Mitnick's motivation isn't the question here. The question is: how will a new law change the modus operandi of spammers? Will they cease operations? Will they move operations? Punishing Ralsky under these laws will stop Ralsky, but others will take his place because laws simply don't prevent internet crime. A far worse crime is child pornography and where is the big slam on that? The internet as a whole is not subject to U.S. law, and just as laws against hacking don't stop Chinese hackers from attacking U.S. web sites, making laws and punishing U.S. spammers will only cause them to move operations to countries where the U.S. cannot reach them.
Just like with many other formats, if one or the other dies, that just means the WRITERS won't support that format, but drives will mature and READ those formats, at least for awhile. The only TRUE losers will be anyone who signed on for a format that had an abysmally small user base. In that case, it's not likely the format will ever find its way into maturing product lines.
...he's just a symptom. Imprison him and someone else will pick up his lost business contacts and opportunities. U.S. laws will simply mean his revenue taxes will go to some other country.
What we need is to get rid of the "demand" end of this issue. Tighten up email so it requires at least some level of authorization to send to someone else, even if it's just by having a certificate of trust or something.
Why not just make people pay for the software? You could even take it a step further and create business models which encourage companies to produce software for paying customers. I might be insane. I've heard that some countries have actually been grown from the ground up on this sort of philosophy. Of course, for all I know, they might be worthless, suffering countries with little or no future.
When I first read this article, that's the scream I thought the Wilhelm must be. It's everywhere. It's also the sound of a tie-fighter flying. I hear it in countless movies, even these days. When I listened to the.wav of what people were saying was the Wilhelm, I had never heard it, and I saw Star Wars 14 times during its first run in 1977. Must be my selective perception.
Slashdot Mirror
So SPEWS has the authority to determine that an ISP is "crime-ridden?" If an ISP hosts someone that is sending spam, they do so with full knowledge? To top it all off, after making these determinations, there's every reason to blacklist whole IP blocks even when innocent bystanders use IPs on those blocks?
It's exactly that sort of presumptuousness that sickens me. I'm not running away from anything, I'm running TOWARDS common sense and accountability.
Fuck SPEWS and their adherants.
You know what? I'm sick of this line of discussion. I'm backing email regulation laws from now on. It's a free country still, isn't it? I have as much right to support legislation against tyrannies such as SPEWS as much as they have a right to behave the way they do. I'm going to look to see if anyone supports email regulation and see if I can lend them a hand.
Because it's not the ISP threatening to blacklist the IP block, that's why. When you do something that could harm innocent bystanders, it's YOUR responsiblity. SPEWS wants to blacklist innocent, non-spamming mail servers and have the ISP take the blame? Dream on! No one who gets blacklisted thinks "those nice blacklist people, such good work they do! damn my ISP!"
I have as much right as you do to send/receive email. I'll tell you something else, speaking of rights: if you want the internet to remain unregulated, people had better stop supporting irresponsible organizations like SPEWS. It's precisely their sort of activity that is going to drag government into the picture.
As to what SPEWS does, they can announce anything they want, but when it amounts to ACTION, it's not a mere boycott, it's exerting control over email distribution, and when they exert THAT much control, and do so with utter disregard for innocent bystanders, they get my vote for FUCKHEADS OF THE YEAR.
You know, the more I listen to this facist drivel, the more I am thinking maybe government SHOULD step in here. Clearly, this isn't getting regulating itself properly.
Fuck yeah you should notify all the users who are going to be affected. Show some character. How spineless could SPEWS be? Of course they'll NEVER notify the other users, because SPEWS *WANTS* those other users to get cut off because they're using them as a weapon against spammers. Who has a right to soil other's reputations as a means to backlash against spammers? If I don't consent to it, you don't have that right to use me to battle spammers.
And you're fucking-A right I would like to see SPEWS taken down. Choice can go right up your ass, hard and deep. They're MUCH worse than spammers. Spammers just want to make a buck. On a scale of 1-to-10, spammers annoy me at around a 3. Someone who effectively shuts down my mail server because a spammer once used an IP on the same block as my mail server is a fucking facist.
Yes, I would donate to have SPEWS fought in court. GLADLY GLADLY GLADLY.
So if you have thieves living on your block, how about we bulldoze your whole neighborhood to keep them from operating out of your area? Will that stop them, or will it just leave your neighborhood in ruins as they move on to another location?
Brains. Brains.
This isn't a "fine cure." This punishes innocent people. It's the equivalent of shooting your gun into a crowd of people to stop a thief and then telling everyone "well you weren't helping either." It's HIGHLY irresponsible.
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. SPEWS may go to great lengths to work with the spammer, and the ISP hosting them, but they do NOTHING for the innocent bystander. 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.
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.
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.
I was once hired as a programmer and ended up spending about half my time taking tech support calls at random times throughout the day, all the while the boss's skanky girlfriend would run around chit-chatting loudly and occassionally breaking down into crying fits of hysteria.
I say it again: Fuck SPEWS.
Alright! If they make Star Wars 7, 8 and 9 that means that the MAJORITY of the Star Wars movies will suck ass! Get it done quickly Lucas and Co., so I can *not* waste my money in the theaters! I'm really looking forward to disdaining them!
We want a matrix-style brain interface? Can I also get a crystal for my hand that changes color as I age? Where's my damn moffit?
...when Python has 100% Ruby-compatibility in its CHANGELOG.
...to feed my cats while I went on vacation and leaving my ICQ chat logs intact and not passworded.
I will never do that again.
I was probably the best at Graffiti than anyone else I knew personally, and I still spent WAAAAAY too much time backspacing. It always felt like the sampling rate for it was too slow for my writing and it would only catch random glimpses of what I was trying to write and I had to slow down to get it to read accurately. That really blows. The first time I tried one of those thumb keyboards, I was instantly several times faster with it than I ever got using Graffiti. As much as I dedicated myself to Graffiti, I really can't relegate my speed back down several-fold just because of its "cool factor."
Cars are to be driven as the PRIMARY activity, not one of many things you can do from the driver's seat of your moving vehicle. Eyes on the road. GPS/cell phone/computer/etc. later, when the car is safely parked.
Great cybersex, and of course I nailed a few (cute, by the way) girls on a local BBS. BBS's ruled. It was exciting just getting my computer connected to other people, sure, but the sex owned.
Do you honestly think when Chinese hackers attack U.S. servers they are held back by fear of our laws? It would be *slightly* worse without the laws.
My chances of getting caught at murder and thievery of *physical objects* are FAR greater than getting caught hacking into a system somewhere. If for no other reason, I don't steal and murder because the odds are against me. Not so with hacking and spamming.
Every crime has varying degrees of severity and a varying chance of getting caught. Hacking and spamming are both things that are easily done from countries with which the U.S. has no, or a weak, extradition treaty. Making laws isn't enough for either crime. In fact, it borders on the ludicrous to even bother. It's an activity so easily exported elsewhere that making laws against it is like peeing into the ocean to make it saltier. Yeah, ok, go spend millions of tax dollars doing that.
The only way spam is going away is to simply make it standard to use some form of sender identification. Truly. I don't even pick up the phone anymore unless I see a name I know or recognize the number. Prior to caller ID I was a babe in the woods, like we all are right now with email delivering anything and everything any yokel decides to send us. A little positive ID would go a long way; a LOT further than any dumb-ass law would.
Unprovable? That's a core tenet of the American justice system. Justice in America has several goals: revenge for the victims, safety for the population, punishment for the criminal, deterrence against future crimes.
However, as to deterrence: it's never guaranteed, and regardless of how many were deterred by Mitnick's punishment, servers I administrate are bombarded by root kits and the like CONSTANTLY. So did his punishment serve as a deterrent to any level of success? No. There's little difference to me between 500 break-in attempts a day and 1,000 break-in attempts a day.
So, scared or not, it served very little purpose. Hackers abound.
Same with spammers. Incarcerate Ralsky all you want, it won't stop successors from taking over, and will likely only cause the operations to shift to another country.
Just like with Mitnick and subsequent hackers. Laws won't help one iota because it's not the hackers themselves that are the problem, it's the opportunity we afford them. Remove the opportunity and they will go away. Laws don't remove opportunity.
Perfect analogy. Mitnick's motivation means nothing in this context. His punishment served as an example to hackers which was, promptly, ignored. Mitnick's motivation isn't the question here. The question is: how will a new law change the modus operandi of spammers? Will they cease operations? Will they move operations? Punishing Ralsky under these laws will stop Ralsky, but others will take his place because laws simply don't prevent internet crime. A far worse crime is child pornography and where is the big slam on that? The internet as a whole is not subject to U.S. law, and just as laws against hacking don't stop Chinese hackers from attacking U.S. web sites, making laws and punishing U.S. spammers will only cause them to move operations to countries where the U.S. cannot reach them.
Just like with many other formats, if one or the other dies, that just means the WRITERS won't support that format, but drives will mature and READ those formats, at least for awhile. The only TRUE losers will be anyone who signed on for a format that had an abysmally small user base. In that case, it's not likely the format will ever find its way into maturing product lines.
Just like putting Kevin Mitnick makes all my servers impervious to attacks because it deterred hackers.
No, I re-iterate: this law will do nothing but shift around the work load to another spammer and change who collects the taxes from the income earned.
...he's just a symptom. Imprison him and someone else will pick up his lost business contacts and opportunities. U.S. laws will simply mean his revenue taxes will go to some other country.
What we need is to get rid of the "demand" end of this issue. Tighten up email so it requires at least some level of authorization to send to someone else, even if it's just by having a certificate of trust or something.
Why not just make people pay for the software? You could even take it a step further and create business models which encourage companies to produce software for paying customers. I might be insane. I've heard that some countries have actually been grown from the ground up on this sort of philosophy. Of course, for all I know, they might be worthless, suffering countries with little or no future.
When I first read this article, that's the scream I thought the Wilhelm must be. It's everywhere. It's also the sound of a tie-fighter flying. I hear it in countless movies, even these days. When I listened to the .wav of what people were saying was the Wilhelm, I had never heard it, and I saw Star Wars 14 times during its first run in 1977. Must be my selective perception.
Lots of small shoebox-sized cardboard boxes and a sharpie. A couple larger boxes, too. Organize, label and stack.