Several blocklists have listed major providers, such as Qwest, Sprint, Broadwing and UUNet. Several of them are listing some of them at this very moment.
This approach has been particularly effective with the SBL (Spamhaus BlockList), which has "encouraged" several large providers to begin paying attention to Internet abuse from their customers.
Steve Linford, who runs Spamhaus, has even got the Chinese networks to pay more attention to their open proxy and spam hosting problems. That alone would qualify him as the Internet Man of the Year in my books.
Scum like Scelson will never stop spamming until they are physically unable to do so.
He has to be forcefully removed from having access to computers and the Internet for him to stop.
From what I gather you can do that either by killing him (please, some psycho do this, please!) or getting him in jail. The latter is unlikely to happen.
Let me just point out that SPEWS is not being sued. An individual who complained, publicly, about spam is being sued.
From what I've read about how SPEWS works it is not even possible his complaint made SPEWS list T3 Direct.
This is just another example of the pattern of abuse by spammers. They abuse the Internet, because they can. They abuse the legal system, because they can. It's so very typical sociopathic behavior.
The real point of the Nadine story is demonstrating how spammers are reselling and distributing spam lists.
Some of the spammers hitting Nadine's Email address are trying to act as responsible members of the bulk emailing industry, while at the same time blatantly violating online privacy policies (their own, and their list suppliers') left and right.
The point of the story is to point out how effective "industry self regulation" really is.
There's no law in any country in the world that would hold an owner of an open relay liable for the spam sent through it.
The situation is even more complex, when you consider that his open relay appears to be only used to relay spam to Italian Internet users.
What needs to happen is that some script kiddie needs to initiate a DDOS attack using toad.com shutting down a few high volume online stores, like Amazon or eBay. John Gilmore can not possibly claim ignorance, when Amazon and eBay will sue him for damages.
Of course they won't sue anybody, because they'd rather pass on the costs to their users as part of the operating costs of an Internet business. That's the typical response from credit card companies, Internet businesses, ISPs and the law enforcement agencies regarding online security issues.
There're a few people running open relay honeypots with great success (in terms of attracting high profile spammers to use them).
The problem, however, is that the ISPs where the spams to those honeypots are being sent from are ignoring complaints from the honeypot originators.
A great example is Mikhail Tokarev's honeypot, which is being heavily abused by a "Mr." Alan Ralsky, a long-time, career (animal, kiddie, regular) porn spammer. Everybody, who has anything to do with preventing spam, knows Ralsky's reputation. Yet his various dialup providers are ignoring complaints.
More information in news.admin.net-abuse.email (search for Mr. Tokarev's recent posts).
If anything, the lawsuit is what's going to raise costs for everyone.
Internet users all over the world should file a class action suit against The DMA, all email marketers, spammers and everyone else who treats online privacy as an extension of their marketing departments.
...AND the privacy policy doesn't have to follow any standards, you just have to have one. It's not even validated or audited, you just have to have one. You could even have a privacy policy of "Your information will be sold to anyone with $5", and that would be perfectly fine by TrustE.
1. to piss off the spammer by letting him know who exactly it was that caused him to lose his website. This is very satisfying for an anti-spammer.
2. For entertainment value. Spammers very typically react exactly like this moron. It's just that Bernie appears to have taken it much further than your average kook. This is funny stuff.
Yes they do (support spam). Do some research on this issue. ACLU and EFF have consistently sided with spammers for a long time. They see it as a freedom of speech issue, and not as a private property issue. A simple DejaGoogle search will give you everything you need.
On a related note, John Gilmore of EFF, for example, is refusing to close down his infamous open SMTP server at toad.com even though that server has been abused by spammers. In fact there was a huge spam run THIS week run on that server by a spammer.
mp3s are of "good enough" quality.
They sound sufficiently similar to CDs to most people (with crappy computer speakers) that it doesn't matter, if there's another format there with better quality.
mp3 is already the winner, why bother with other stuff for the masses..ogg *might* have some niche market for special uses, such as a format used in some specialized devices, products or services, but it will NOT beat mp3s as the format of choice for digital music distribution to the masses.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.clifto.com/8345.html
That's why spamming has to be destroyed NOW and not when it REALLY becomes a problem.
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill spammers!
Re: It's ridiculous to equate psychopaths and spammers.
More accurately...spammers are sociopaths.
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill spammers.
Several blocklists have listed major providers, such as Qwest, Sprint, Broadwing and UUNet. Several of them are listing some of them at this very moment.
This approach has been particularly effective with the SBL (Spamhaus BlockList), which has "encouraged" several large providers to begin paying attention to Internet abuse from their customers.
Steve Linford, who runs Spamhaus, has even got the Chinese networks to pay more attention to their open proxy and spam hosting problems. That alone would qualify him as the Internet Man of the Year in my books.
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill spammers!
Scum like Scelson will never stop spamming until they are physically unable to do so.
He has to be forcefully removed from having access to computers and the Internet for him to stop.
From what I gather you can do that either by killing him (please, some psycho do this, please!) or getting him in jail. The latter is unlikely to happen.
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill spammers!
The court documents for this case are at http://www.cluecentral.net/hisdpf/
Count the typos (Quest), spot the insanity (Steve Linford lives in Idaho?)...
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill spammers!
How is SPEWS or any other spam blocklist censorware?
Let me just point out that SPEWS is not being sued. An individual who complained, publicly, about spam is being sued.
From what I've read about how SPEWS works it is not even possible his complaint made SPEWS list T3 Direct.
This is just another example of the pattern of abuse by spammers. They abuse the Internet, because they can. They abuse the legal system, because they can. It's so very typical sociopathic behavior.
Spammer's servers might've been confiscated by the ISP.
Or the spammer scum is just trying to slide extra costs in.
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill spammers!
Do not delete your user account.
Change your active Email address to a yahoo.com address and let the "spam me all you want" preferenfes stay "unchanged".
This way Yahoo will spam your yahoo.com account, which you will never use, and fill their own disks.
More spam on everyone's yahoo.com account leads to more costs to Yahoo.
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill spammers!
The real point of the Nadine story is demonstrating how spammers are reselling and distributing spam lists.
Some of the spammers hitting Nadine's Email address are trying to act as responsible members of the bulk emailing industry, while at the same time blatantly violating online privacy policies (their own, and their list suppliers') left and right.
The point of the story is to point out how effective "industry self regulation" really is.
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill spammers
What a nice thing to say Mr. Anonymous Coward.
You left out accusing me of being gay, an anti-commerce net terrorist, a net-nazi, a net cop, a spam cop, a bully.
And you left out the obligatory threats of violence and Lawsuites (tm)
HTH
Yes, it harms the EFF.
John Gilmore is/was using EFF lawyers to fight Verio. Your EFF contributions are in part going to John Gilmore's personal use.
I would say that's harming the EFF's reputation.
Gilmore knows. He's been ignoring advice and outright offers of help to make that SMTP server to use SMTP auth.
Either he wants spam and other internet abuse flowing through that server or he's just not as bright as they say he is.
I'd say he's a stubborn moron and an Internet abuser, no better than spammers.
There's no law in any country in the world that would hold an owner of an open relay liable for the spam sent through it.
The situation is even more complex, when you consider that his open relay appears to be only used to relay spam to Italian Internet users.
What needs to happen is that some script kiddie needs to initiate a DDOS attack using toad.com shutting down a few high volume online stores, like Amazon or eBay. John Gilmore can not possibly claim ignorance, when Amazon and eBay will sue him for damages.
Of course they won't sue anybody, because they'd rather pass on the costs to their users as part of the operating costs of an Internet business. That's the typical response from credit card companies, Internet businesses, ISPs and the law enforcement agencies regarding online security issues.
And the name of this spamming scum is?
You did report him to his ISP, didn't you?
AT&T spams.
JCrew.com spams.
JCPenney spams.
And that's just the ones that crap in my mailbox.
Yes, major companies do spam.
No, it's still not effective.
There're a few people running open relay honeypots with great success (in terms of attracting high profile spammers to use them).
The problem, however, is that the ISPs where the spams to those honeypots are being sent from are ignoring complaints from the honeypot originators.
A great example is Mikhail Tokarev's honeypot, which is being heavily abused by a "Mr." Alan Ralsky, a long-time, career (animal, kiddie, regular) porn spammer. Everybody, who has anything to do with preventing spam, knows Ralsky's reputation. Yet his various dialup providers are ignoring complaints.
More information in news.admin.net-abuse.email (search for Mr. Tokarev's recent posts).
If anything, the lawsuit is what's going to raise costs for everyone.
Internet users all over the world should file a class action suit against The DMA, all email marketers, spammers and everyone else who treats online privacy as an extension of their marketing departments.
Okay, so if 1/2 the companies spamming is too much...
.1% of all small businesses in USA send one unsolicited Email per year.
.1% of US based small businesses.
Let's say only
There's roughly 25,000,000 small business in the US. That's 25,000 Emails per year in your mailbox. About 68 Emails per day.
Let's say they send one email per month. The number of Emails in your mailbox goes up to 816 or so.
Most mainsleaze spammers I get spam from, send spam weekly. That's 3536 Emails per day in your mailbox.
Isn't that just so much better?
And that's just counting spam from
-TPP
http://www.clifto.com/8345.html
That's why it matters.
If spam is accepted, you will drown on it. Make no mistake about it.
...AND the privacy policy doesn't have to follow any standards, you just have to have one. It's not even validated or audited, you just have to have one. You could even have a privacy policy of "Your information will be sold to anyone with $5", and that would be perfectly fine by TrustE.
TrustE is one of the biggest con on the Internet.
1. to piss off the spammer by letting him know who exactly it was that caused him to lose his website. This is very satisfying for an anti-spammer.
2. For entertainment value. Spammers very typically react exactly like this moron. It's just that Bernie appears to have taken it much further than your average kook. This is funny stuff.
Yes they do (support spam). Do some research on this issue. ACLU and EFF have consistently sided with spammers for a long time. They see it as a freedom of speech issue, and not as a private property issue. A simple DejaGoogle search will give you everything you need.
On a related note, John Gilmore of EFF, for example, is refusing to close down his infamous open SMTP server at toad.com even though that server has been abused by spammers. In fact there was a huge spam run THIS week run on that server by a spammer.
I will NOT donate money to organizations supporting spam and spamming as "free speech". EFF and ACLU are two such organizations.
mp3s are of "good enough" quality. They sound sufficiently similar to CDs to most people (with crappy computer speakers) that it doesn't matter, if there's another format there with better quality. mp3 is already the winner, why bother with other stuff for the masses. .ogg *might* have some niche market for special uses, such as a format used in some specialized devices, products or services, but it will NOT beat mp3s as the format of choice for digital music distribution to the masses.