First, "double opt-in" is spammer-speak, implying some redundant step. "Verified opt-in" is more descriptive. But what the OP is complaining about is getting blacklisted for the verification email, which is a legitimate complaint if true.
I publish SPF records and still get bounces from forgeries constantly. I do get the occasional enjoyment of clicking a challenge/response link that lands in my catchall address to help show people using these annoying ineffective systems the error of their ways:).
Unless you're talking about consumer level ISPs, there are going to be more than two options for your exit traffic. If there aren't, you can buy the right to relay via a non-pink server.
That's a good idea--I didn't know the Blue Frog tool did its reporting via email, figured it opened up some kind of other connection to Blue Security. But you're right--if it's sending email already, it should be trivial to change it to a SpamCop reporting address.
Wonder what the license on that source that's floating around is (IIRC, it got pulled when Blue Security caved/was paid off/was threatened physical harm by the spammers).
What other means do you have in mind to get providers to stop carrying spammers' traffic? If one subscribes to a pink contract ISP and can't get one's legitimate email through, the obvious solution is to change ISPs. This gets your email through and deprives the rogue ISP of revenue. There's nothing immoral or illegal about that solution--users of RBLs have a right to refuse mail from anyone they wish, and customers have the right to choose ISPs with good reputations whose IP space won't be blacklisted.
The key words to me were "where you put all your spam into." I read this as meaning that a human, not a script, would be filling the folder. Unless the Spamfolder is populated automatically, this process could be compliant, and I could certainly have missed something, but I don't see where he says he's doing that. In any case, someone submitting legitimate email to SC won't keep his account long.
Give me the ability to check my spams and submit them to SpamCop (rather than having to go through each webmail's contortions to get full headers) and I'd have lots more food for the SCBL. On my personal server, I block all of LACNIC and APNIC, so I don't get much spam there.
I don't think they prohibit automated reporting. I wouldn't point it at a Spamassassin-controlled junk folder, though. I would rather scan the messages and drop them into a designated folder, which is what it looks from the writeup what his approach is.
You mean the election of Bush--the first term was an appointment by a 5/9 corrupt Supreme Court. And the second term is tainted by incidents of eligible voters being turned away and suspicious electronic voting shenanigans.
It's just like the social security card--you know, the one that the people were assured would never be used as identification. Sadly, people are stupid and/or apathetic enough to let the government get by with this, too.
Absolutely. Their promise never to use genetic information for employment decisions rings so true--they'll come up with some other pretense for not hiring the hemophiliac. People can't know something and simply choose not to make a decision that includes that information.
Your snarky use of the second person implies that you're saying I don't wear a seatbelt. While I give two shits what you think, I do wear a seatbelt, but for my benefit, not because the state has any moral right to force me to do so.
What about that though. I have always kind of considered it a legitimate gripe
If the government has the right to keep us from doing anything that might cause ourselves harm or shorten our lives, then government has a right to tell us not to eat high cholesterol, drink wine, participate in sports, you name it. That argument gives the politically correct safety police unbridled power. I wouldn't be surprised if our citizenry is idiotic or apathetic enough to let it happen, either.
At least he didn't trot out the "your injuries will raise my health insurance premiums and the government will have to care for you or your widow" argument. Seatbelt and helmet laws are just one symptom of the outrageous disregard for freedom that allows this once great country to stomach the passage of laws regulating conduct that affects only oneself.
While that was likely the intent, are you saying that individual recipients of spam aren't entitled to one complaint per spam received?
With respect to the argument that opposition doesn't imply effectiveness, I suspect the Russian Mob is (unfortunately) more intelligent about exposing and allocating assets (in this case, botnets) than the U.S. government.
If they tried that on me they know I won't tolerate it, and would find themselves making $0 off me instantly. That's the only leverage you have. Give it up, and you're screwed.
I 100% agree. I nearly found myself in that situation--the shot fired over my bow was a credit line decrease from American Express. However, I was more liquid than they realized and closed three accounts with them (after nearly 20 years as a customer) and aggressively paid off the balances. Fortunately, I wasn't rate-jacked and the credit line decrease didn't impact my score.
I use credit cards for rewards now, and pay in full each month. And Amex will never see another dime of merchant fee from me:). My scores have jumped from the mid 600s to the mid 700s since that change. Don't know if I will ever see 800, though--congrats!
The frog needs to evolve into a P2P service that passes the addresses that need to receive opt-out requests. To prevent poisoning, there will still have to be a central cabal vetting spam, but rather than having spam reports come to a central server, they can be passed P2P--maybe even over an existing file sharing network. Then the cabal can send cryptographically signed instructions to the evolved frogs, which (ideally) in their large numbers could drop a spamvertized host in a few minutes.
Usury is against Sharia law, and Islam finds excellent and workable ways around it.
Ways around it is a good way to put it--"Islamic banking" charges interest but figures out a way to not call it that. For example, instead of buying a car for $10,000 at 5% interest over three years with a payment of $299.71 including principal and intrest, an "Islamic bank" will buy the car for $10,000, sell it to a borrower for $10,800 with fixed payments over three years of $300.00 with "no interest." The effect is the same. Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to in order to pretend to comply with Sharia.
Slashdot Mirror
. . . to our Supreme Court "Justices" for fucking the Constitution in the ass yet again.
First, "double opt-in" is spammer-speak, implying some redundant step. "Verified opt-in" is more descriptive. But what the OP is complaining about is getting blacklisted for the verification email, which is a legitimate complaint if true.
Took me a bit to see your point--but that would mean, then, that these contracts would have to have no penalty for late payment as well.
I publish SPF records and still get bounces from forgeries constantly. I do get the occasional enjoyment of clicking a challenge/response link that lands in my catchall address to help show people using these annoying ineffective systems the error of their ways :).
Unless you're talking about consumer level ISPs, there are going to be more than two options for your exit traffic. If there aren't, you can buy the right to relay via a non-pink server.
Wonder what the license on that source that's floating around is (IIRC, it got pulled when Blue Security caved/was paid off/was threatened physical harm by the spammers).
What other means do you have in mind to get providers to stop carrying spammers' traffic? If one subscribes to a pink contract ISP and can't get one's legitimate email through, the obvious solution is to change ISPs. This gets your email through and deprives the rogue ISP of revenue. There's nothing immoral or illegal about that solution--users of RBLs have a right to refuse mail from anyone they wish, and customers have the right to choose ISPs with good reputations whose IP space won't be blacklisted.
The key words to me were "where you put all your spam into." I read this as meaning that a human, not a script, would be filling the folder. Unless the Spamfolder is populated automatically, this process could be compliant, and I could certainly have missed something, but I don't see where he says he's doing that. In any case, someone submitting legitimate email to SC won't keep his account long.
Give me the ability to check my spams and submit them to SpamCop (rather than having to go through each webmail's contortions to get full headers) and I'd have lots more food for the SCBL. On my personal server, I block all of LACNIC and APNIC, so I don't get much spam there.
This looks to me like his intent is to automate the SpamCop submission process, not the verification process.
I don't think they prohibit automated reporting. I wouldn't point it at a Spamassassin-controlled junk folder, though. I would rather scan the messages and drop them into a designated folder, which is what it looks from the writeup what his approach is.
During the early part of the reign of Bush II.
You mean the election of Bush--the first term was an appointment by a 5/9 corrupt Supreme Court. And the second term is tainted by incidents of eligible voters being turned away and suspicious electronic voting shenanigans.
It's just like the social security card--you know, the one that the people were assured would never be used as identification. Sadly, people are stupid and/or apathetic enough to let the government get by with this, too.
Absolutely. Their promise never to use genetic information for employment decisions rings so true--they'll come up with some other pretense for not hiring the hemophiliac. People can't know something and simply choose not to make a decision that includes that information.
Your snarky use of the second person implies that you're saying I don't wear a seatbelt. While I give two shits what you think, I do wear a seatbelt, but for my benefit, not because the state has any moral right to force me to do so.
If the government has the right to keep us from doing anything that might cause ourselves harm or shorten our lives, then government has a right to tell us not to eat high cholesterol, drink wine, participate in sports, you name it. That argument gives the politically correct safety police unbridled power. I wouldn't be surprised if our citizenry is idiotic or apathetic enough to let it happen, either.
At least he didn't trot out the "your injuries will raise my health insurance premiums and the government will have to care for you or your widow" argument. Seatbelt and helmet laws are just one symptom of the outrageous disregard for freedom that allows this once great country to stomach the passage of laws regulating conduct that affects only oneself.
Or that irritating 4 . . . 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 confirmation Firefox uses for plugins.
While that was likely the intent, are you saying that individual recipients of spam aren't entitled to one complaint per spam received? With respect to the argument that opposition doesn't imply effectiveness, I suspect the Russian Mob is (unfortunately) more intelligent about exposing and allocating assets (in this case, botnets) than the U.S. government.
If it wasn't working, why was it so opposed? And what's "terrorist" about sending one opt-out request for each spam received?
I 100% agree. I nearly found myself in that situation--the shot fired over my bow was a credit line decrease from American Express. However, I was more liquid than they realized and closed three accounts with them (after nearly 20 years as a customer) and aggressively paid off the balances. Fortunately, I wasn't rate-jacked and the credit line decrease didn't impact my score.
I use credit cards for rewards now, and pay in full each month. And Amex will never see another dime of merchant fee from me :). My scores have jumped from the mid 600s to the mid 700s since that change. Don't know if I will ever see 800, though--congrats!
The frog needs to evolve into a P2P service that passes the addresses that need to receive opt-out requests. To prevent poisoning, there will still have to be a central cabal vetting spam, but rather than having spam reports come to a central server, they can be passed P2P--maybe even over an existing file sharing network. Then the cabal can send cryptographically signed instructions to the evolved frogs, which (ideally) in their large numbers could drop a spamvertized host in a few minutes.
Good post!
Ways around it is a good way to put it--"Islamic banking" charges interest but figures out a way to not call it that. For example, instead of buying a car for $10,000 at 5% interest over three years with a payment of $299.71 including principal and intrest, an "Islamic bank" will buy the car for $10,000, sell it to a borrower for $10,800 with fixed payments over three years of $300.00 with "no interest." The effect is the same. Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to in order to pretend to comply with Sharia.