AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX
| reply to Dimensio
Re: My comment
said by Dimensio  :
The claim has been that SPEWS targetted DSLR/BBR. This claim is false -- at least, there's no indication that SPEWS works this way. There is no indication that someone at SPEWS said, "Hmm, this nac.net has a lot of spammers. I be that if we list this popular site, broadbandreports.com, it will get someone's attention".
Oh really? Is this why the SPEWS entry says "Hey DSLR/BBR - maybe you guys can help clean up NAC? No one else has been able to." ?
--
Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone not agreeing with them. It's the non-thinkers that always come in legions." -John Callari |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
4 edits | reply to Dimensio
quote:
There is no indication that someone at SPEWS said, "Hmm, this nac.net has a lot of spammers. I be that if we list this popular site, broadbandreports.com, it will get someone's attention".
Yes, other than the MESSAGE TO US in the blacklisting. The goal is clearly to get other parties' attention and to draw them to act against the host!
The IP addresses are simply expanded to punish NAC? What does NAC care? NAC CARES if those customers call and complain. THAT is the goal. To deny that very basic idea teeters into Alice and Cheshire Cat territory, frankly.
I think maybe you've spent so many years arguing this exact debate in NANAE....that after countless years carefully crafting - sculpting - and forming the perfect defensible position, you've not noticed the logic foundation has completely eroded leaving silt..... |
|
nil
Java Geek
join:2000-11-27 | reply to AmeritecTech
To be completely fair, that entry was added after our article last week. |
|
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX | Despite when it was added, I think it indicates intent. |
|
Dimensio
join:2004-01-22
Louisville, KY
| quote:
Despite when it was added, I think it indicates intent.
So you're saying that you believe that the SPEWS admin deliberately added BBR/DSLR, singling them out as a NAC customer, rather than having their IP address listed as a normal expansion of an existing entry? |
|
Dimensio
join:2004-01-22
Louisville, KY
| reply to Karl Bode
quote:
Yes, other than the MESSAGE TO US in the blacklisting. The goal is clearly to get other parties' attention and to draw them to act against the host!
The intention is to organize a boycott of spammer-friendly ISPs, starting with the spammer and expanding to encompass the entire ISP. If "legitimate" customers don't like that their IP space is being boycotted, then they should take action to get their ISP to drop the spammers in order to bring about an end to the boycott.
quote:
The IP addresses are simply expanded to punish NAC? What does NAC care?
They are NAC.net's IP space. If a lot of people are rejecting mail from NAC's IP space, that reduces the value of the IP space. NAC.net might take an interest in the fact that their own actions have lead to their netspace being less valuable. |
|
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX
| reply to Dimensio
said by Dimensio :
quote:
Despite when it was added, I think it indicates intent.
So you're saying that you believe that the SPEWS admin deliberately added BBR/DSLR, singling them out as a NAC customer, rather than having their IP address listed as a normal expansion of an existing entry?
I doubt it. I doubt they even knew that DSLR was hosted by NAC. Rather, I think they deliberately listed the entire block to get all the sites hosted by NAC (DSLR included) to put pressure on NAC to fix the listing.
--
Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone not agreeing with them. It's the non-thinkers that always come in legions." -John Callari |
|
dda
Premium
join:2003-12-29
Bolton, MA
| reply to Dimensio
If "legitimate" customers don't like that their IP space is being boycotted, then they should take action to get their ISP to drop the spammers in order to bring about an end to the boycott.
You are stating the general case of which BBR and NAC are the specific case. So yes, you are agreeing that SPEWS targets legit customers in order to enlist their aid in fighting their ISP; this is obviously done without the consent of the legit customers (no need for quotes here, BBR is entirely legit).
Rather than dance around and quote and requote carefully constructed phrases, please have the honesty to admit what is going on the intentions behind it. Doing otherwise certainly does nothing to enhance and image SPEWS may have. |
|
dda
Premium
join:2003-12-29
Bolton, MA | reply to nil
To be completely fair, that entry was added after our article last week.
Certainly not long after as I recall seeing it before the replies had grown long and (I believe) before the slashdot article. |
|
DeCartes
@attbi.com
| reply to Ozmiroid
Re: Why not to use SPEWS
Vigilante operations like SPEWS and spamhaus have no outside mandate and no governance. Yet they put themselves in the position of judge, jury, and executioner on a very complex ethical, legal, social and technical problem. When such organizations take a fanatic or zealot stance, there are no checks and balances easily available to adjust their behavior back towards a more mainstream stance. It should also be noted that organizations or people like Brightmail and Julian Haight have a large economic incentive to b e zealots rather than reasonable. The net effect (no pun intended) is that often the anti-spam vigilantes end up acting and looking like a different variety of the very criminals they are claiming to protect society from. (30M emails that not one enduser wants in 1hr is a DOS attack. So is releasing route maps blocking /19's that don't belong to you.)
All of this is bad.
In the long run, zealots often hurt the cause they claim to support more than they help it.
No "silver bullet" is going to solve the "spam problem" because the problem isn't one problem, it's a nest of problems. As long as uneven standards say it's "ok" for my kids to see ads for 1-800-WeAre18 on TV, the Yellow Pages, and major newpapers, but supposedly not on the Net, we have a fundamentally insoluble set of problems.
Some of them are amenable to technical intervention. However, the most effective technical intervention has been in the form of Bayesian filters like CRM114, message digests to differentiate valid lists from spider generated ones, and hierarchical content filtering based on =community= standards, not some self appointed elite's, and =NOT= autocratic permission systems.
Another point to consider is that the vigilantes have been at this for awhile and it's not getting better. In fact, the ever growing volume of spam combined with increasing sys admin problems like the cavalier blocking of large chunks of address space are a good indication that for all their claimed good intentions, their approach is not working. |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| I find it perfectly reasonable that I am the judge and jury... of what my own mailserver accepts.
It would be a bad thing if I made that decision for you - why do you want to make it for me?
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl * Security Consultant * Tustin, California USA * my web site |
|
nil
Java Geek
join:2000-11-27
Host:
Webmasters and Dev..
Forum Feature Requ..
| When the administrator of a large server makes that decision he effectively makes it for all his users.
Admins often do know what's best for their users by definition, but the point of contention here is blocking legitimate email because of who the ISP is.
--
Life is too short to be boring |
|
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs: | reply to DeCartes
DeCartes - spoken like a true spammer. "vigilante," "zealot," "fanatic," "cavalier."
Is someone rotting in SPEWS? Good. Go send some more porn to children. |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| reply to nil
said by nil :
When the administrator of a large server makes that decision he effectively makes it for all his users.
And this differs from "forum moderators" how?
--
Stephen J. Friedl * Security Consultant * Tustin, California USA * my web site |
|
dkoert
join:2001-11-20
Wichita, KS
clubs:
| reply to Dimensio
Re: My comment
said by Dimensio :
If "legitimate" customers don't like that their IP space is being boycotted, then they should take action to get their ISP to drop the spammers in order to bring about an end to the boycott.
"legitimate"??? Man, you are insufferably arrogant. (I mean that in the nicest possible way.)
The redefinition of legitimate is the linchpin of your flawed philosophy.
I have watched as your arguments have continued to circle the drain, and it suddenly occurred to me... you completely understand the coercive nature of the collateral damage tactics that you so zealously advocate. You've had to convince yourself that the users you unnecessarily damage in your war against spam are not legitimate. Your rhetoric has been obviously polished by your long term engagement in debate. Even though your dogma is teflon coated, your resolute avoidance of the problem (i.e., collateral damage is only acceptable if you embrace the "the ends justify the means" paradigm) reveals your awareness. I'm sure there is a line that you will not cross in your battle against spam. The use of blocklists knowingly extended to impair the connectivity of *legitimate* subscribers crosses the line... you know it, so you've redefined legitimate. Rationalization, pure and simple. |
|
nil
Java Geek
join:2000-11-27 | reply to Steve
Re: Why not to use SPEWS
Moderators don't blindly delete posts from a select user, they weigh the content.
--
Life is too short to be boring |
|
IronDragon
Premium
join:2003-06-25
Des Moines, IA | reply to Rhobite
Rhobite,
I may be mistaken but, it appears you are on a crusade to stop spam at any cost. If this is not the case please correct me.
--
Once a Geek always a Geek |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to Rhobite
And thus we continue our circle.
People, questions are futile. SPEWS is LIGHT. They are outside the realm of causality and function - I've told you already. SPEWS simply IS. Be not drawn into ire of SPEWS lest you walk a mile in an anonymous geek's sandals! SPEWS is not accountable, nor responsible, any more than the tree is for the wind, or the sky is for puffs of clouds! Support SPEWS or support SPAM. Absolutism and zealotry for ever and ever, a-men.
That said -
Anyone have any additional questions for NAC's CEO before I contact him this afternoon?
The NANAE kids are prompting me to investigate "Alex", a NAC employee, and some comments he's made over the years that have been less than professional....but it appears to be as much of a personal as professional inquiry, and I've played "tool" enough for one week.
I'm more concerned about asking the right questions about what's being done now to keep the network spam free, and if there's particular operations that have been left untouched.
Anyone? |
|
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs: | reply to IronDragon
"Crusade," that's another one.
I'm just trying to provide the other side of the argument here. You know, a healthy dialogue. But if you and nil and Karl just want to agree with each other all day, I suppose I don't have much purpose here. |
|
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode :
Anyone have any additional questions for NAC's CEO before I contact him this afternoon?
Karl, I'd ask if pacific-marketing.net has a pink contract. They're a ROKSO company and NAC continues to host them. |
|
