AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX
1 edit | reply to nil
Re: Why not to use SPEWS
Yes, SPEWS is vicious. SPEWS does not accept requests for blocks to be added or removed. They shift as they please.
The only alternatives are a media campaign (as Something Awful did) or changing hosts (clearly NOT an option) or petitioning NAC to terminate the spammers. |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by AmeritecTech  :
YThe only alternatives are a media campaign (as Something Awful did) or changing hosts (clearly NOT an option) or petitioning NAC to terminate the spammers.
No, there is another solution. Publicize the abuses, and convince people that using SPEWS is a bad idea.
SPEWS has no power not given to them by subscribers
I don't subscribe.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl * Security Consultant * Tustin, California USA * my web site |
|
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX | Publicize the abuses....by way of a media campaign? |
|
shorej
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Wichita, KS
 ·Cox HSI
| reply to Steve
I'm a SPEWS subscriber. Always have been. Always will be. In all my years of professionally filtering spam, I have yet to find another DNSBL that was as effective as SPEWS. The problem isn't SPEWS. The problem is DSLReports.com bought the services of a Your Spam-Supporting Provider. They should expect nothing less than their provider to be blacklisted if DSLReports.com is as anit-spam as the profess to be. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
3 edits | quote:
You people amaze me. You provider is supporting spam by hosting a very well known spammer, which you profess to be against, and yet you have the gall to bitch and moan when a blacklist operator lists your spamming provider (and effectively YOU). What's wrong with this picture? You shouldn't be complaining to SPEWS about the listing.
Yadda Yadda Yadda.
This high-and-mighty schtick is a little boring in here, folks. You make it sound as if SPEWS is organized, efficient Deity, operating while perched upon an untouchable cloud of righteousness sipping a holy latte.
This idea of urging hosted individuals, businesses and sites to contact their ISP and complain may very well be effective. It will obviously work in this case. Yes ISP's should be held responsible. Yes, we will pressure them. So Yes, this tactic does function.
The problem is SPEWS doesn't release IP blocks or resolve complaints in a timely manner once spammers are booted from the network or move on - there's also no functional public complaint mechanism in place to deal with unfairly blacklisted hosts or delays in getting lifted from the blacklist.
This from their de-listing instructions:
quote:
"You will probably have to wait a while, both while SPEWS makes sure you really did shut down those customers, and to give you a bit of time to think about how you got in SPEWS and how to stay out in the future."
Are you F*ck*ng kidding me? "time to think about"? Is this thing run by grudge-holding pre-schoolers? Comments like that make me want to open a god-damn spamming shop. 
An effective idea? Perhaps. Functional implementation? Not so much. |
|
Dimensio
join:2004-01-22
Louisville, KY
| reply to AmeritecTech
The only alternatives are a media campaign (as Something Awful did)
Yeah, that worked. In addition to still being listed in SPEWS, SA's antics got them stuck into quite a few private blocklists from which they will NEVER be removed, even if NHI/Cogentco cleans up its act. |
|
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX
| said by Dimensio :
The only alternatives are a media campaign (as Something Awful did)
Yeah, that worked. In addition to still being listed in SPEWS, SA's antics got them stuck into quite a few private blocklists from which they will NEVER be removed, even if NHI/Cogentco cleans up its act.
It didn't help SA, but I doubt it increased SPEWS-using admins either. I suspect fewer admins use it since that bad publicity.
--
Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone not agreeing with them. It's the non-thinkers that always come in legions." -John Callari |
|
Dimensio
join:2004-01-22
Louisville, KY
| quote:
It didn't help SA, but I doubt it increased SPEWS-using admins either. I suspect fewer admins use it since that bad publicity.
You may have a point. The downside of SPEWS being an anonymous entity is that they can't have a spokesperson countering false claims made about them. As such, when somethingawful and others started lying about how SPEWS works (one jackass even claimed that SPEWS demands money to remove list entries), no official SPEWS people were around to point out the obvious falsehoods. |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by Dimensio :
no official SPEWS people were around to point out the obvious falsehoods.
I think that an organization that exists to implement a policy can speak through that policy. Updating an FAQ and having anybody point to it should be good enough.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl * Security Consultant * Tustin, California USA * my web site |
|
Star Wolf
| reply to AmeritecTech
It didn't help SA, but I doubt it increased SPEWS-using admins either. I suspect fewer admins use it since that bad publicity.
In the greater scheme of things, the SA/SPEWS fracas was a non-event for both sides. Neither gained or lost much, though SA got some additional exposure it had not had before. I believe this will be true for DSLR as well.
The bubbas taking the hits this time around are Pwebtech and NAC, whose spam issues until now were not well known. |
|
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18
 ·Verizon west (ex G..
| said by Star Wolf:
The bubbas taking the hits this time around are Pwebtech and NAC, whose spam issues until now were not well known.
Interesting that it has taken BBR and this sites exposure to make some things happen all of a sudden. A quick search of the site here doesn't reveal much in the way of bad things related to pwebtech, Pegasus Web Technologies, or NAC.net as they relate to spam since october. I'm sure a little blurb in this forum here would have got some wheels turning if it was such a problem. Maybe the little "hey dlsr/bbr guys...." note should have been posted here. No? doesn't follow the SPEWS way of doing things? It doesn't take much digging in the NANAE to figure out who's behind the mask at SPEWS. Google is your friend. The SPEWS.org register info is interesting too.
It's nice to see the commments from the NAC CEO too. They run a good business that can be proven by the fact that very few haven't been able to get to BBR when they clicked the link. It always works for me except for the rare database error I've seen. Good work to all invovled! |
|
Star Wolf
|
Interesting that it has taken BBR and this sites exposure to make some things happen all of a sudden. A quick search of the site here doesn't reveal much in the way of bad things related to pwebtech, Pegasus Web Technologies, or NAC.net as they relate to spam since october. I'm sure a little blurb in this forum here would have got some wheels turning if it was such a problem. Maybe the little "hey dlsr/bbr guys...." note should have been posted here. No? doesn't follow the SPEWS way of doing things?
Did you think that through...people with complaints about pwebtech and other NAC customers should post them here? You sent complaints to abuse@ that is what they are there for. If you are a diehard anti, you post in NANAS as well. DSLR is an interesting place, but its not the nexus for NAC complaints.
It doesn't take much digging in the NANAE to figure out who's behind the mask at SPEWS.
Determining who SPEWS is based on posts in NANAE is laughable. If it was that easy, it would have been done by now. Whomever they are, they have fairly good OPSEC, especially after that suit by the idiot Florida lawyer. |
|
dda
Premium
join:2003-12-29
Bolton, MA
| reply to Dimensio
Dimensio wrote:
You may have a point. The downside of SPEWS being an anonymous entity is that they can't have a spokesperson countering false claims made about them.
I don't know, you and others have jumped to defend SPEWS. Although it is a little sad that so many of those defending SPEWS are anonymous (or, like you, always doing their First Post!); one might think they were afraid to identify themselves. I'm sure that isn't the case though; I'm sure you are all willing to stand up and be counted as proud defenders of what you so obviously believe in.
Right? |
|
Spectral
Hates Acl's
Premium
join:2002-05-03
Silverton, OR
clubs:
| said by dda :
. Although it is a little sad that so many of those defending SPEWS are anonymous (or, like you, always doing their First Post!); one might think they were afraid to identify themselves. I'm sure that isn't the case though; I'm sure you are all willing to stand up and be counted as proud defenders of what you so obviously believe in.
Right?
Or it might have to do with several ppl reading about this in the big threads it generated on slashdot and nanae who are coming over here for the first time in response. Much the same as I'm sure there are probably more than a few from here that visited at least nanae if not slashdot for the first time because of it.
--
"FlyingThere is an art, or rather a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."~Douglas Adams |
|
jseymour8
join:2000-07-29
| reply to AmeritecTech
said by AmeritecTech :
said by Dimensio :
The only alternatives are a media campaign (as Something Awful did)
Yeah, that worked. In addition to still being listed in SPEWS, SA's antics got them stuck into quite a few private blocklists from which they will NEVER be removed, even if NHI/Cogentco cleans up its act.
It didn't help SA, but I doubt it increased SPEWS-using admins either. I suspect fewer admins use it since that bad publicity.
I suspect you're deluding yourself--that is, if the SPEWS-related
traffic I've seen in NANAE and NANABl is any guide. If anything, I'm
guessing SPEWS use has gone up, not down, since that incident.
I really doubt that has anything to do with SA at all. What I
do believe is that SA has way, way too high an opinion of
itself. Not an uncommon occurrence in self-isolated on-line
"communities." |
|
