Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| reply to AmeritecTech
Re: Why not to use SPEWS
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. |
|
