  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
2 edits |  SpamHaus is almost as big a problem as spammers
My Web Page
My Blog
Join Red Room Forum | |
|
 |  DaSneaky1Done wall to block them allPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
 ·Charter
| Re: SpamHaus is almost as big a problem as spammers Spamhaus' position is to make noise and headaches. That is their way of helping to minimize spam. If it didn't work, people wouldn't use their standard of checking mail.
Blocking whole class C subnets works because it get's a host's attention. When a customer threatens to leave ($), a host will be more willing to clean up their act.
--
] :: my trivial ramblings :: [ | |
|
| | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: SpamHaus is almost as big a problem as spammers said by DaSneaky1D:Spamhaus' position is to make noise and headaches. That is their way of helping to minimize spam. If it didn't work, people wouldn't use their standard of checking mail. Blocking whole class C subnets works because it get's a host's attention. When a customer threatens to leave ($), a host will be more willing to clean up their act. And they inconvenience thousands and thousands of legitimate users. Their solution is as bad as the spam. | |
|
| | | DaSneaky1Done wall to block them allPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: SpamHaus is almost as big a problem as spammers Then those inconvenienced should talk with their wallets. What Spamhaus does is put the liability on the most hurt, hosting provider/ISP.
Call the circle flawed, but the model proves effective as long as people care about money.
--
] :: my trivial ramblings :: [ | |
|
| | | |  NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
| Re: SpamHaus is almost as big a problem as spammers said by DaSneaky1D:Then those inconvenienced should talk with their wallets. What Spamhaus does is put the liability on the most hurt, hosting provider/ISP. Call the circle flawed, but the model proves effective as long as people care about money. I have to agree. It is a flawed circle as you call it. However, it does work. The company I work for rejects about 10,000 spam mail messages a day. That is just insane. We still get spam mail on a regular basis that slips in. Seems that the only way to stop it is to buy GFI Mail Essentials or Cloudmark for Exchange.
These blacklists are a good thing, but really just a band-aid over a deep wound. The whole email system is flawed and something must be done if we want to eliminate spam. So far, the new systems proposed have been scoffed at. Well, I look at every proposal with an open mind.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
|
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: SpamHaus is almost as big a problem as spammer said by Romney2012:SpamHaus is almost as big a problem as the spammers by continually overhyping the problem and suggesting cures that are worse than the disease. Their block lists are overbroad and frequently block whole subnets of legitimate destinations. My Web PageMy BlogJoin Red Room Forum Spamhaus is not nearly as agressive as SPEWS
--
God Blesshttp://www.emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com-- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" | |
|
| |  sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | Re: SpamHaus is almost as big a problem as spammer Indeed, and I hope they never become as aggressive as SPEWS. | |
|
fantomposterPhantom PosterPremium
join:2002-09-21
Independence, OH | Funny
What a piece of gargabe article. First this:
"Postini believes that SpamHaus is badly overreacting to the recent news that some spam zombies now relay spam through ISP email gateways rather then sending the spam directly to receiving mail servers. The notion that this makes spam undetectable is completely unfounded."
Linford never said it would make spam undtectable. He said it would make it harder to block as it is hard to block the main email servers for large ISP's.
And then there is this gem"
"You report the words of Mr. Linford from SpamHaus about the email infrastructure being menaced and about to collapse," said François Bourdeau, director of marketing for Vircom. "I find this to be not very accurate. Although the zombie drone problem is very serious, there are solutions out there for ISPs that will minimize the effects of zombie PCs sending out tons of spam."
What an idiot. If ISP's actually did something about spam there wouldn't be a problem would there? What makes him think they will do something now? They talk to a marketing director about an issue like this? | |
|
|  pcscdmaChocobo Chocobo Random BattlePremium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA | Re: Funny said by fantomposter: They talk to a marketing director about an issue like this? Sure. SpamHaus is threatening their business by playing in their sandlot. The marketing director says "SpamHaus' products and people suck, our stuff is better. Buy our shit." It's really one of the only ways they can advertise their products.
--
"The bad news is that we are told that Michael Powell, one of Washington's better bureaucrats, is calling it quits today after four years at the helm of the Federal Communications Commission." - WSJ 2005/01/21 | |
|
 antiphishingPhishing Scam TerminatorPremium
join:2004-06-09
Wilkes Barre, PA
kudos:2
 ·PenTeleData
·ProLog
|  This is completely FUD (F.U.D. Definition)
"The idea, of course, was to persuade buyers to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors' equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the future of competitors' equipment or software. After 1991 the term has become generalized to refer to any kind of disinformation used as a competitive weapon."
Opponents of certain large computer corporations claim that the spreading of fear, uncertainty, and doubt is an unethical marketing technique that these corporations consciously employ.
By spreading questionable information about the drawbacks of less well-known products, an established company can discourage decision-makers from choosing those products over its wares, regardless of the relative technical merits. This is a recognised phenomenon, epitomised by the traditional axiom of purchasing agents that "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" equipment. The result is that many companies' IT departments buy software which they know to be technically inferior because upper management is more likely to recognize the brand.
--
Don't shoot the messenger,shoot the spammer
»www.antihotmail.com
Dslreports.com Profile: »profile.antihotmail.com
spammers_are_scumbags@antihotmail.com | |
|
| RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: This is completely FUD (F.U.D. Definition) Nice cut-and-paste. Now, which is FUD? Linford's Chicken Little act, or this response to it?
Both sides are in this for their own aggrandizement and little else.
--
The revolution will not go better with Coke. | |
|
| | antiphishingPhishing Scam TerminatorPremium
join:2004-06-09
Wilkes Barre, PA
kudos:2 Reviews:
·PenTeleData
·ProLog
| Re: This is completely FUD (F.U.D. Definition) said by RadioDoc:Nice cut-and-paste. Now, which is FUD? Linford's Chicken Little act, or this response to it? Sorry, I should have been a little more specific with my F.U.D. Definition.
This was in response to Linfords causing even more alarm with the anti-spam community. I don't agree with blacklisting of IP numbers and don't support Spamhaus.org. The site is only good for gaining information about spammers, nothing more.
--
Don't shoot the messenger,shoot the spammer
»www.antihotmail.com
Dslreports.com Profile: »profile.antihotmail.com
spammers_are_scumbags@antihotmail.com | |
|
| | | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: This is completely FUD (F.U.D. Definition) Thanks, that's what I thought you meant. Can't be too sure around here sometimes. I totally agree with you.
--
The revolution will not go better with Coke. | |
|
 nwrickertsand groperPremium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
kudos:7
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| The threat is exaggerated We won't know till it happens, but I suspect that email will survive.
We (at a university) have been blocking port 25 for almost 18 months. In that time, we have seen three cases of spamming by routing mail through approved campus servers, and one case of bypassing the block with asymmetric routing.
We are working on setting up watchdog monitors to detect these sorts of problems. As yet we haven't seen enough instances to test them.
I don't doubt that the virus writers will attempt to do this. And it may take a little time to adjust. But adjust we will. | |
|
| | | Re: The threat is exaggerated no kidding it was exaggerated.... It's just a little junk mail. no need to go off the deep end. | |
|
| | kpatzMY HEAD A SPLODEPremium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH | Re: The threat is exaggerated Agreed. My first response to come to mind was "Enough already. Just delete the d@mn spam and get over it." A more mature version of that response is to use a Bayesian filter of some sort. It's currently the best technology for separating the chaff from the wheat. Port blocking and blacklisting obviously is limited in its effectiveness, and just leads to the spammers resorting to even more drastic methods to get the spam out.
As Bayesian filters get smarter, the spammers in their feeble attempts to get around them put out spam that is ironically EASIER to recognize, with all the obvious misspellings and obfuscation tricks.
--
SMTP: Spam and Malware Transfer Protocol. Also used on rare occasion to transmit e-mail messages. | |
|
| | | fantomposterPhantom PosterPremium
join:2002-09-21
Independence, OH | Re: The threat is exaggerated said by kpatz:As Bayesian filters get smarter, the spammers in their feeble attempts to get around them put out spam that is ironically EASIER to recognize, with all the obvious misspellings and obfuscation tricks. Why should recipients pay for better bays filters, the equipment to run them and the people to support them while ISP's do nothing about their spammers?
More specifically, why should the school district I sys admin for divert money from text books to buy better bays filters and equipment so your PoS ISP Comcast can ignore their spam problem. Which they do to cut costs and give more money to the stockholders.
Seriously, why? | |
|
| | | | | | Re: The threat is exaggerated Totally, dude. Thumbs up.
The solutions we currently have are at OUR inconvenience, not the SPAMMERS', which it should be.
--
Mikami Vvian, resident Girlfriend of Steel, care of the Tokyo-3 Middle Daughters Club | |
|
| | Naive and gullible PC users are in for a surprise Anyone who can't see what is coming regarding SPAM/SPYWARE is a fool. E-mail SPAM/SPYWARE is so bad that e-commerce is going to come to a halt before you know it. THEN maybe the clowns that think e-mail SPAM/SPYWARE is trivial will get a CLUE ??? The implications are incredible. | |
|
| krobarIs this thing on?
join:2002-09-15
Columbus, OH | Re: Naive and gullible PC users are in for a surprise Hey I think you clicked the wrong news story, your RIAA troll target is the next one down ----v
--
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat. | |
|
 keith2468Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB | Linford Makes Good Points, Would Cut Vendor Profit Linford makes some good points -- points that ISPs can implement on their own, without paying Postini or Vircom.
ISPs need to filter spam at the source.
But doing this effectively, if that turns out to be possible, would hurt the revenues of companies charging money to filter email at the destination.
Of course saving money on email filtering would enable ISPs to cut costs and improve services. It would help customers. But it would hurt filtering companies, and that is what filtering companies care about most (understandably).
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ + Submit suspected malware + Backups FAQ + Security FAQ TOC) | |
|
| | Anyone here read what Linford *really* said? Almost every posting here is devoid of any clue, didn't anyone read the actual article? Linford never said the stuff you guys are yabbering on about, he said:
"At the current pace of ever-incrementing spam levels Spamhaus predicts that by mid-2006 spam could reach 95% of all email traffic and we would at that stage see visible signs of the beginning of a slow meltdown of email delivery systems caused by overloaded email queues and stressed spam filters."
Does that sound alarmist to you? Nope, it's accurate and if anything an under-estimation.
Go and read the actual Spamhaus article instead of creating your own FUD:
»www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=156 | |
|
| | Spamhaus Slammed Well for once the vendors are 100% correct, strange they are the voice of reason in this... I particularly like Vircom's comments | |
|
Somjo
join:2005-05-04
SPAIN | That's SPAM. No more of them PLEASE! I get this unsolicited e-mail (spam) from Spamhaus.
"This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
*****@club-internet.fr
SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT TO::
host mx.club-internet.fr [195.36.165.25]: 550 Service unavailable; Client host [62.81.235.141] blocked using rbl.clubint.net;"
»www.spamhaus.org/SBL/sbl.lasso?q···SBL23589
My e-mail was correct. Way can Spamhaus block it? Is that legal? Answer: May be yes or NOT, but for sure is online-war: "T Online" against "Wanadoo" | |
|
| Somjo
join:2005-05-04
SPAIN | FW: Evidence: That's SPAM. No more of them PLEASE! On Wed, 04 May 2005 11:06:47 +0100
"******" > wrote:
> I don't have anything to do with spam or spammers. Wanadoo is my
> provider and competitor with T Online. Result obtained with
> your procedure blocking my e-mails to*****@club-internet.fr
> is loses and damage caused to your own clients because he comes to
> lose sales due to the cut of communication between us.
Regretfully Wanadoo.es continues to allow spammers to operate on their
network, without taking any action on complaints.
If a reliable email service is important to you, we suggest that you
now look for another provider. Otherwise you should contact Wanadoo
and insist that they remove the spammers on their network.
Our users will not accept your mail until they have done that.
--
Spamhaus Project Team
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spamhaus Block List (SBL)...
Exploits Block List (XBL)...
Register Of Known Spammers..
Responsible ISP AUPs........
Closed-loop Mailing.........
Definition of "Spam"........
---------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
|
| | | | Re: FW: Evidence: That's SPAM. No more of them PLEASE! SPAMHAUS sounds like nazis to me, not police officers. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is an unintelligent solution created by narrow minded people.
Why not let the Internet fix itself? Is that not the whole idea of a free market system? If email breaks then too bad, use instant messaging, or something else. The SPAM problem poses a darwinian question. Is email meant to survive? If the system fails to work, leave it be, it was likely inevitable, and it will be replaced by something better. Have some faith in human ingenuity. Survival of the fittest communication in this case.
Most likely the problem of email and SPAM will be resolved by something new that releases the need for this technology altogther. People fear losing things too much or they fear losing control. Sometimes we need to get rid of things to clear the path for something better. If something superior to E-mail came along people would sit around and wonder why they spent so much effort fighting to save something so inferior. If liberation from Spam means liberation from Email, so be it. | |
|
| | SPAMHAUS = NAZIS? SPAMHAUS sounds like nazis to me, not police officers. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is an unintelligent solution created by narrow minded people.
Why not let the Internet fix itself? Is that not the whole idea of a free market system? If email breaks then too bad, use instant messaging, or something else. The SPAM problem poses a darwinian question. Is email meant to survive? If the system fails to work, leave it be, it was likely inevitable, and it will be replaced by something better. Have some faith in human ingenuity. Survival of the fittest communication in this case.
Most likely the problem of email and SPAM will be resolved by something new that releases the need for this technology altogther. People fear losing things too much or they fear losing control. Sometimes we need to get rid of things to clear the path for something better. If something superior to E-mail came along people would sit around and wonder why they spent so much effort fighting to save something so inferior. If liberation from Spam means liberation from Email, so be it. | |
|
|
|
