View Poll Results: Does anti spam go to far today ?

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, the hosting industry should join forces and do something against the anti spam fundamentalists

    13 48.15%
  • Yes, but unfortunately there is nothing you can do against these guys

    8 29.63%
  • No, spam must be prevented at any cost - who cares about some hosts losing their business if it keeps my mailbox clean

    3 11.11%
  • No, spam protection doesn`t go far enough: Death to all spammers !! Block the whole web !! The bible says: Thou shalt not spam !

    3 11.11%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 41 of 41
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,461
    >It sucks, I know, I've been there myself, but I support it
    >nonetheless because if a particular spam run is to be stopped, it
    >needs to be stopped at both ends - the spamming server and
    >the target site/content.

    Ok I agree. But what is the point of blocking a mailserver that is only sending legitimate emails other than to put pressure on someone ??

    >Maybe you're a decent person who would act immediately to
    >shut the spammer down. Many aren't.

    I simply can`t accept the idea of collateral damage. Collateral damage is NOT ACCEPTABLE. NEVER !

    >Nobody's blocking you from sending mail, and nobody's forcing
    >you to listen. People who utilize whatever blocklist you're listed
    >on have chosen not to receive mail from your system. That is
    >their right - to allow or disallow access their machines to or from
    >whomever they choose.

    Sure they do force me because if I stay on a blacklist my DC is gonna kick my ***. If you do not consider that force it is like saying "if somebody wants your money and threatens you with a gun it is not force because I am free to let them shoot me".

    >I'm sure it seems that way right now because you're upset, but
    >nothing can be further from the truth.

    Terrorism means harming innocent people in order to force a greater instance to act in a way that the terrorist likes. Now if someone blacklists my mailserver although there is NO SPAM coming from this mailserver they are doing nothing but to harm innocent people in order to get the company to act in a way they like. It is EXACTLY the same. If a mass mailing is NOT illegal but still considered spam by some blacklist than they shouldn`t force me into blocking that site because of their believes. They should contact me and kindly ask me to remove the site + block the mailserver.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,461

    Re: Re: Do anti spam blacklists go too far nowadays ?

    Originally posted by TMX
    Cite, please, with a link.

    -b
    "In order to terminate some persistent spam operations the SBL team occasionally needs to escalate a listing and it is in the application of an escalation that 'collateral damage' can occur."

    http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl-faqs.lasso

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Twin Cities Area
    Posts
    5,649
    Originally posted by TMX
    Oh, stop it. As hosts, we have a responsibility to the rest of the internet to ensure that our clients aren't abusing the resources of others. If you can't/won't run a clean service, why should anyone willingly accept your traffic?

    -B
    i am running a clean service

    if more people read the entire can-spam act and the LEGAL definition of SPAM, youll see that probably about 85% of spam complaints are not even really "spam", they are simply UNWANTED emails or emails that people forgot they subscribed to.

    who is going to pay ME to do their work for them?

    i am definitely PRO-email marketing but for sure NOT pro-spam
    if you haven't considered chapter 7 bankruptcy, maybe you should.
    eliminate your debt, keep the property you want, most people qualify.
    contrary to popular belief - no attorney is necessary!

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,210
    Originally posted by thomas.smith
    If the spammer sends illegal spam and you are aware of it you have to kick him.
    This isn't really a question of legality.

    Howerver, if you are not aware of it you do not have to do anything
    That's entirely up to you. Still doesn't require me or anyone else to accept your traffic.

    and what you are saying has nothing to do with the point I was talking about:Blocking an innocent mailserver to put pressure on someone is not acceptable. They should at least contact the host first in such cases. That is the minimum they can do.
    It has everything to do with your point:

    Maybe you're a decent person who would act immediately to shut the spammer down. Many aren't. I agree that on the surface many of the methods employed by the blocklists maintainers seem heavy-handed, but they are methods that evolved over time due to unresponsive, and often black-hat providers. I've said it a million times and I'll say it again - there's a tremendous amount of history here.
    Being 'nice' about it and contacting the host has been tried and simply does not work. Listing the spam-supporting host's mail server has a way of getting their attention that other methods do not.

    I will say though that contacting a host upon their listing would be an entirely reasonable compromise.

    -b

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,461
    It would be at least more acceptable if they would contact you 24 hours before they block you and then if you do not respond you get listed.

    @LaurenStephens:

    I agree 100%

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,461
    One time I had a customer who had a free site where if you subscribe you would get one email sent to you promoting his stuff. A few people complained. SpamCop had 1 complaint per month. However, Spamhaus did block this site so I had to kick him. It was a total disaster and extremely difficult for me to explain to that customer that I had to suspend his account although his emails were can spam act compliant. So I have a contract and I need to break this contract just because I am beeing forced to. I could live with a Spamhaus block but not with the DC suspending my server because of the SpamHaus entry.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,210
    Originally posted by LaurenStephens.com
    i am running a clean service
    I know you are. The 'you' was general, not personal. Sorry.

    if more people read the entire can-spam act and the LEGAL definition of SPAM, youll see that probably about 85% of spam complaints are not even really "spam", they are simply UNWANTED emails or emails that people forgot they subscribed to.
    At least we've identified the problem - If you are using the can-spam act (or more accurately, 'you-can-spam' act) as your guideline as to what does and does not constitute spam, it's no wonder you're pissed. Can-spam is crap - a watered-down toothless piece of feel-good legislation pushed and supported by the DMA (the Direct Marketing Association). Can-spam specifically legalizes opt-out spam, but does nothing to ensure that the recipient actually requested the junk that crams their inbox every day. A provision mandating confirmed opt-in was considered, but the DMA wouldn't have it.

    Unfortunately, the DMA is well-established and well-funded, and as you know, money talks loudly when a new piece of legislation is on the table.

    who is going to pay ME to do their work for them?
    I'm not sure how you mean that. Who's going to pay you to keep the spammers off your system?

    i am definitely PRO-email marketing but for sure NOT pro-spam
    Done properly, there's absolutely nothing wrong with email marketing.

    -B

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,461
    I am just having an awesome idea: Let's make a listing of all the Spews and Sorbs etc. spider IPs. Then hosts can download this list and block access to their entire network on all ports. That means that the spiders will see the sites as offline and will not blacklist the IP or at least they will have difficulties to work. This will put the pressure right back on THEM and we will force them to listen to us like they usually do.
    Sure, they can still use dial up connections etc. but at least their spiders will have a problem and it will make things difficult for them.

    Once they stop acting freaky we will whitelist their IPs.

    What do you think about that ?

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,461
    >Can-spam is crap - a watered-down toothless piece of feel-good
    >legislation

    The thing is: Can spam defines what is spam. If it is not spam it might be annoying as hell but it is up to each host to decide whether they want to host such sites and people who have different views should not terrorize us in order to enforce their opinions.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Twin Cities Area
    Posts
    5,649
    Originally posted by thomas.smith
    I am just having an awesome idea: Let's make a listing of all the Spews and Sorbs etc. spider IPs. Then hosts can download this list and block access to their entire network on all ports. That means that the spiders will see the sites as offline and will not blacklist the IP or at least they will have difficulties to work. This will put the pressure right back on THEM and we will force them to listen to us like they usually do.
    Sure, they can still use dial up connections etc. but at least their spiders will have a problem and it will make things difficult for them.

    Once they stop acting freaky we will whitelist their IPs.

    What do you think about that ?
    i didnt know they spider??

    good idea!
    if you haven't considered chapter 7 bankruptcy, maybe you should.
    eliminate your debt, keep the property you want, most people qualify.
    contrary to popular belief - no attorney is necessary!

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,210

    Re: Re: Re: Do anti spam blacklists go too far nowadays ?

    Originally posted by thomas.smith
    "In order to terminate some persistent spam operations the SBL team occasionally needs to escalate a listing and it is in the application of an escalation that 'collateral damage' can occur."

    http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl-faqs.lasso
    OK, now here's the whole thing, without the selective quoting and in full context:

    Can the SBL block legitimate email?

    The SBL's primary objective is to avoid 'false positives' while blocking as much spam as possible. Indeed because SBL false positives are extremely rare, there is little visible controversy regarding the SBL yet we are one of the Internet's biggest spam blocking systems.

    It is important to note that, unlike most commercial ISP-level spam filter solutions, the SBL does not "absorb and trash" incoming email - instead it has a vital delivery fail-safe mechanism: By design, no matter how rare they may be, any false positive rejected by mail servers using the SBL follows correct RFC mail delivery proceedure and is returned (bounced) to the immediate Sender with the explaination of why the message could not be not delivered and what the Sender should do about it.

    However, like any system used to filter email, the SBL has the potential to block items of legitimate email if for example they are sent from an IP under the control of a spammer or via IPs belonging to a Spam Service. The chances of any legitimate email coming from such IPs are very slim, but need to be acknowledged.

    In order to terminate some persistent spam operations the SBL team occasionally needs to escalate a listing and it is in the application of an escalation that 'collateral damage' can occur. Once a known spam operation is blocked, the SBL team then attempts to open dialogue with the ISP providing service to the spammer and assists the ISP with collating evidence to terminate the spammer. In rare instances the ISP turns out to be knowingly assisting the spam operation for profit. In these cases the SBL Team may deem the ISP itself to be the 'Spam Support Service' and may escalate by listing the ISPs corporate resources (such as corporate mail servers), determined on a case-by-case basis to focus action on the ISPs executives and always with the primary objective of avoiding blocking legitimate customers.
    Spamhaus does not endorse the collateral damage method of blocklsting in normal operations.

    -B

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,461
    There is no way of blocking an IP WITHOUT causing collateral damage !! If I block an IP with 300 sites on it then 299 on it are likely to be innocent and that is collateral damage.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,461
    >i didnt know they spider??

    We would have to find out how they do it but that should be possible. Every time you have a spammer have a look at the log files and compare the results etc. It should be possible. If they do use spiders (and I guess they do because blocking a site that has already been suspended doesn`t make sense) it should be possible to trick their spiders into thinking the site is down.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,210
    Originally posted by thomas.smith
    The thing is: Can spam defines what is spam.
    can-spam provides a legal definition of spam that can be used to take action against those who don't comply with the provisions laid out therein. It does not, however, compel anyone to accept a given email simply because it is can-spam compliant.

    I'm afraid, thomas, that you will find the overwhelming majority of competent, clued-in admins know spam to be something other than what can-spam says it is. Can-spam is undeniably counter to conventional wisdom in this area.

    If it is not spam it might be annoying as hell but it is up to each host to decide whether they want to host such sites
    Fine, but you can't engage in an activity that's deemed unacceptable by the majority of your peers and expect to make a clean getaway. Things simply don't work that way in the real world. Just as,...I dunno, a herion addict will find himself a social outcast in most circles, so will a spam-supporting host within internet circles. You can host whomever you want, but don't then turn around and whine when it's time to face the inevitable heat.

    and people who have different views should not terrorize us in order to enforce their opinions.
    Since you insist on continuing to use use that ridiculous and hopelessly out of context word, let me ask you this - who would you consider more of a terrorist, the host who refuses traffic from spam supporting providers, or the provider who is complicit in allowing his clients to relentlessly pound other peoples' networks with unwanted, unrequested junk?

    -Bob

  15. #40
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,667
    Originally posted by thomas.smith
    I am just having an awesome idea: Let's make a listing of all the Spews and Sorbs etc. spider IPs. Then hosts can download this list and block access to their entire network on all ports. That means that the spiders will see the sites as offline and will not blacklist the IP or at least they will have difficulties to work. This will put the pressure right back on THEM and we will force them to listen to us like they usually do.
    Sure, they can still use dial up connections etc. but at least their spiders will have a problem and it will make things difficult for them.

    Once they stop acting freaky we will whitelist their IPs.

    What do you think about that ?
    I am very willing to support that on my servers.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boise, ID U.S.A.
    Posts
    3,499
    Originally posted by thomas.smith
    There is no way of blocking an IP WITHOUT causing collateral damage !! If I block an IP with 300 sites on it then 299 on it are likely to be innocent and that is collateral damage.
    That's actually the idea. The IP who risks losing 299 customers just to get a little extra money from that 1 in 300 spammer or spamvertizer may decide the spammer is not worth hosting.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •