T-Bird can get you blacklisted
Storm
Spamhaus, causing spam programs that use their database to flag my
emails as spam, or even to reject them outright. When I went to
SpamHaus.com to get the situation corrected, the site explained that an
IP address can get blacklisted if someone is using Thunderbird (and most
other non-Microsoft email programs) with SMTP authentication turned off.
I had turned my authentication off many months ago while trying to
connect to a hotel's high-speed internet service that was giving me
email sending problems, and forgot to turn it back on. As a result, I
got labeled a spammer. I got my IP address removed from their blacklist
database, so there's no problem anymore. But for months, people were
telling me my emails were going into their Junk folders, and I didn't
understand why. Now I know. Can anyone help me understand why this
affects T-Bird users and not IE? Doesn't IE have the ability to turn
off authentication?
Nir
IE is a web browser like Firefox and Thunderbird is a mail client like
Outlook express. so they are completely different application
"SMTP-AUTH extends SMTP (the Internet e-mail transmission protocol) to
include an authentication step through which the client effectively logs
in to the mail server during the process of sending mail. Servers which
support SMTP-AUTH can usually be configured to require clients to use
this extension, ensuring the true identity of the sender is known.
SMTP-AUTH is defined in RFC 2554."
["http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMTP-AUTH"]
in sort , it helps email server to stop 'unauthorized users' (like
spammers )from using mail server for sending mails
as you are unchecked that authentication settings in TB as a result your
'IP address had been blacklisted'
Telmo Amaral
> ... When I went to SpamHaus.com to get the situation corrected,
> the site explained that an IP address can get blacklisted if
> someone is using Thunderbird (and most other non-Microsoft
> IE? Doesn't IE have the ability to turn off authentication?
I disagree with what SpamHaus told you about "non-Microsoft email
programs". As far as I know, what you describe could happen just
as easily for example with Microsoft Outlook, as long as the
e-mail account is POP/SMTP or IMAP/SMTP. If one goes to Tools >
E-mail Accounts > View or change existing e-mail accounts > Next >
[account in question] > Change > More Settings > Outgoing Server,
there's an option 'My outgoing server (SMTP) requires
authentication' that can be unchecked.
Ron Lopshire
> I found out yesterday that my IP address had been blacklisted by
> Spamhaus, causing spam programs that use their database to flag my
> emails as spam, or even to reject them outright. When I went to
> SpamHaus.com to get the situation corrected, the site explained that an
> IP address can get blacklisted if someone is using Thunderbird (and most
> other non-Microsoft email programs) with SMTP authentication turned off.
1) I assume that you mean /anti-spam programs that use their database .../
2) Obviously the idiots at Spamhaus do not know what they are talking
about. Your client /uses/ SMTP, it does not /dictate/ the protocol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMTP
Most of the spam --- the OVERWHELMING majority --- on the internet is
propagated through botnets, and most of these use their own SMTP
engines, not the hosts's client. And anti-spam measures such as Spamhaus
are futile against these guys.
3) What do you care what Spamhaus does? Spamhaus is another bad idea
that cannot go away soon enough.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061008/163213.shtml
Tell Spamhaus to kiss your ass, and then call your lawyer.
4) Blacklists and the sanctimonious creeps who maintain them suck.
Ron :)
Andrew DeFaria
Storm wrote:
I found out yesterday that my IP address had been blacklisted by Spamhaus, causing spam programs that use their database to flag my emails as spam, or even to reject them outright. When I went to SpamHaus.com to get the situation corrected, the site explained that an IP address can get blacklisted if someone is using Thunderbird (and most other non-Microsoft email programs) with SMTP authentication turned off.1) I assume that you mean /anti-spam programs that use their database .../
2) Obviously the idiots at Spamhaus do not know what they are talking about. Your client /uses/ SMTP, it does not /dictate/ the protocol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMTP
Most of the spam --- the OVERWHELMING majority --- on the internet is propagated through botnets, and most of these use their own SMTP engines, not the hosts's client. And anti-spam measures such as Spamhaus are futile against these guys.
3) What do you care what Spamhaus does? Spamhaus is another bad idea that cannot go away soon enough.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061008/163213.shtml
Tell Spamhaus to kiss your ass, and then call your lawyer.
4) Blacklists and the sanctimonious creeps who maintain them suck.
Ron :)
Ron Lopshire
> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>
>>Storm wrote:
>>
>>>I found out yesterday that my IP address had been blacklisted by
>>>Spamhaus, causing spam programs that use their database to flag my
>>>emails as spam, or even to reject them outright. When I went to
>>>SpamHaus.com to get the situation corrected, the site explained that
>>>an IP address can get blacklisted if someone is using Thunderbird
>>>(and most other non-Microsoft email programs) with SMTP
>>>authentication turned off.
>>
>>What do you care what Spamhaus does? Spamhaus is another bad idea
>>that cannot go away soon enough.
>>
>>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061008/163213.shtml
>
> This case lends credibility to the world's concern of the US
> stranglehold on internet technologies (ICANN) when an Illinois court can
> extend it's jurisdiction all the way to Britian! IMHO this should not be
> allowed. The internet is free due in large part because it is global and
> therefore outside of the jurisdiction of any one country or state.
>
>>Tell Spamhaus to kiss your ass, and then call your lawyer.
>
> Your lawyer should have nothing to do with controlling or coercing a
> company in another country.
I agree with most of your sentiments, Andrew, but unfortunately that is
not the way that it is with the new World Order. Litigation across
different geo-political boundaries works differently, but it is not
pointless. People (especially scumbag lawyers - grin) take notice.
I too find the idea of the US, the UK, the EU, the UN, or any other
political entity as the 800 pound gorilla WRT regulating the internet to
be extremely unsettling. By the same token, I find the idea of some
group of altruistic, sanctimonious junior high school hall monitors
(Spamhaus) being the de facto authority when it comes to determining who
has the /right/ to send email over the internet to be outright
distasteful. Screw 'em.
I will, for the time being, not cross-post this (w/ F/U, of course) to
mozilla.general. I am particularly interested in how the OP (Storm)
makes out with his attempt to get himself delisted (removed from
Spamhaus' blacklist). I find it troubling indeed that someone would tell
him that his problem lies with his choice of SMTP client.
Ron :)
Frank Tabor
> What's the P stand for in SMTP? I'm just curious... ;-)
Protocol, as in the proper protocol is to not post in HTML to Usenet.
--
Frank Tabor
Good day for a change of scene. Repaper the bedroom wall.
goodwin
> Storm wrote:
>
>> I found out yesterday that my IP address had been blacklisted by
>> Spamhaus, causing spam programs that use their database to flag my
>> emails as spam, or even to reject them outright. When I went to
>> SpamHaus.com to get the situation corrected, the site explained that an
>> IP address can get blacklisted if someone is using Thunderbird (and most
>> other non-Microsoft email programs) with SMTP authentication turned off.
>
> 1) I assume that you mean /anti-spam programs that use their database .../
nit...
>
> 2) Obviously the idiots at Spamhaus do not know what they are talking
> about.
That sounds like a spammer statement to me - they froth quite a bit over
rbls.
Regardless, the folks at Spamhaus are definitely not idiots - you have
an ax to grind here?
Your client /uses/ SMTP, it does not /dictate/ the protocol.
I don't understand that statement - did I miss the word dictate somewhere?
> Most of the spam --- the OVERWHELMING majority --- on the internet is
> propagated through botnets, and most of these use their own SMTP
> engines, not the hosts's client. And anti-spam measures such as Spamhaus
> are futile against these guys.
Sadly, this is true but the SBL XBL-PBL ids and lists open proxies when
possible. The ISPs that won't block port 25 are the ones that are the
idiots.
>
> 3) What do you care what Spamhaus does? Spamhaus is another bad idea
> that cannot go away soon enough.
At least they are doing something - what have you done??
>
> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061008/163213.shtml
You cited this article because??
That article does not cover even the half of what is involved in that
case, which was started by a spammer (e360) and is still ongoing. The
spammer is the one making all the noise and is claiming victory when in
fact the judge was/is woefully uninformed and effectively blindsided by
a spam issue about which he had no knowledge.
>
> Tell Spamhaus to kiss your ass, and then call your lawyer.
And the lawyer will take the money and do what? Spamhaus is just a list
used by /others/ and it is a very well documented list.
>
> 4) Blacklists and the sanctimonious creeps who maintain them suck.
Just what have they done to you , Ron??
They are more effective than baysian filters at the moment and they keep
track of some very real criminals who are blatantly robbing all of us
Back on topic, Thunderbird did not/does not get /anyone/ listed - that
is a bs statement.
Andrew DeFaria
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Ron Lopshire wrote:I agree with most of your sentiments, Andrew, but unfortunately that is not the way that it is with the new World Order.
Storm wrote:This case lends credibility to the world's concern of the US stranglehold on internet technologies (ICANN) when an Illinois court can extend it's jurisdiction all the way to Britian! IMHO this should not be allowed. The internet is free due in large part because it is global and therefore outside of the jurisdiction of any one country or state.
I found out yesterday that my IP address had been blacklisted by Spamhaus, causing spam programs that use their database to flag my emails as spam, or even to reject them outright. When I went to SpamHaus.com to get the situation corrected, the site explained that an IP address can get blacklisted if someone is using Thunderbird (and most other non-Microsoft email programs) with SMTP authentication turned off.What do you care what Spamhaus does? Spamhaus is another bad idea that cannot go away soon enough.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061008/163213.shtml
Tell Spamhaus to kiss your ass, and then call your lawyer.Your lawyer should have nothing to do with controlling or coercing a company in another country.
Litigation across different geo-political boundaries works differently, but it is not pointless. People (especially scumbag lawyers - grin) take notice.
I too find the idea of the US, the UK, the EU, the UN, or any other political entity as the 800 pound gorilla WRT regulating the internet to be extremely unsettling. By the same token, I find the idea of some group of altruistic, sanctimonious junior high school hall monitors (Spamhaus) being the de facto authority when it comes to determining who has the /right/ to send email over the internet to be outright distasteful. Screw 'em.
I will, for the time being, not cross-post this (w/ F/U, of course) to mozilla.general. I am particularly interested in how the OP (Storm) makes out with his attempt to get himself delisted (removed from Spamhaus' blacklist). I find it troubling indeed that someone would tell him that his problem lies with his choice of SMTP client.
I think people who bitch about spammers and issues such as the above should set about to make a better mouse trap - a non-S in SMTP protocol that doesn't allow spoofing and spamming in the first place.
Andrew DeFaria
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:11:46 -0600, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
What's the P stand for in SMTP? I'm just curious... ;-)Protocol,
as in the proper protocol is to not post in HTML to Usenet.
Ron Lopshire
> On 2/28/2007 5:53 AM Ron Lopshire opined:
>
>>Storm wrote:
>>
>>>I found out yesterday that my IP address had been blacklisted by
>>>Spamhaus, causing spam programs that use their database to flag my
>>>emails as spam, or even to reject them outright. When I went to
>>>SpamHaus.com to get the situation corrected, the site explained that an
>>>IP address can get blacklisted if someone is using Thunderbird (and most
>>>other non-Microsoft email programs) with SMTP authentication turned off.
>
>>4) Blacklists and the sanctimonious creeps who maintain them suck.
>
> Just what have they done to you , Ron??
> They are more effective than baysian filters at the moment and they keep
> track of some very real criminals who are blatantly robbing all of us
>
> Back on topic, Thunderbird did not/does not get /anyone/ listed - that
> is a bs statement.
They haven't done anything to me. Yet. [g]
WTF about the concept of blacklists don't you understand? They are
absolutely useless against the real culprits, the botnets. Instead, the
custodians of these imbecilic databases capriciously prey on poor
bastards like the OP (Storm). Through no fault of his own, he is no
longer able to send email to anyone foolish enough to use such a
service. But then again, maybe there is something to be said for that.
Who wants to communicate with such people anyway? YMMV.
As I said, screw Spamhaus and the rest of the junior high school hall
monitors who in their infinite kindness and unselfishness have decided
to make the internet a better place for all of us.
Ron :)
Storm
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T
> On 2/28/2007 5:53 AM Ron Lopshire opined:
>
>> Storm wrote:
>>
>>> I found out yesterday that my IP address had been blacklisted by
>>> Spamhaus, causing spam programs that use their database to flag my
>>> emails as spam, or even to reject them outright. When I went to
>>> SpamHaus.com to get the situation corrected, the site explained that an
>>> IP address can get blacklisted if someone is using Thunderbird (and most
>>> other non-Microsoft email programs) with SMTP authentication turned off.
>> 1) I assume that you mean /anti-spam programs that use their database .../
-------------------------snip-------------------------
> Back on topic, Thunderbird did not/does not get /anyone/ listed - that
> is a bs statement.
Its not BS if the company said it was. In other words, if their set up
is that if it's posted by mozilla products and is unauthenticated they
will blackball it. That's their rules.
Now to the question of whether its strictly Mozilla Products, that can
cause that then that's another question.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
G4-500, OSX.3.9 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 Gb, OSX.4.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storm
was quick and easy. I just tried to go back in there to copy the exact
wording of their anti-Thunderbird (and all non-Outlook email programs)
message, but you have to drill down too far. To get there, you have to
enter an IP address that's blacklisted, and mine no longer is. Guess I
should have copied it when I had a chance.
Ron Lopshire
> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>
>>Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>
>>>Ron Lopshire wrote:
>>>
>>>>Storm wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I found out yesterday that my IP address had been blacklisted by
>>>>>Spamhaus, causing spam programs that use their database to flag my
>>>>>emails as spam, or even to reject them outright. When I went to
>>>>>SpamHaus.com to get the situation corrected, the site explained that
>>>>>an IP address can get blacklisted if someone is using Thunderbird
>>>>>(and most other non-Microsoft email programs) with SMTP
>>>>>authentication turned off.
>>>
>>>stranglehold on internet technologies (ICANN) when an Illinois court can
>>>extend it's jurisdiction all the way to Britian! IMHO this should not be
>>>allowed. The internet is free due in large part because it is global and
>>>therefore outside of the jurisdiction of any one country or state.
>>
>>political entity as the 800 pound gorilla WRT regulating the internet to
>>be extremely unsettling. By the same token, I find the idea of some
>>group of altruistic, sanctimonious junior high school hall monitors
>>(Spamhaus) being the de facto authority when it comes to determining who
>>has the /right/ to send email over the internet to be outright
>>distasteful. Screw 'em.
>
> was quick and easy. I just tried to go back in there to copy the exact
> wording of their anti-Thunderbird (and all non-Outlook email programs)
> message, but you have to drill down too far. To get there, you have to
> enter an IP address that's blacklisted, and mine no longer is. Guess I
> should have copied it when I had a chance.
Thanks for the follow-up, Storm. If there were a way to get blacklisted,
other than resorting to spamming, I might try that myself. [g]
There is only _one_ publicly-maintained blacklist that I use (MVPs HOSTS
file), or will ever use. I have said my piece about the capriciousness
of blacklists such as Spamhaus and SiteAdvisor. Just don't tell me about
blacklists like Spamhaus being effective against the botnets. There is
no evidence for that whatsoever. If you find them useful, go for it.
They are just tools, after all. Who among us hasn't used a hammer to
drive in a screw. [bg]
Ron :)
goodwin
> I too find the idea of the US, the UK, the EU, the UN, or any other
> political entity as the 800 pound gorilla WRT regulating the internet to
> be extremely unsettling. By the same token, I find the idea of some
> group of altruistic, sanctimonious junior high school hall monitors
> (Spamhaus) being the de facto authority when it comes to determining who
> has the /right/ to send email over the internet to be outright
> distasteful. Screw 'em.
WTF is it /you/ don't understand about bls? No one is determining the
right to email except for the admins of the ISPs.
If /they/ choose to use a list to help stem the spew, thats /their/
right. Spamhaus tracks the scum, it doesn't block.
Did you know the Fed. govt. uses Spamhaus lists?
hoo boy, here it comes...
>
> I will, for the time being, not cross-post this (w/ F/U, of course) to
> mozilla.general. I am particularly interested in how the OP (Storm)
> makes out with his attempt to get himself delisted (removed from
> Spamhaus' blacklist). I find it troubling indeed that someone would tell
> him that his problem lies with his choice of SMTP client.
>
> Ron :)
Didn't OP already state he was off the list?
and he said further
> When I went to
>>>>SpamHaus.com to get the situation corrected, the site explained that
>>>>an IP address can get blacklisted if someone is using Thunderbird
>>>>(and most other non-Microsoft email programs) with SMTP
>>>>authentication turned off.
That sounds like the problem is/was authentication turned off, not the
client being used.
goodwin
>> Ron :)
> Hi, Ron: In response to your interest in the IP delisting process, it
> was quick and easy. I just tried to go back in there to copy the exact
> wording of their anti-Thunderbird (and all non-Outlook email programs)
> message, but you have to drill down too far. To get there, you have to
> enter an IP address that's blacklisted, and mine no longer is. Guess I
> should have copied it when I had a chance.
from Spamhaus:
The first thing to do is to check whether it really is listed and, if it
is, which Spamhaus list is it in? The "Lookup IP" form will answer that
for you.
If you are using normal email software (Outlook, Entourage, Eudora,
Apple Mail, Thunderbird, etc.) and your ISP's mail server is refusing to
take your mail, saying your IP address is 'blacklisted' by Spamhaus,
then it is very probable that you simply need to turn on SMTP
Authentication. See: How to turn on SMTP Authentication.
If your outbound mail server's IP address is listed in PBL (not likely,
but...), don't panic! It is easy and quick to exempt it. Follow the PBL
links from the "Lookup IP" form and you will find a web form for
self-removal. Fill in the form, it will send you an e-mail, follow the
instructions, and your IP address will be cleared from the PBL zone
within minutes (worldwide cached data may linger for up to 45 minutes).
If a dynamic (DSL, cable, dialup) "home" IP address is listed, you
should leave it listed unless you, personally, are the administrator of
a mail server at that IP address, and you do not expect the IP to change
for a long time (months). For example, the home connections of all of
the Spamhaus Team are also listed in PBL. PBL listings do not affect
sending mail via legitimate "smarthost" mail servers as operated by all
ISPs. See the next question in this FAQ.
Andrew DeFaria
WTF about the concept of blacklists don't you understand? They are absolutely useless against the real culprits, the botnets.
Instead, the custodians of these imbecilic databases capriciously prey on poor bastards like the OP (Storm). Through no fault of his own,
Or maybe he just got a bad DHCP address! DHCP is evil! :-)
he is no longer able to send email to anyone foolish enough to use such a service.
But then again, maybe there is something to be said for that.
Who wants to communicate with such people anyway? YMMV.
As I said, screw Spamhaus and the rest of the junior high school hall monitors who in their infinite kindness and unselfishness have decided to make the internet a better place for all of us.
Andrew DeFaria
I thought about how mothers feed their babies with tiny little spoons and forks so I wondered, what do Chinese mothers use? Toothpicks?
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T
-------------------------snip-------------------------
> They are just tools, after all. Who among us hasn't used a hammer to
> drive in a screw. [bg]
>
> Ron :)
Not I, could figure out how to get the end of the claw to fit the
screw slot. ;-)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9 Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 Gb, OSX.4.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
squaredancer
Jones, C.E.T to generate the following:? :
> Ron Lopshire wrote:
> -------------------------snip-------------------------
>
>
>> They are just tools, after all. Who among us hasn't used a hammer to
>> drive in a screw. [bg]
>>
>> Ron :)
>>
>
> Not I, could figure out how to get the end of the claw to fit the
> screw slot. ;-)
>
>
Phillip - you could go to England and, with your technical ability, get
a royal position equal to Prince Charlie...
reg
squaredancer
>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:11:46 -0600, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>> What's the P stand for in SMTP? I'm just curious... ;-)
>> Protocol,
> Correct as in "That's a fact Jack".
>> as in the proper protocol is to not post in HTML to Usenet.
> Incorrect as in "That's your opinion, Joe!"
> --
> I need someone real bad... Are you real bad?
or, as ChrisI often accentuates... "This is not Usenet"
reg
Jonas P Eckerman
> the site explained that an
> IP address can get blacklisted if someone is using Thunderbird (and most
> other non-Microsoft email programs) with SMTP authentication turned off.
Could you point me to where on Spamhaus' site it says that?
A server that does not require authentication before relaying for
clients outside of it's own private net *will* be used for spam.
This is what's called an "open relay". Such a server should be
listed in blacklists.
A client sending through SMTP without using authentication should
not ever get you blacklisted for that reason..
If you managed to send from a hotels internet service without
using authentication, and you did this through your usual SMTP
server, chances are that your usual SMTP server is (or was) an
open relay. This is something you need to check.
Do note that Spamhaus has more than one list with different
criteria. Wich one were you listed in? And was it your outgoing
SMTP servers IP or your mail clients IP?
> I had turned my authentication off many months ago while trying to
> connect to a hotel's high-speed internet service that was giving me
> email sending problems, and forgot to turn it back on.
Do you mean you turned of authentication in Thunderbird?
That in itself should not have helped you send mail unless you
also changed wich server you send through *or* the server you
normally send thorugh didn't require authentication.
Did you turn of the requirement for authentication in your mail
server? Did the server never require authentication?
> As a result, I
> got labeled a spammer. I got my IP address removed from their blacklist
> database, so there's no problem anymore. But for months, people were
> telling me my emails were going into their Junk folders, and I didn't
> understand why. Now I know.
> Can anyone help me understand why this
> affects T-Bird users and not IE? Doesn't IE have the ability to turn
> off authentication?
[IE=OE]
Of course it has, so this doesn't make any sense.
It would be better to have the exact text you read. I suspect
that there is some kind of misunderstanding here.
Regards
/Jonas
--
Jonas Eckerman
http://www.truls.org/
Jonas P Eckerman
> WTF about the concept of blacklists don't you understand? They are
> absolutely useless against the real culprits, the botnets.
You do realize that the botnets weren't a big source of spam
before the big spam servers and many open relays were
blacklisted, right?
Jonas P Eckerman
after all, and the text below do refer to MS mail clients as well.
> If you are using normal email software (Outlook, Entourage,
> Eudora, Apple Mail, Thunderbird, etc.) and your ISP's mail
> server is refusing to take your mail, saying your IP address
> is 'blacklisted' by Spamhaus, then it is very probable that
> you simply need to turn on SMTP Authentication. See: How to
> turn on SMTP Authentication.
The PBL (wich this refers to) has is their list of
end-user-addresses. If the server refuses unauthenticated
connections from end-user IP addresses, you need to have
authentication enabled.
The PBL has absolutely nothing to do with beeing labled as a
spammer. It just means the IP address of the client is an
end-user address and not a server address.
/Jonas
Brian Heinrich
> On 2/28/2007 5:53 AM Ron Lopshire opined:
<snip />
>> 4) Blacklists and the sanctimonious creeps who maintain them suck.
>
> Just what have they done to you , Ron??
> They are more effective than baysian filters at the moment and they keep
> track of some very real criminals who are blatantly robbing all of us
I'm inclined to agree with Ron that blacklists of /this/ nature suck. Not
quite as bad as blackholing or C/R, and possibly just marginally worse than
SPF (which is rapidly rising on my s*** list) . . . which isn't exactly
putting it in great company, y'know?
If I wish /personally/ to implement black-/grey-/white-lists, that's one
thing; for an organisation such as Spamhaus to do so is a different matter
entirely.
> Back on topic, Thunderbird did not/does not get /anyone/ listed - that
> is a bs statement.
What it sounds like is that the OP used an open relay (/e.g./, may have used
his ISP's SMTP server whilst not on their network) and got black-listed for
it because those transactions were not authenticated.
Lesson? -- If your ISP permits of some sort of authentication/encryption,
use it.
/b.
--
String quartets don't march very well.
--Donald Barthelme, /The Dead Father/
Lord Zoolook
who deposited this steaming pile:
> Phillip - you could go to England and, with your technical ability, get
> a royal position equal to Prince Charlie...
Only if he talks to trees!
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> I think people who bitch about spammers and issues such as the above
> should set about to make a better mouse trap - a non-S in SMTP protocol
> that doesn't allow spoofing and spamming in the first place.
I'd have to double-check, but aren't there (proposed?) extensions to SMTP
that would help deal with this?
And, frankly, how hard would it be for ISPs to insist on STARTTLS or
SMTP-over-SSL?
Lord Zoolook
deposited this steaming pile:
> But for months, people were telling me my emails were going into their
> Junk folders, and I didn't understand why
This implies the mail WAS reaching the intended destinations, and for
some reason the receiving CLIENTS were labeling them as spam.
This is completely different from Spamhaus (or whomever else sees fit)
to label them as spam!
Brian Heinrich
> goodwin wrote:
<snip/ >
>> Back on topic, Thunderbird did not/does not get /anyone/ listed - that
>> is a bs statement.
>
> Its not BS if the company said it was. In other words, if their set up
> is that if it's posted by mozilla products and is unauthenticated they
> will blackball it. That's their rules.
Uh, no, Phillip. What it sounds like (and, obviously, I can only infer from
Storm's post) is that they assume NTLM Auth is the 'standard'. If so, they
truly are idiots . . . and other comments in this thread would seem to lend
credence to that thesis. :-)
> Now to the question of whether its strictly Mozilla Products, that can
> cause that then that's another question.
--
Brian Heinrich
> On 2/28/2007 8:02 AM Ron Lopshire opined:
>
>> I too find the idea of the US, the UK, the EU, the UN, or any other
>> political entity as the 800 pound gorilla WRT regulating the internet to
>> be extremely unsettling. By the same token, I find the idea of some
>> group of altruistic, sanctimonious junior high school hall monitors
>> (Spamhaus) being the de facto authority when it comes to determining who
>> has the /right/ to send email over the internet to be outright
>> distasteful. Screw 'em.
>
> WTF is it /you/ don't understand about bls? No one is determining the
> right to email except for the admins of the ISPs.
> If /they/ choose to use a list to help stem the spew, thats /their/
> right. Spamhaus tracks the scum, it doesn't block.
Black-lists, like black-holing and SPF and even C/R, are ultimately just
kludges that band-aid a symptom rather than addressing the cause.
Until ISPs (and e-mail service providers) get their act together and,
collectively, try to act pro-actively, we're going to be inundated with
these lame-brained 'solutions' that do little but p*** off and annoy people.
> Did you know the Fed. govt. uses Spamhaus lists?
> hoo boy, here it comes...
Umm . . . last I checked, governments weren't exactly well-known for their
infallibility. :-P
/b.
<snip />
goodwin
>
> Could you point me to where on Spamhaus' site it says that?
>
thought I had posted this a few hours ago...
goodwin
> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>
>> WTF about the concept of blacklists don't you understand? They are
>> absolutely useless against the real culprits, the botnets.
>
> You do realize that the botnets weren't a big source of spam
> before the big spam servers and many open relays were
> blacklisted, right?
>
> /Jonas
apparently he chooses not to reply...
goodwin
> Its not BS if the company said it was. In other words, if their set up
> is that if it's posted by mozilla products and is unauthenticated they
> will blackball it. That's their rules.
see my op - wherever you got the above impression, it is incorrect.
Christopher Jahn
news:0oWdnbVZBpBGMnjY...@mozilla.org:
>> 3) What do you care what Spamhaus does? Spamhaus is another
>> bad idea that cannot go away soon enough.
>
> At least they are doing something - what have you done??
Slammed the idiots at Spamhaus. A bad system badly implimented.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
Oh dear, I've gone and inflated my ego.
goodwin
>
> Uh, no, Phillip. What it sounds like (and, obviously, I can only infer from
> Storm's post) is that they assume NTLM Auth is the 'standard'.
and this was inferred just how?
If so, they
> truly are idiots . . . and other comments in this thread would seem to lend
> credence to that thesis. :-)
huh?
>
>> Now to the question of whether its strictly Mozilla Products, that can
>> cause that then that's another question.
that question is moot
Christopher Jahn
news:c-6dnbZR86BzwnvY...@mozilla.org:
WE got it from the OP, who got it from Spamhaus.
Since you can't be bothered to actually follow the conversation:
" When I went to SpamHaus.com to get the situation corrected, the
site explained that an IP address can get blacklisted if someone
is using Thunderbird (and most other non-Microsoft email
programs) with SMTP authentication turned off."
Shoddy on the part of Spamhaus. The ONLY valid measure to add an
IP address to a blacklist is if a huge amount of spam is coming
from it.
And apparently, at least one court of law agrees with me. They
are idiots, and they deserve to be shut down for their shoddy
work.
goodwin
<snip>
> I'm inclined to agree with Ron that blacklists of /this/ nature suck. Not
> quite as bad as blackholing or C/R, and possibly just marginally worse than
> SPF (which is rapidly rising on my s*** list) . . . which isn't exactly
> putting it in great company, y'know?
And Spamhaus compares to, say, SPF just how?
>
> If I wish /personally/ to implement black-/grey-/white-lists, that's one
> thing; for an organisation such as Spamhaus to do so is a different matter
> entirely.
AFAIK Spamhaus isn't about black/gray/white lists at all.
where's that from?
goodwin
> goodwin <conn...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:0oWdnbVZBpBGMnjY...@mozilla.org:
>
>>> 3) What do you care what Spamhaus does? Spamhaus is another
>>> bad idea that cannot go away soon enough.
>>
>> At least they are doing something - what have you done??
>
> Slammed the idiots at Spamhaus. A bad system badly implimented.
Please, I'm all ears...
goodwin
I'm sorry, but someone needs to fill in the blanks in his thread or
correct the wording -
Spamhaus doesn't label anything as spam - it is a list of spammers...
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> I found out yesterday that my IP address had been blacklisted by
> Spamhaus, causing spam programs that use their database to flag my
> IP address can get blacklisted if someone is using Thunderbird (and most
> other non-Microsoft email programs) with SMTP authentication turned off.
read the second paragraph:
http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/answers.lasso?section#183
read the bit in red: http://www.spamhaus.org/pbl/removal/
and the second paragraph here:
http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/answers.lasso?...ric+Questions#163
--
Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
http://www.bcdb.com/cartoon/46347-Peter_Potamus_Show.html
http://www.toonarific.com/show.php?s_search=Potamus&Button_Update=Search&show_id=2778
Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
only. Thanks
Brian Heinrich
> On 2/28/2007 5:47 PM Brian Heinrich opined:
>
>> Uh, no, Phillip. What it sounds like (and, obviously, I can only infer from
>> Storm's post) is that they assume NTLM Auth is the 'standard'.
>
> and this was inferred just how?
The OP's comment regarding non-M$ products.
/b.
<snip />
goodwin
> goodwin <conn...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:c-6dnbZR86BzwnvY...@mozilla.org:
>
>> On 2/28/2007 9:14 AM Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T opined:
>>
>>> Its not BS if the company said it was. In other words, if
>>> their set up is that if it's posted by mozilla products and
>>> is unauthenticated they will blackball it. That's their
>>> rules.
>>
>> see my op - wherever you got the above impression, it is
>> incorrect.
>
> WE got it from the OP, who got it from Spamhaus.
>
> Since you can't be bothered to actually follow the conversation:
no, I bothered to go and get the Spamhaus explanation and posted it -
seems a bit different from OP version.
Myabe /you/ weren't following the conversation.
>
> " When I went to SpamHaus.com to get the situation corrected, the
> site explained that an IP address can get blacklisted if someone
> is using Thunderbird (and most other non-Microsoft email
> programs) with SMTP authentication turned off."
>
> Shoddy on the part of Spamhaus. The ONLY valid measure to add an
> IP address to a blacklist is if a huge amount of spam is coming
> from it.
any amount of spam is huge
<snip irrelevant legal opinion>
goodwin
>>
>>> Uh, no, Phillip. What it sounds like (and, obviously, I can only infer from
>>> Storm's post) is that they assume NTLM Auth is the 'standard'.
>>
>> and this was inferred just how?
>
> The OP's comment regarding non-M$ products.
sorry, missed that in OP post - could you point it out?
Brian Heinrich
<quote>
When I went to SpamHaus.com to get the situation corrected, the site
explained that an IP address can get blacklisted if someone is using
Thunderbird (and most other non-Microsoft email programs) with SMTP
authentication turned off.
</quote>
On the basis of that statement, I inferred (regardless of whether or not it
makes any sense to make such an inference) he was referring to SPA.
Not a biggie. . . .
/b.
Ron Hunter
> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>
>>> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>>>
>>>> Storm wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I found out yesterday that my IP address had been blacklisted by
>>>>> Spamhaus, causing spam programs that use their database to flag my
>>>>> that an IP address can get blacklisted if someone is using
>>>>> Thunderbird (and most other non-Microsoft email programs) with SMTP
>>>>> authentication turned off.
>>>> that cannot go away soon enough.
>>>>
>>> This case lends credibility to the world's concern of the US
>>> stranglehold on internet technologies (ICANN) when an Illinois court
>>> can extend it's jurisdiction all the way to Britian! IMHO this should
>>> not be allowed. The internet is free due in large part because it is
>>> global and therefore outside of the jurisdiction of any one country
>>> or state.
>>>
>>>> Tell Spamhaus to kiss your ass, and then call your lawyer.
>>> Your lawyer should have nothing to do with controlling or coercing a
>>> company in another country.
>>
>> I agree with most of your sentiments, Andrew, but unfortunately that is
>> not the way that it is with the new World Order. Litigation across
>> different geo-political boundaries works differently, but it is not
>> pointless. People (especially scumbag lawyers - grin) take notice.
>>
>> I too find the idea of the US, the UK, the EU, the UN, or any other
>> political entity as the 800 pound gorilla WRT regulating the internet to
>> be extremely unsettling. By the same token, I find the idea of some
>> group of altruistic, sanctimonious junior high school hall monitors
>> (Spamhaus) being the de facto authority when it comes to determining who
>> has the /right/ to send email over the internet to be outright
>> distasteful. Screw 'em.
>>
>> mozilla.general. I am particularly interested in how the OP (Storm)
>> makes out with his attempt to get himself delisted (removed from
>> Spamhaus' blacklist). I find it troubling indeed that someone would tell
>> him that his problem lies with his choice of SMTP client.
>>
>> Ron :)
> Hi, Ron: In response to your interest in the IP delisting process, it
> was quick and easy. I just tried to go back in there to copy the exact
> wording of their anti-Thunderbird (and all non-Outlook email programs)
> message, but you have to drill down too far. To get there, you have to
> enter an IP address that's blacklisted, and mine no longer is. Guess I
> should have copied it when I had a chance.
Seems to me that with FF/TB having almost 30% penetration in the
European market, Spamhaus would be causing a lot of bad feeling with
such a policy. Probably to the point of legal action. Blacklisting of
a site just because they don't use yyyy software is downright STUPID.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Christopher Jahn
news:t8ednbJ-wOPr7XvY...@mozilla.org:
>> Since you can't be bothered to actually follow the
>> conversation:
>
> no, I bothered to go and get the Spamhaus explanation and
> posted it - seems a bit different from OP version.
Perhaps it is, but the point is you were saying that "no one" had
raised the issue being addressed, which is clearly incorrect
since it was in the first message of this thread.
Disingenuous of you to ignore that fact.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
There's nothing wrong with you a shotgun blast to the face
couldn't fix.
Ron Lopshire
> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>
>>absolutely useless against the real culprits, the botnets.
>
> non-botnet spammers?
See below.
>>Instead, the custodians of these imbecilic databases capriciously prey
>>on poor bastards like the OP (Storm). Through no fault of his own,
>
> Oh I don't know if I'd say that just yet. Perhaps the OP's machine has
> been taken over and is serving as one of the spambots. As such don't you
> think that Spamhaus is at least helping to point that out? I mean how
> and more importantly why, would Spamhaus be picking on the OP if all he
> was doing is sending out email via TB as opposed to sending out 100's,
> 1000's or 100,000's of emails from his IP address?
>
> Or maybe he just got a bad DHCP address! DHCP is evil! :-)
And so, just to be safe, let's blacklist the poor guy and make him
/prove/ that he is not up to no good. Talk about a violation of every
legal standard in the civilized world. But then again, those who are
self-appointed do not have to concern themselves with legal and civil
propriety.
>>he is no longer able to send email to anyone foolish enough to use
>>such a service.
>
> That is a *choice* that such fools should be allowed to make. Are you
> honestly saying your against choice? Trying to force people again are you?
What I am for, is the /right/ not to be blacklisted without proof and
due process.
>>But then again, maybe there is something to be said for that.
>
> Of course there is something to be said for that! In fact such choice
> should be defended not outlawed! As Penn Jillette has often said "Part
> of freedom is the freedom to be stupid". And hell I see that you often
> partake in that! :-P
Perhaps the best program on television ... Penn and Teller's Bullshit!
It is a shame that more people don't subscribe to Showtime.
Again, the problem is that I/we increasingly are _not_ being given the
choice. Spamhaus and other similar entities have set themselves up as
the de facto standards on conducting business on the internet.
>>Who wants to communicate with such people anyway? YMMV.
>
> Great, so then you've come to an agreement and are perfectly OK with
> free organizations forming and trading information, however foolish such
> information may be to your eyes, and we should not endeavor to prosecute
> such organizations, in fact we should define the freedom to be stupid,
> right? Or did I read you wrong?
Do _not_ infer anything that was not stated or even implied. My issue
with Spamhaus, SiteAdvisor, and any other similar endeavor is strictly
with /blacklists/. With government entities, there is always recourse
under the auspices of public scrutiny. Nothing good has _ever_ come from
a privately-maintained public blacklist.
>>As I said, screw Spamhaus and the rest of the junior high school hall
>>monitors who in their infinite kindness and unselfishness have decided
>>to make the internet a better place for all of us.
>
> Yeah and screw the EFF and ACLU too. After all we don't need any of
> those junior high school hall monitors watching our for our rights either!
Andrew, you and Goodwin are making this _way_ too easy for me. As
examples of the legitimacy and efficacy of entities such as Spamhaus,
you cite those paragons of inefficiency and every stupid idea in the
history of mankind --- the politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats in the
US Federal Government and the commies and pollyannas at the ACLU. This
in and of itself is enough to preclude me from ever taking Spamhaus
seriously.
Let's cut to the chase. As I said, my problem with Spamhaus is with
blacklisting. That aside, though, is Spamhaus even effective as a
concept? Since October, I have received over 21, 000 pieces of spam in
my 3 primary non-disposable POP3 accounts. Not one piece of spam got
through my Bayesian filter (K9). And that is with only 37 legitimate
emails marked as spam (FPs - 0.17%), and most of those should have been
marked as spam.
But that is anecdotal, of course. Perhaps Spamhaus has blacklisted so
many of the creeps, that I never get anything from them. I cannot even
imagine that being the case. Those blacklisted spammers from yesteryear
are no longer the problem. The botnets are. And they could not care less
about blacklisting efforts.
Vint Cerf: one quarter of all computers part of a botnet
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070125-8707.html
Is the Botnet Battle Already Lost?
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2029720,00.asp
Kaspersky Security Bulletin 2006: Malware Evolution
http://www.viruslist.com/en/analysis?pubid=204791924
Kaspersky Security Bulletin 2006: Spam
http://www.viruslist.com/en/analysis?pubid=204791920
The war against botnets is over. We lost. Get over it.
To those of you who tout the Spamhaus (and others) mantra that Bayesian
filtering alone is not enough for the spam being generated today, I say,
"Prove it!" I myself have yet to see any proof that solutions such as
those offered by Spamhaus are anything more than marketing BS (snake
oil). As I said, not only do I find blacklisting distasteful, but I have
found no evidence whatsoever that it is even effective against today's
current crop of spamming bots.
And don't misrepresent what I am saying here. This has nothing to do
with rogue applications and services. I am in no way suggesting that the
(probably) well-meaning, fine folks at Spamhaus are involved in any such
activities.
And so, as we fight these idiots (the spammers), let's keep in mind that
government regulation, blacklisting and other ill-conceived ideas will
not only be ineffective, but it will put the burden on the good guys
(us), and will for the most part be circumvented by the creeps
(spammers). Just because it sounds like a good idea doesn't mean that it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_unintended_consequences
If you really want to put a dent in spamming, convince the entire world
to delete their Windows Address Books. Without WABs, the botnets cannot
survive.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xfrsx
As always, just my 0.02. YMMV.
Ron :)
Ron Lopshire
> Storm wrote:
>
>>Ron Lopshire wrote:
>>>
>>>I too find the idea of the US, the UK, the EU, the UN, or any other
>>>political entity as the 800 pound gorilla WRT regulating the internet to
>>>be extremely unsettling. By the same token, I find the idea of some
>>>group of altruistic, sanctimonious junior high school hall monitors
>>>(Spamhaus) being the de facto authority when it comes to determining who
>>>has the /right/ to send email over the internet to be outright
>>>distasteful. Screw 'em.
>>
>>was quick and easy. I just tried to go back in there to copy the exact
>>wording of their anti-Thunderbird (and all non-Outlook email programs)
>>message, but you have to drill down too far. To get there, you have to
>>enter an IP address that's blacklisted, and mine no longer is. Guess I
>>should have copied it when I had a chance.
>
> Seems to me that with FF/TB having almost 30% penetration in the
> European market, Spamhaus would be causing a lot of bad feeling with
> such a policy. Probably to the point of legal action. Blacklisting of
> a site just because they don't use yyyy software is downright STUPID.
Exactly. When King Solomon returns, let's ask him what he thinks of
blacklists.
Ron :)
Ron Lopshire
> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>
>>WTF about the concept of blacklists don't you understand? They are
>>absolutely useless against the real culprits, the botnets.
>
> before the big spam servers and many open relays were
> blacklisted, right?
No, what I realize is that prior to anti-spam legislation in the US and
the EU member states, the ISPs did not care one iota about the spam
spewing from their servers. Actually, I am beginning to think that it is
in spite of such regulation and litigation. The pressure had been
mounting for some time.
Just 5 years ago, most of the spam that I received came from ISP email
addresses such as with Road Runner ISP accounts. Several dozen a day
from northcarolina.rr.com alone. When was the last time that you got
spam from a Road Runner address? When the ISPs (out of fear, legal
threats, public pressure, whatever) shut these idiots down, the spammers
were in trouble, until ... Windows XP in the Home/SOHO market! Oh, happy
day! A few zillion unsecure boxes all hooked up to the internet with
broadband connections. And most being operated by clueless idiots.
Ron :)
Ron Lopshire
> On 2/28/2007 4:11 PM Jonas P Eckerman opined:
>
>>Ron Lopshire wrote:
>>
>>>WTF about the concept of blacklists don't you understand? They are
>>>absolutely useless against the real culprits, the botnets.
>>
>>You do realize that the botnets weren't a big source of spam
>>before the big spam servers and many open relays were
>>blacklisted, right?
>
Last I checked, this was NNTP, not IRC.
Ron ;)
Ron Lopshire
> goodwin <conn...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:c-6dnbZR86BzwnvY...@mozilla.org:
>
>>On 2/28/2007 9:14 AM Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T opined:
>>
>>>Its not BS if the company said it was. In other words, if
>>>their set up is that if it's posted by mozilla products and
>>>is unauthenticated they will blackball it. That's their
>>>rules.
>>
>>see my op - wherever you got the above impression, it is
>>incorrect.
>
> WE got it from the OP, who got it from Spamhaus.
>
> Since you can't be bothered to actually follow the conversation:
>
> " When I went to SpamHaus.com to get the situation corrected, the
> site explained that an IP address can get blacklisted if someone
> is using Thunderbird (and most other non-Microsoft email
> programs) with SMTP authentication turned off."
>
> Shoddy on the part of Spamhaus. The ONLY valid measure to add an
> IP address to a blacklist is if a huge amount of spam is coming
> from it.
Exactomundo!!!
> And apparently, at least one court of law agrees with me. They
> are idiots, and they deserve to be shut down for their shoddy
> work.
I don't know about shut down (as in government control), but if my
business depended on email, and these clowns shut me down, I would take
recourse. And I do _not_ have to live and work in Spamhaus'
jurisdiction. No such entity could survive for long not having any
customers in the US. Same thing applies to a US company doing business
in the EU. MS doesn't kowtow to the EU out of a sense of fair play,
after all.
Ron :)
Ron Lopshire
> On 2007-02-28 09:37 (-0700 UTC), goodwin wrote:
>
>>On 2/28/2007 5:53 AM Ron Lopshire opined:
>
> <snip />
>
>>>4) Blacklists and the sanctimonious creeps who maintain them suck.
>>
>>Just what have they done to you , Ron??
>>They are more effective than baysian filters at the moment and they keep
>>track of some very real criminals who are blatantly robbing all of us
>
> I'm inclined to agree with Ron that blacklists of /this/ nature suck. Not
> quite as bad as blackholing or C/R, and possibly just marginally worse than
> SPF (which is rapidly rising on my s*** list) . . . which isn't exactly
> putting it in great company, y'know?
>
> thing; for an organisation such as Spamhaus to do so is a different matter
> entirely.
>
>>is a bs statement.
>
> his ISP's SMTP server whilst not on their network) and got black-listed for
> it because those transactions were not authenticated.
>
> Lesson? -- If your ISP permits of some sort of authentication/encryption,
> use it.
Makes sense, Brian. Still, the choice of what protocol/options to use
for SMTP should be left to the subscriber and his or her ISP, not a
bunch of self-appointed moralists.
Ron :)
Ron Lopshire
> On 2/28/2007 5:21 PM Brian Heinrich opined:
>
> <snip>
>
>>I'm inclined to agree with Ron that blacklists of /this/ nature suck. Not
>>quite as bad as blackholing or C/R, and possibly just marginally worse than
>>SPF (which is rapidly rising on my s*** list) . . . which isn't exactly
>>putting it in great company, y'know?
>
> And Spamhaus compares to, say, SPF just how?
Self-appointed ...
>>If I wish /personally/ to implement black-/grey-/white-lists, that's one
>>thing; for an organisation such as Spamhaus to do so is a different matter
>>entirely.
>
> AFAIK Spamhaus isn't about black/gray/white lists at all.
> where's that from?
Huh? What the hell is a PBL? Or SBL?
Ron :)
Ron Lopshire
> goodwin <conn...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:0oWdnbVZBpBGMnjY...@mozilla.org:
>
>>>3) What do you care what Spamhaus does? Spamhaus is another
>>>bad idea that cannot go away soon enough.
>>
>>At least they are doing something - what have you done??
>
That's my take on it, Chris. Keep up the good work. [g]
Ron :)
Ron Lopshire
Yes, and that is called a /blacklist/. And not everyone on that list is
a spammer, the OP being a case in point.
Ron :)
Ron Lopshire
> On 2/28/2007 8:02 AM Ron Lopshire opined:
>
>>I too find the idea of the US, the UK, the EU, the UN, or any other
>>political entity as the 800 pound gorilla WRT regulating the internet to
>>be extremely unsettling. By the same token, I find the idea of some
>>group of altruistic, sanctimonious junior high school hall monitors
>>(Spamhaus) being the de facto authority when it comes to determining who
>>has the /right/ to send email over the internet to be outright
>>distasteful. Screw 'em.
>
> right to email except for the admins of the ISPs.
> If /they/ choose to use a list to help stem the spew, thats /their/
> right. Spamhaus tracks the scum, it doesn't block.
>
> Did you know the Fed. govt. uses Spamhaus lists?
> hoo boy, here it comes...
I rest my case ...
> Didn't OP already state he was off the list?
> and he said further, When I went to
>>
>>>>>SpamHaus.com to get the situation corrected, the site explained that
>>>>>an IP address can get blacklisted if someone is using Thunderbird
>>>>>(and most other non-Microsoft email programs) with SMTP
>>>>>authentication turned off.
>
> That sounds like the problem is/was authentication turned off, not the
> client being used.
Yes, And he got blacklisted as a result of it.
Ron :)
Ron Lopshire
> Storm wrote:
>
>>I found out yesterday that my IP address had been blacklisted by
>>Spamhaus, causing spam programs that use their database to flag my
>>emails as spam, or even to reject them outright. When I went to
>>SpamHaus.com to get the situation corrected, the site explained that an
>>IP address can get blacklisted if someone is using Thunderbird (and most
>>other non-Microsoft email programs) with SMTP authentication turned off.
>
> read the second paragraph:
> http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/answers.lasso?section#183
>
> read the bit in red: http://www.spamhaus.org/pbl/removal/
>
> and the second paragraph here:
> http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/answers.lasso?...ric+Questions#163
Thanks for the links, PP.
As I write this, the Spamhaus web site is down. Overwhelmed? Maintenance?
Ron :)
Ron Lopshire
> goodwin wrote:
>
>>On 2/28/2007 9:16 AM Storm opined:
>>>
>>>Hi, Ron: In response to your interest in the IP delisting process, it
>>>was quick and easy. I just tried to go back in there to copy the exact
>>>wording of their anti-Thunderbird (and all non-Outlook email programs)
>>>message, but you have to drill down too far. To get there, you have to
>>>enter an IP address that's blacklisted, and mine no longer is. Guess I
>>>should have copied it when I had a chance.
>
> > Now it makes sense again. The OP probably wasn't labled a spammer
> after all, and the text below do refer to MS mail clients as well.
>
> > If you are using normal email software (Outlook, Entourage,
> > Eudora, Apple Mail, Thunderbird, etc.) and your ISP's mail
> > server is refusing to take your mail, saying your IP address
> > is 'blacklisted' by Spamhaus, then it is very probable that
> > you simply need to turn on SMTP Authentication. See: How to
> > turn on SMTP Authentication.
>
> The PBL (wich this refers to) has is their list of
> end-user-addresses. If the server refuses unauthenticated
> connections from end-user IP addresses, you need to have
> authentication enabled.
>
> The PBL has absolutely nothing to do with beeing labled as a
> spammer. It just means the IP address of the client is an
> end-user address and not a server address.
Sure it does. A perfect case of perception becoming reality. If Spamhaus
blacklists you, to the whole world you are a /spammer/ and not to be
trusted. The /whole world/ does not give a rat's ass about the
techno-babble.
Ron :)
Ron Lopshire
> On 2/28/2007 9:16 AM Storm opined:
>>
>>Hi, Ron: In response to your interest in the IP delisting process, it
>>was quick and easy. I just tried to go back in there to copy the exact
>>wording of their anti-Thunderbird (and all non-Outlook email programs)
>>message, but you have to drill down too far. To get there, you have to
>>enter an IP address that's blacklisted, and mine no longer is. Guess I
>>should have copied it when I had a chance.
>
> from Spamhaus:
>
> The first thing to do is to check whether it really is listed and, if it
> is, which Spamhaus list is it in? The "Lookup IP" form will answer that
> for you.
>
> If you are using normal email software (Outlook, Entourage, Eudora,
> Apple Mail, Thunderbird, etc.) and your ISP's mail server is refusing to
> take your mail, saying your IP address is 'blacklisted' by Spamhaus,
> then it is very probable that you simply need to turn on SMTP
> Authentication. See: How to turn on SMTP Authentication.
Who did I vote for that gave these clowns the right to monitor what my
ISP determines to be legitimate email?
> If your outbound mail server's IP address is listed in PBL (not likely,
> but...), don't panic! It is easy and quick to exempt it. Follow the PBL
> links from the "Lookup IP" form and you will find a web form for
> self-removal. Fill in the form, it will send you an e-mail, follow the
> instructions, and your IP address will be cleared from the PBL zone
> within minutes (worldwide cached data may linger for up to 45 minutes).
And so these idiots have shut down a private enterprise through no fault
of the owner. I still say sue the bastards. And anyone who uses them.
> If a dynamic (DSL, cable, dialup) "home" IP address is listed, you
> should leave it listed unless you, personally, are the administrator of
> a mail server at that IP address, and you do not expect the IP to change
> for a long time (months). For example, the home connections of all of
> the Spamhaus Team are also listed in PBL. PBL listings do not affect
> sending mail via legitimate "smarthost" mail servers as operated by all
> ISPs. See the next question in this FAQ.
And these self-appointed junior high school hall monitors will forever
determine what is a /legitimate "smarthost" mail server/ ...
Make no mistake about it. If Microsoft tried to pull this crap, the
Spamhaus aficionados around here would all be up in arms.
Ron :)
Andrew DeFaria
Or maybe he just got a bad DHCP address! DHCP is evil! :-)And so, just to be safe, let's blacklist the poor guy and make him /prove/ that he is not up to no good.
Talk about a violation of every legal standard in the civilized world.
But then again, those who are self-appointed do not have to concern themselves with legal and civil propriety.
What I am for, is the /right/ not to be blacklisted without proof and due process.he is no longer able to send email to anyone foolish enough to use such a service.That is a *choice* that such fools should be allowed to make. Are you honestly saying your against choice? Trying to force people again are you?
Perhaps the best program on television ... Penn and Teller's Bullshit! It is a shame that more people don't subscribe to Showtime.But then again, maybe there is something to be said for that.Of course there is something to be said for that! In fact such choice should be defended not outlawed! As Penn Jillette has often said "Part of freedom is the freedom to be stupid". And hell I see that you often partake in that! :-P
Again, the problem is that I/we increasingly are _not_ being given the choice. Spamhaus and other similar entities have set themselves up as the de facto standards on conducting business on the internet.
Do _not_ infer anything that was not stated or even implied.Who wants to communicate with such people anyway? YMMV.Great, so then you've come to an agreement and are perfectly OK with free organizations forming and trading information, however foolish such information may be to your eyes, and we should not endeavor to prosecute such organizations, in fact we should define the freedom to be stupid, right? Or did I read you wrong?
My issue with Spamhaus, SiteAdvisor, and any other similar endeavor is strictly with /blacklists/. With government entities, there is always recourse under the auspices of public scrutiny.
Nothing good has _ever_ come from a privately-maintained public blacklist.
Andrew, you and Goodwin are making this _way_ too easy for me. As examples of the legitimacy and efficacy of entities such as Spamhaus, you cite those paragons of inefficiency and every stupid idea in theAs I said, screw Spamhaus and the rest of the junior high school hall monitors who in their infinite kindness and unselfishness have decided to make the internet a better place for all of us.Yeah and screw the EFF and ACLU too. After all we don't need any of those junior high school hall monitors watching our for our rights either!
history of mankind --- the politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats in the US Federal Government and the commies and pollyannas at the ACLU. This in and of itself is enough to preclude me from ever taking Spamhaus seriously.
Let's cut to the chase. As I said, my problem with Spamhaus is with blacklisting. That aside, though, is Spamhaus even effective as a concept?
Since October, I have received over 21, 000 pieces of spam in my 3 primary non-disposable POP3 accounts.
Not one piece of spam got through my Bayesian filter (K9).
And that is with only 37 legitimate emails marked as spam (FPs - 0.17%), and most of those should have been marked as spam.
But that is anecdotal, of course. Perhaps Spamhaus has blacklisted so many of the creeps, that I never get anything from them. I cannot even imagine that being the case.
Those blacklisted spammers from yesteryear are no longer the problem. The botnets are. And they could not care less about blacklisting efforts.
Vint Cerf: one quarter of all computers part of a botnet
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070125-8707.html
Is the Botnet Battle Already Lost?
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2029720,00.asp
Kaspersky Security Bulletin 2006: Malware Evolution
http://www.viruslist.com/en/analysis?pubid=204791924
Kaspersky Security Bulletin 2006: Spam
http://www.viruslist.com/en/analysis?pubid=204791920
The war against botnets is over. We lost. Get over it.
To those of you who tout the Spamhaus (and others) mantra that Bayesian filtering alone is not enough for the spam being generated today, I say, "Prove it!" I myself have yet to see any proof that solutions such as those offered by Spamhaus are anything more than marketing BS (snake oil). As I said, not only do I find blacklisting distasteful, but I have found no evidence whatsoever that it is even effective against today's current crop of spamming bots.
And don't misrepresent what I am saying here. This has nothing to do with rogue applications and services. I am in no way suggesting that the (probably) well-meaning, fine folks at Spamhaus are involved in any such activities.
And so, as we fight these idiots (the spammers), let's keep in mind that government regulation, blacklisting and other ill-conceived ideas will not only be ineffective, but it will put the burden on the good guys (us), and will for the most part be circumvented by the creeps (spammers). Just because it sounds like a good idea doesn't mean that it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_unintended_consequences
If you really want to put a dent in spamming, convince the entire world to delete their Windows Address Books. Without WABs, the botnets cannot survive.
As if they need your email addresses to spam people...
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xfrsx
As always, just my 0.02. YMMV.
Ron :)
Andrew DeFaria
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to phish and he'll suck your bank account dry
goodwin
> goodwin wrote:
>> On 2/28/2007 5:21 PM Brian Heinrich opined:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>I'm inclined to agree with Ron that blacklists of /this/ nature suck. Not
>>>quite as bad as blackholing or C/R, and possibly just marginally worse than
>>>SPF (which is rapidly rising on my s*** list) . . . which isn't exactly
>>>putting it in great company, y'know?
>>
>> And Spamhaus compares to, say, SPF just how?
>
> Self-appointed ...
Don't get it but no mind...
>> AFAIK Spamhaus isn't about black/gray/white lists at all.
>> where's that from?
>
> Huh? What the hell is a PBL? Or SBL?
>
> Ron :)
The point I am trying to make is really that sbl/pbl et alia do not make
things black, white, or gray - the /user/ does that.
The list makers attempt to point out the sources of spam and criminal
acts - what you do with that info is your choice.
And AFAIK, the "b" stands for block, /not/ black...
goodwin
> goodwin <conn...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:t8ednbJ-wOPr7XvY...@mozilla.org:
>
>>> Since you can't be bothered to actually follow the
>>> conversation:
>>
>> no, I bothered to go and get the Spamhaus explanation and
>> posted it - seems a bit different from OP version.
>
> Perhaps it is, but the point is you were saying that "no one" had
> raised the issue being addressed, which is clearly incorrect
> since it was in the first message of this thread.
>
> Disingenuous of you to ignore that fact.
>
Sorry, I don't recollect saying anything like that - something had to
have been misread.
squaredancer
the Purple Hippo to generate the following:? :
> Storm wrote:
>
>> I found out yesterday that my IP address had been blacklisted by
>> Spamhaus, causing spam programs that use their database to flag my
>> emails as spam, or even to reject them outright. When I went to
>> SpamHaus.com to get the situation corrected, the site explained that an
>> IP address can get blacklisted if someone is using Thunderbird (and most
>> other non-Microsoft email programs) with SMTP authentication turned off.
>>
>
> read the second paragraph:
> http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/answers.lasso?section#183
>
> read the bit in red: http://www.spamhaus.org/pbl/removal/
>
> and the second paragraph here:
> http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/answers.lasso?...ric+Questions#163
>
>
I am a spammer,
my IP is on the blacklist,
I go to the spamhaus URL (as show by Peter)
I read "delete your IP from the blacklist",
I delete my (spammer) IP from the blacklist as per instructions,
I can spam the world again!
I'm so happy I could cry!
reg
Christopher Jahn
news:Z--dnQOzXMHDm3rY...@mozilla.org:
Either you're stupid, or a liar.
"see my op - wherever you got the above impression, it is
incorrect."
If you can't track a conversation, or understand your own
messages, perhaps you should refrain from posting.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
Get up Dog Boy! Show them where you come from, show them where
you're going!
Ron Lopshire
> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>
>>>Or maybe he just got a bad DHCP address! DHCP is evil! :-)
>>
>>And so, just to be safe, let's blacklist the poor guy and make him
>>/prove/ that he is not up to no good.
>
> That's their prerogative really.
Of course. And that is what I find disagreeable.
>>Talk about a violation of every legal standard in the civilized world.
>
> Talk about a serious oxymoron! "standard" != "legal".
>
>>But then again, those who are self-appointed do not have to concern
>>themselves with legal and civil propriety.
>
> You have no concept of law it appears. Please cite the law that applies
> here.
I wasn't talking about law, but propriety. Obviously, not one and the same.
>>>>he is no longer able to send email to anyone foolish enough to use
>>>>such a service.
>>>
>>>That is a *choice* that such fools should be allowed to make. Are you
>>>honestly saying your against choice? Trying to force people again are
>>>you?
>>
>>What I am for, is the /right/ not to be blacklisted without proof and
>>due process.
>
> No such right exists (see what I mean about people making up rights...)
> and if you believe it does then surely you could cite a reference... A
> legal reference... (Which will be real difficult to do since you need to
> cover all the countries in existance...)
Again, not talking about legal rights.
>>Again, the problem is that I/we increasingly are _not_ being given the
>>choice. Spamhaus and other similar entities have set themselves up as
>>the de facto standards on conducting business on the internet.
>
> You are looking at it incorrectly. Spamhaus has exercised their right to
> set up this service. Effectively they are making a statement. Other, 3rd
> parties, have also exercised their right to agree with Spamhaus. Just
> because two other parties agree on something and that's something is
> about you does not necessarily give you the right to override their
> rights to do so. IOW Joe can call you an idiot and John can agree. But
> that doesn't mean you have the right to make them stop. They are fully
> in their rights to have an opinion of you and share it with others. And
> others have the right to agree or disagree with their characterization
> of you. Now you may wish to proceed on grounds of slander but then you'd
> need to show true damage. Good luck.
I know many people who depend upon their email for their livelihoods.
This has nothing to do with slander.
>>>>Who wants to communicate with such people anyway? YMMV.
>>>
>>>Great, so then you've come to an agreement and are perfectly OK with
>>>free organizations forming and trading information, however foolish
>>>such information may be to your eyes, and we should not endeavor to
>>>prosecute such organizations, in fact we should define the freedom to
>>>be stupid, right? Or did I read you wrong?
>>
>>Do _not_ infer anything that was not stated or even implied.
>
> Sure you did. You said "who wants to communicate with such people". As
> such you're making a character judgment about them and shutting down
> communications with them - pretty much exactly what they are doing with you!
Yes, I did. And I should not have used such a broad brush. I was
referring to those who want third parties and/or the government to
protect them from themselves. I get tired of that sentiment,
particularly from those who should be old enough to know better.
>>My issue with Spamhaus, SiteAdvisor, and any other similar endeavor is
>>strictly with /blacklists/. With government entities, there is always
>>recourse under the auspices of public scrutiny.
>
> And how is this not similarly available with Spamhaus, for example.
> Indeed that's exactly what you are trying to do. Additionally they've
> gotten enough bad press too. However the public in public scrutiny has
> spoken and unfortunately for you they disagree with your view point!
>
>>Nothing good has _ever_ come from a privately-maintained public blacklist.
>
> That is also your opinion.
I have found no example where the good of a blacklist outweighed the
bad. The road to hell is, afer all, paved with good intentions.
>>>>As I said, screw Spamhaus and the rest of the junior high school
>>>>hall monitors who in their infinite kindness and unselfishness have
>>>>decided to make the internet a better place for all of us.
>>>
>>>Yeah and screw the EFF and ACLU too. After all we don't need any of
>>>those junior high school hall monitors watching our for our rights
>>>either!
>>
>>Andrew, you and Goodwin are making this _way_ too easy for me. As
>>examples of the legitimacy and efficacy of entities such as Spamhaus,
>>you cite those paragons of inefficiency and every stupid idea in the
>>history of mankind --- the politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats in the
>>US Federal Government and the commies and pollyannas at the ACLU. This
>>in and of itself is enough to preclude me from ever taking Spamhaus
>>seriously.
>
> Wow, ad homien attacks. So you think the EFF and ACLU should be
> abolished I take it... Yeah screw individual rights...
I have a bridge to sell to anyone who thinks that the lawyers at the
ACLU are concerned about civil rights. That is why I used "commies" and
"polyannas" ... as terms of endearment. This is neither the place nor
the time to express what I really think about them.
>>Let's cut to the chase. As I said, my problem with Spamhaus is with
>>blacklisting. That aside, though, is Spamhaus even effective as a concept?
>
> That's not really the issue. Again, "Part of freedom is the freedom to
> be stupid". If Spamhaus is ineffective then indeed it is stupid. And
> remember: Part of freedom is the freedom to be stupid.
There are lots of things that are ineffective and inefficient. That
doesn't make them stupid.
>>Since October, I have received over 21, 000 pieces of spam in my 3
>>primary non-disposable POP3 accounts.
>
> Pfff! I received 32,133 this week!
>
>>Not one piece of spam got through my Bayesian filter (K9).
>
> 77 came through mine and they were all good.
>
>>And that is with only 37 legitimate emails marked as spam (FPs -
>>0.17%), and most of those should have been marked as spam.
>
> Regardless: Part of freedom is the freedom to be stupid
Huh? What are you talking about? My anti-spam setup works brilliantly
for my wife and myself.
>>But that is anecdotal, of course. Perhaps Spamhaus has blacklisted so
>>many of the creeps, that I never get anything from them. I cannot even
>>imagine that being the case.
>
> Sounds like a closed mind to me...
Yes. Closed as in Spamhaus' blacklists. When they publish the lists for
all to see, I will look into it. And I mean _all_ lists. Including the
number of those who have been delisted, and why. I want numbers, not
hand-waving.
And I have no problem with this, although I would like to see where and
how they arrived at 80%.
http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/index.lasso
It is the rest of the Spamhaus business model, particularly the PBL.
>>Those blacklisted spammers from yesteryear are no longer the problem.
>>The botnets are. And they could not care less about blacklisting efforts.
>>
>>Vint Cerf: one quarter of all computers part of a botnet
>>http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070125-8707.html
>>
>>Is the Botnet Battle Already Lost?
>>http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2029720,00.asp
>>
>>Kaspersky Security Bulletin 2006: Malware Evolution
>>http://www.viruslist.com/en/analysis?pubid=204791924
>>
>>Kaspersky Security Bulletin 2006: Spam
>>http://www.viruslist.com/en/analysis?pubid=204791920
>>
>>The war against botnets is over. We lost. Get over it.
>
> I've briefly skimmed through these (forgive me but I have a doctors
> appointment soon) and none have verified the claim. They say there's
> lots of bots and these bots are used for sending spam as well as other
> things like DDOS attacks. What they do not say is how much spam is sent
> (probably because it's difficult to measure) nor do they compare that
> unstated number with the amount of spam sent by non botnets...
My point exactly. I am tired of the snake oil from the anti-spam
developers and crusaders. Give me numbers. Like 150,000,000 computers
hooked up to botnets.
>>To those of you who tout the Spamhaus (and others) mantra that
>>Bayesian filtering alone is not enough for the spam being generated
>>today, I say, "Prove it!" I myself have yet to see any proof that
>>solutions such as those offered by Spamhaus are anything more than
>>marketing BS (snake oil). As I said, not only do I find blacklisting
>>distasteful, but I have found no evidence whatsoever that it is even
>>effective against today's current crop of spamming bots.
>
> I made no such claim that Spamhaus is effective nor the answer - just
> that it has a right to exist.
I am not disputing that. Nor their right to use blacklisting. I am
disputing the propriety of using them.
>>And don't misrepresent what I am saying here. This has nothing to do
>>with rogue applications and services. I am in no way suggesting that
>>the (probably) well-meaning, fine folks at Spamhaus are involved in
>>any such activities.
>>
>>And so, as we fight these idiots (the spammers), let's keep in mind
>>that government regulation, blacklisting and other ill-conceived ideas
>>will not only be ineffective, but it will put the burden on the good
>>guys (us), and will for the most part be circumvented by the creeps
>>(spammers). Just because it sounds like a good idea doesn't mean that
>>it is.
>
> Right, but that doesn't give you the right to shut down somebody.
I am not espousing anyone being shut down. I am bitching about
blacklists. Period.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_unintended_consequences
>>
>>If you really want to put a dent in spamming, convince the entire
>>world to delete their Windows Address Books. Without WABs, the botnets
>>cannot survive.
>
> Right. Ain't no other way they can determine who you're sending email
> to. Nope they couldn't possibly scan your email folders and extract
> addresses from there. No sir re bob!
>
> As if they need your email addresses to spam people...
I said dent. And eventually, of course, the creeps would come up with a
new paradigm.
Read through some of the individual exploits (email worms, trojans,
etc.), and you will see time after time that one of the targets is the
WAB. Having read through hundreds and hundreds of these descriptions
over the past two years, I have yet to see the Mozilla Address Book
targetted. I assume that part of it is because of the way that it is
protected in an encrypted user profile.
>>http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xfrsx
>>
>>As always, just my 0.02. YMMV.
Like you, I too must be off. No pun intended. [g]
Ron :)
Andrew DeFaria
Who did I vote for that gave these clowns the right to monitor what my ISP determines to be legitimate email?
And so these idiots have shut down a private enterprise through no fault of the owner. I still say sue the bastards. And anyone who uses them.
And these self-appointed junior high school hall monitors will forever determine what is a /legitimate "smarthost" mail server/ ...
Andrew DeFaria
I made no such claim that Spamhaus is effective nor the answer - just that it has a right to exist.I am not disputing that.
Jonas P Eckerman
>> The PBL has absolutely nothing to do with beeing labled as a
>> spammer. It just means the IP address of the client is an
>> end-user address and not a server address.
> Sure it does. A perfect case of perception becoming reality. If Spamhaus
> blacklists you, to the whole world you are a /spammer/ and not to be
> trusted.
Spamhaus' PBL is not a blacklist. It is a supposed to be a list
of end-user IP address ranges preferably provided by the owners
of said address ranges.
In effect, the *owners* of those address ranges has hopefully
said that connections from those addresses should not be trusted.
Wether a significant majority of the address ranges in the PBL
really are provided by the network owners or not is a separate
matter. I have no idea as to the integrity of the list.
Spamhaus *do* have blacklists that label adresses as spam
sources, but the PBL doesn't.
If a sysadmin uses Spamhaus' lists to reject connections to a
mail server without understanding Spamhaus' technobabble, that
sysadmin shouldn't (IMO) be a syasadmin. (Unfortunately, there
are too many clueless sysadmins oth there (some sysadmins even
rejected based on Blars (wich seems to have disappeared).)
> The /whole world/ does not give a rat's ass about the
> techno-babble.
The "whole world" doesn't make deciscions about nor implement
blocking strategies in mail servers.
Those who does, really should care about trhe techno-babble.
Personally I don't trust any external blacklist enough to use it
as a sole reason for rejecting a mail message or connection.
/Jonas
--
Jonas Eckerman
http://www.truls.org/
Jonas P Eckerman
>> That sounds like the problem is/was authentication turned off, not the
>> client being used.
> Yes, And he got blacklisted as a result of it.
If the problem really was that he was listed in the PBL, and that
he was not using authentication, then he was *not* blacklisted
because of that.
Actually, his address was allready blacklisted by his own ISP
(because they were using the PBL and their own end-user addresses
were in the PBL).
His ISP has the right to demand that their users use
authenticated SMTP. They also have a the right to implement this
requirement with the help of external DNS based lists if they for
some reason thinks that's a good idea.
Unfortunatley the OP hasn't said what (if anything) his/her ISP
said when/if (s)he called support about this.
Since the OP hasn't clarified exactly which address was listed in
wich list, and haven't told us what the explanation really was,
none of us can know what really happened.
Bad blacklisting *is* a problem, but this time it seems more
likely that the OP misunderstood the explanation (s)he found at
Spamhaus.
Jonas P Eckerman
> No, what I realize is that prior to anti-spam legislation in the US and
> the EU member states, the ISPs did not care one iota about the spam
Wich anti-spam legislation?
IIUC, the US federal legislation makes spam perfectly legal as
long as it is clearly marked as such (in the subject?), contains
full information about thye sender, and is not fraudulent. Is
this a misunderstanding on my part? I guess it's possible, even
likely, that some states have a more strict anti-spam legislation
than the union.
Here in sweden we do not have anything I would call anti-spam
legislation that I know of.
> Actually, I am beginning to think that it is
> in spite of such regulation and litigation.
Me too...
> Just 5 years ago, most of the spam that I received came from ISP email
> addresses such as with Road Runner ISP accounts. Several dozen a day
> from northcarolina.rr.com alone. When was the last time that you got
> spam from a Road Runner address?
Don't know. The only spam I've read the last month is backscatter
from mail servers bouncing mail to unknown users (some spammer
has recently started using my work address (and the address of
the other sysadmin at the same location) as their forged
sender.). I haven't bothered to read the received headers of the
bounced mail.
(Yes, we get way nore spam, but our filter works so I usually
only scan the quarantine reports for misclassified stuff.)
> When the ISPs (out of fear, legal
> threats, public pressure, whatever) shut these idiots down, the spammers
> were in trouble, until ...
... the law abiding spammers started using their own mail servers
and server farms (the criminal spammers were allready using open
relays).
The big legal spam servers were *big* spam sources until most
mail systems stopped accepting their connections.
The legal spam servers are still around of course, but with all
the blacklists they are less effective than they were.
The fact that most ISPs have anti-spam policies doesn't make it
illegal or impossible to host big mailservers in order to send UBE.
> Windows XP in the Home/SOHO market! Oh, happy
> day! A few zillion unsecure boxes all hooked up to the internet with
> broadband connections. And most being operated by clueless idiots.
I don't think Windows XP was important in this. There were
allrady lots of viruses and trojans targeting Windows 95/98
before Windows XP was released. All those broadband connections
though... :-/
Basicaly, the infracstructore now used for spamming and extortion
was allready there, but it was used more in a kind of hobbyist
hooligan way for DoS attacks against perceived "bad guys".
Regards
Jonas P Eckerman
> Makes sense, Brian. Still, the choice of what protocol/options to use
> for SMTP should be left to the subscriber and his or her ISP, not a
> bunch of self-appointed moralists.
Thing is, in this case the coice most likely *was* left to the
subscriber's ISP.
Spamhaus has no way to force the OPs ISP to require
authentication from their own subscribers.
The explanation Goodwin pasted from Spamhaus' site is meant for
people whose ISPs are using the PBL to block their own customers
from unauthenticated connections to their outgoing mail servers.
Storm
are the ones who told me I had to get delisted at Spamhaus. It had
nothing to do with being blacklisted by my own ISP (unless I'm
misunderstanding something here, which isn't unlikely). I don't think I
misunderstood Spamhaus' message: it was very brief and straightforward.
I don't remember the exact language, but they definitely said
something to the effect that the problem of being blacklisted due to the
authentication's being turned off only happened with non-Microsoft email
clients. T-Bird was the primary example they listed (I think the others
were mentioned parenthetically). Spamhaus offered no other explanations
before or after the delisting process, so there's nothing I can add to
what I originally reported. Also, to answer your inquiry, my ISP never
mentioned anything about my authentication's being turned off (which was
an accident, as I explained earlier).
Storm
once. This apparently allows fools like me who forgot to turn their
authentication back on to delist themselves. But, if someone is really
spamming, and they continue to spam from that IP, they will get
relisted, and they won't be able to delist it themselves again. Don't cry.
Storm
> On 27/02/2007 22:43, this hallowed ground was sullied by Storm, who
> deposited this steaming pile:
> > But for months, people were telling me my emails were going into their
> > Junk folders, and I didn't understand why
>
> This implies the mail WAS reaching the intended destinations, and for
> some reason the receiving CLIENTS were labeling them as spam.
>
> This is completely different from Spamhaus (or whomever else sees fit)
> to label them as spam!
set at different levels depending on client needs. Some of those levels
label email coming from blacklisted IP as spam, but don't prevent them
from coming through. \But that spam tag then triggers (I think) the
client's spam filter to send it to the Junk folder.
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> Andrew, you and Goodwin are making this _way_ too easy for me. As
> examples of the legitimacy and efficacy of entities such as Spamhaus,
> you cite those paragons of inefficiency and every stupid idea in the
> history of mankind --- the politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats in the
> US Federal Government and the commies and pollyannas at the ACLU.
Umm . . . 'commies'? 'pollyannas'? -- Huh?
<snip />
> To those of you who tout the Spamhaus (and others) mantra that Bayesian
> filtering alone is not enough for the spam being generated today, I say,
> "Prove it!"
<http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/WhyUseRules> (and, to a lesser extent,
<http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/PublicRules>).
See also <http://www.ii.com/internet/messaging/spam/>.
<snip />
> And so, as we fight these idiots (the spammers), let's keep in mind that
> government regulation, blacklisting and other ill-conceived ideas will
> not only be ineffective, but it will put the burden on the good guys
> (us), and will for the most part be circumvented by the creeps
> (spammers).
So (aside from not using WAB), how should the issue be dealt with?
/b.
<snip />
--
String quartets don't march very well.
--Donald Barthelme, /The Dead Father/
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> Make no mistake about it. If Microsoft tried to pull this crap, the
> Spamhaus aficionados around here would all be up in arms.
Methinks you're right on that point. . . .
/b.
goodwin
> goodwin <conn...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:Z--dnQOzXMHDm3rY...@mozilla.org:
>
>> On 3/1/2007 5:50 AM Christopher Jahn opined:
>>
>>> goodwin <conn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:t8ednbJ-wOPr7XvY...@mozilla.org:
>>>
>>>>> Since you can't be bothered to actually follow the
>>>>> conversation:
>>>>
>>>> no, I bothered to go and get the Spamhaus explanation and
>>>> posted it - seems a bit different from OP version.
>>>
>>> Perhaps it is, but the point is you were saying that "no one"
>>> had raised the issue being addressed, which is clearly
>>> incorrect since it was in the first message of this thread.
>>>
>>> Disingenuous of you to ignore that fact.
>>>
>> Sorry, I don't recollect saying anything like that - something
>> had to have been misread.
>
> Either you're stupid, or a liar.
that is uncalled for and unfounded and points out your own stupidity in
making that statement.
I in fact did not say what you say I did nor does the quote remotely
imply that.
>
> "see my op - wherever you got the above impression, it is
> incorrect."
>
> If you can't track a conversation, or understand your own
> messages, perhaps you should refrain from posting.
>
Perhaps you should refrain from mouthing off but seeing that you are a
comcast user, I can see why you get upset by rbls. You are in fact a
spam supporter.
Congrats!
Obviously, in your need to be a sock puppet for another anti "black"
list poster (your stupidity is again showing in referring to it as a
blacklist, but we won't go there), you are yourself misreading this
thread.
the full quoted msg. was
"On 2/28/2007 9:14 AM Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T opined:
> > Its not BS if the company said it was. In other words, if their set up
> > is that if it's posted by mozilla products and is unauthenticated they
> > will blackball it. That's their rules.
see my op - wherever you got the above impression, it is incorrect."
That response was referring to the implication that mozilla products
were being targeted. My reference in "see my op" was to my own post of
the Spamhaus wording of the problem (and another person obviously not
reading the entire thread /re-posted/ 30 mins later later) and I was
addressing Phillip directly.
When growing up, I was taught to never call anyone a thief or a liar
unless I could prove it.
You sir, have implied that, for reasons unknown, I may be lying and
there was no real call to think that, much less post it. I've been
posting in this group since '91-'92. I am used to the gentlemen that
have been around that whole time and am sad to say that you are not of
that fiber.
I am only sorry that I have wasted so much time responding to your
drivel and that it is really pissing up a rope explaining myself to your
ilk.
Enjoy the company of gwtc and garth in my killfile - maybe they can
teach you some manners.
Jonas P Eckerman
> It had
> nothing to do with being blacklisted by my own ISP (unless I'm
> misunderstanding something here, which isn't unlikely).
If turning on athentication helps, then it was your ISP that
blocked you from sending mail. The only mail server that knows
for sure whether you have authentication turned on or not is the
mail server your mail client connects to (normallt that is your
ISPs outgoing SMTP server).
> I don't remember the exact language, but they definitely said
> something to the effect that the problem of being blacklisted due to the
> authentication's being turned off only happened with non-Microsoft email
> clients.
Then I take it that the text Goodwin pasted in this thread was
*not* the same text as the one you read. Is that correct?
Since you didn't comment on Goodiwns messages, there was no way
to know wether that text was the same or not.
> Also, to answer your inquiry, my ISP never
> mentioned anything about my authentication's being turned off (which was
> an accident, as I explained earlier).
Did you tell your ISP that authentication was turned off?
Regards
Storm
know it was a factor when I contacted them. The only "text" I found in
Goodwin's posts was copied from my post, not from Spamhaus directly. And
you're wrong (again) about the ISP blocking me due to authentication
being turned off. The authentication issue only relates to how I got
into Spamhaus' blacklist. As a result of being on that list, my emails
were rejected outright of flagged as spam by spam-blocking software on
the RECIPIENT's servers.
Ron Lopshire
Of one thing I am absolutely sure. The issue _must_ be dealt with by
market forces, and not regulation and/or legislation by governments and
other authorities. I am not, of course, talking about malicious
spamming. Those harmed by such activity already have avenues of recourse.
One of the problems with UBE and other marketing spam is that there is
virtually no cost per message. Sending a 1000 messages costs no more
than sending 1. This is not true with junk snail mail which is why it is
really not much of a problem. Same with telphone calls. And Caller ID
and mobile phones, not government regulation, made telemarketing a moot
point. Again, IMO, market forces are the way to go.
Ron :)
Ron Lopshire
> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>
>>determine what is a /legitimate "smarthost" mail server/ ...
>
> Everybody is entitled to their opinion - agree or disagree?
Absolutely agree. Even in the face of all of the political correctness. [g]
Ron :)
Ron Lopshire
> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>
>>No, what I realize is that prior to anti-spam legislation in the US and
>>the EU member states, the ISPs did not care one iota about the spam
>
> Wich anti-spam legislation?
>
> IIUC, the US federal legislation makes spam perfectly legal as
> long as it is clearly marked as such (in the subject?), contains
> full information about thye sender, and is not fraudulent. Is
> this a misunderstanding on my part? I guess it's possible, even
> likely, that some states have a more strict anti-spam legislation
> than the union.
>
> Here in sweden we do not have anything I would call anti-spam
> legislation that I know of.
Here is an example.
http://www.hackwire.com/comments.php?catid=14&id=82
Again, I think that in the long run no legislation will be effective,
and will create more problems than such laws solve.
>>Actually, I am beginning to think that it is
>>in spite of such regulation and litigation.
>
> Me too...
>
>>Just 5 years ago, most of the spam that I received came from ISP email
>>addresses such as with Road Runner ISP accounts. Several dozen a day
>>from northcarolina.rr.com alone. When was the last time that you got
>>spam from a Road Runner address?
>
> Don't know. The only spam I've read the last month is backscatter
> from mail servers bouncing mail to unknown users (some spammer
> has recently started using my work address (and the address of
> the other sysadmin at the same location) as their forged
> sender.). I haven't bothered to read the received headers of the
> bounced mail.
>
> (Yes, we get way nore spam, but our filter works so I usually
> only scan the quarantine reports for misclassified stuff.)
Email bouncing is as big of a problem as spamming. That is why I would
never recommend _any_ anti-spam utility that includes an automatic
bouncing feature. Whether it is disabled by default, or not.
>>When the ISPs (out of fear, legal
>>threats, public pressure, whatever) shut these idiots down, the spammers
>>were in trouble, until ...
>
> ... the law abiding spammers started using their own mail servers
> and server farms (the criminal spammers were allready using open
> relays).
This is a really important point, Jonas. Not all spamming is malicious
or even criminal. Doesn't mean that we don't want to filter it. But
filtering by the recipient, not by ISPs or any other authority.
> The big legal spam servers were *big* spam sources until most
> mail systems stopped accepting their connections.
>
> The legal spam servers are still around of course, but with all
> the blacklists they are less effective than they were.
>
> The fact that most ISPs have anti-spam policies doesn't make it
> illegal or impossible to host big mailservers in order to send UBE.
Nor should it, IMHO. Just because I don't like most junk (snail) mail,
or telemarketers, does not mean that I want the government or any other
authority controlling them. I already whitelist my telephone calls with
caller ID.
>> Windows XP in the Home/SOHO market! Oh, happy
>>day! A few zillion unsecure boxes all hooked up to the internet with
>>broadband connections. And most being operated by clueless idiots.
>
> I don't think Windows XP was important in this. There were
> allrady lots of viruses and trojans targeting Windows 95/98
> before Windows XP was released. All those broadband connections
> though... :-/
>
> Basicaly, the infracstructore now used for spamming and extortion
> was allready there, but it was used more in a kind of hobbyist
> hooligan way for DoS attacks against perceived "bad guys".
The release of Windows XP into the Home/SOHO market was huge boost for
criminal activity. It has to do with all the XP services included and
enabled by default. And of course, the use of broadband.
Ron :)
Ron Lopshire
> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>
>>>The PBL has absolutely nothing to do with beeing labled as a
>>>spammer. It just means the IP address of the client is an
>>>end-user address and not a server address.
>
>>Sure it does. A perfect case of perception becoming reality. If Spamhaus
>>blacklists you, to the whole world you are a /spammer/ and not to be
>>trusted.
>
> Spamhaus' PBL is not a blacklist. It is a supposed to be a list
> of end-user IP address ranges preferably provided by the owners
> of said address ranges.
>
> In effect, the *owners* of those address ranges has hopefully
> said that connections from those addresses should not be trusted.
Unfortunately, the providers (ISP) of those addresses are quite often
not qualified to make such a determination.
In another NG, there has been some complaining about Earthlink bouncing
messages from such IP addresses. When someone gets a message back, and
it says that it is due some policy being violated, s/he has a tendency
to get a little upset. Particularly when spam (Spamhaus) is named as the
provider of such policy.
I have an Embarq DSL account. Fortunately, in May, Embarq is dropping
Earthlink as email for its subscribers. Life is too short to have to
deal with such idiots.
> Wether a significant majority of the address ranges in the PBL
> really are provided by the network owners or not is a separate
> matter. I have no idea as to the integrity of the list.
>
> Spamhaus *do* have blacklists that label adresses as spam
> sources, but the PBL doesn't.
>
> If a sysadmin uses Spamhaus' lists to reject connections to a
> mail server without understanding Spamhaus' technobabble, that
> sysadmin shouldn't (IMO) be a syasadmin. (Unfortunately, there
> are too many clueless sysadmins oth there (some sysadmins even
> rejected based on Blars (wich seems to have disappeared).)
You have hit the nail on the head, Jonas. The clueless idiots at most
ISPs. Those who don't understand how the Spamhaus service works, should
not implement it. And they sure as hell should not be giving their
subscribers mis-information about it.
> > The /whole world/ does not give a rat's ass about the
> > techno-babble.
>
> The "whole world" doesn't make deciscions about nor implement
> blocking strategies in mail servers.
>
> Those who does, really should care about trhe techno-babble.
>
> Personally I don't trust any external blacklist enough to use it
> as a sole reason for rejecting a mail message or connection.
I concur. There are just too many other options that work just as
effectively without all of the risks associated with blacklisting.
Ron :)
Ron Lopshire
> On 3/1/2007 7:43 AM Ron Lopshire opined:
>
>>goodwin wrote:
>>
>>>On 2/28/2007 5:21 PM Brian Heinrich opined:
>>>
>>>>quite as bad as blackholing or C/R, and possibly just marginally worse than
>>>>SPF (which is rapidly rising on my s*** list) . . . which isn't exactly
>>>>putting it in great company, y'know?
>
>>>where's that from?
>>
>>Huh? What the hell is a PBL? Or SBL?
>
> things black, white, or gray - the /user/ does that.
> The list makers attempt to point out the sources of spam and criminal
> acts - what you do with that info is your choice.
>
> And AFAIK, the "b" stands for block, /not/ black...
Of course. But using a list to block access _is_ a blacklist.
Ron :)
Ron Lopshire
The OP (Storm) has addressed this.
Ron :)
Ron Lopshire
The OP (Storm) has already addressed this. The problem, as I see it, is
the collaboration between Spamhaus and the clueless idiots (ISP
employees) who subscribe to its services. When you have a problem, and
your ISP's rep tells you that it is because your client does not adhere
to Spamhaus' policies, it _is_ Spamhaus' problem as well. Harry Truman
would think that both of them, Spamhaus and the ISPs who use them, are
/passing the buck/.
Ron :)
Ron Lopshire
> On 2007-03-01 08:36 (-0700 UTC), Ron Lopshire wrote:
>
>>Andrew, you and Goodwin are making this _way_ too easy for me. As
>>examples of the legitimacy and efficacy of entities such as Spamhaus,
>>you cite those paragons of inefficiency and every stupid idea in the
>>history of mankind --- the politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats in the
>>US Federal Government and the commies and pollyannas at the ACLU.
>
> Umm . . . 'commies'? 'pollyannas'? -- Huh?
As I said, I use the terms somewhat endearingly --- leftist leanings
with ideals for the most part developed through naivete. Kind of like
when I refer to one of my neocon, Republican friends as a /liberal,
commie weanie/ when he advocates salary caps for professional athletes.
"You liberal Democrats are all alike. You want wage and price
controls for everyone _except_ yourselves."
Nothing pisses off a conservative Republican more than calling him or
her a liberal Democrat. [g]
My point about the ACLU has to do with its leftist leanings. For
example, they are _very_ selective about who they think should have
freedom of speech, and who should not. For this reason, I take anything
that the ACLU advocates with a grain of salt.
I myself am a big fan of the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights and the
principles on which they were enacted. If you are looking for a _true_
defender of civil liberties, here is one.
The IJ, unlike the ACLU, believes that conservatives have civil rights
too. ;)
Since this has nothing to do with the OP's issue, and one can
_certainly_ see it getting out of hand, I have cross-posted this, w/ F/U
set, to mozilla.general.
Ron :)
Andrew DeFaria
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Ron Lopshire wrote:Absolutely agree.
And these self-appointed junior high school hall monitors will forever determine what is a /legitimate "smarthost" mail server/ ...Everybody is entitled to their opinion - agree or disagree?
Even in the face of all of the political correctness. [g]
Andrew DeFaria
Just for today, I will not sit in my living room all day in my underwear. Instead, I will move my computer into the bedroom.
Andrew DeFaria
The problem, as I see it, is the collaboration between Spamhaus and the clueless idiots (ISP employees) who subscribe to its services.
When you have a problem, and your ISP's rep tells you that it is because your client does not adhere to Spamhaus' policies, it _is_ Spamhaus' problem as well. Harry Truman would think that both of them, Spamhaus and the ISPs who use them, are /passing the buck/.
Andrew DeFaria
The release of Windows XP into the Home/SOHO market was huge boost for criminal activity. It has to do with all the XP services included and enabled by default. And of course, the use of broadband.
squaredancer
Eckerman to generate the following:? :
relates to anti-spamming under swedish law!
reg
squaredancer
> squaredancer wrote:
>
>> On 01/03/2007 06:42, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Peter Potamus
>> the Purple Hippo to generate the following:? :
>>
>>> Storm wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> seems pretty stoopid to me....
>> I am a spammer,
>> my IP is on the blacklist,
>> I go to the spamhaus URL (as show by Peter)
>> I read "delete your IP from the blacklist",
>> I delete my (spammer) IP from the blacklist as per instructions,
>> I can spam the world again!
>>
>> I'm so happy I could cry!
>>
>> reg
>>
> Hi, Reg: Actually, Spamhaus only allows a particular IP to be delisted
> once. This apparently allows fools like me who forgot to turn their
> authentication back on to delist themselves. But, if someone is really
> spamming, and they continue to spam from that IP, they will get
> relisted, and they won't be able to delist it themselves again. Don't cry.
>
suchlike! If I connect to my ISP direct (not via router) I get a
dynamic IP... so do I start being a happy spammer again??? please???
reg
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T
lying. IF I did so unintentionally pardons for doing so.
I was supposed to be saying (whether is come out that way or not) that
you had a mistaken impression. Which not calling one a liar, that
instead the way you perceived it and The way I perceived it were two
different ways.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9 Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 Gb, OSX.4.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Jahn
news:PZadneB6R9RQeXrY...@mozilla.org:
> Perhaps you should refrain from mouthing off but seeing that
> you are a comcast user, I can see why you get upset by rbls.
> You are in fact a spam supporter.
Wow, you are a mental midget, aren't you?
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
Maybe I'm here to start the unisex revolution.
Brian Heinrich
Interestinge. . . .
I would most respectfully incline to disagree; indeed, you've actually
provided at least part of the rationale for my disagreement: the costs
associated with (sending) spam are much lower than those associated with
commercial postal bulk mail and telemarketing.
Market forces often tend to be reactive, and I suspect you'll only see ISPs
take action -- and it /is/ the ISPs and others responsible for the
infrastructure of the 'Interweb' who'll need to take action on this -- when
the amount of spam being sent grows to the point where it threatens the very
infrastructure of the Interweb.
Personally, I wouldn't want to wait for that, because the underlying network
infrastructure is constantly being up-graded.
Part of the problem (or so it seems to me) is that ISPs tend to be in the
e-mail business only secondarily. I'm sure my ISP could care less that I've
moved most of my e-mail over to a proper e-mail service provider. And,
frankly, nearly half of the people with whom I correspond regularly have
e-mail accounts in some fashion not directly related to their ISPs.
As you've pointed out, dealing with spammers has tended to be reactive, and
I really can't see anything decisive happening till ISPs (and others
responsible for the infrastructure of the Interweb) decide to do something
proactive. . . .
IMO, of course. :-D
/b.
Lord Zoolook
>> On 2/28/2007 5:38 PM Lord Zoolook opined:
>>
>>> On 27/02/2007 22:43, this hallowed ground was sullied by Storm, who
>>> deposited this steaming pile:
>>>> But for months, people were telling me my emails were going into their
>>>> Junk folders, and I didn't understand why
>>> This implies the mail WAS reaching the intended destinations, and for
>>> some reason the receiving CLIENTS were labeling them as spam.
>>>
>>> This is completely different from Spamhaus (or whomever else sees fit)
>>> to label them as spam!
>> correct the wording -
>> Spamhaus doesn't label anything as spam - it is a list of spammers...
>
> Yes, and that is called a /blacklist/. And not everyone on that list is
> a spammer, the OP being a case in point.
>
> Ron :)
Point taken, replace SPAM with the phrase SENT FROM A POTENTIAL SOURCE
OF SPAM...
But the point I was making was that his mail was getting through, it was
just some setting (and probably on the recipients e-mail reader from
that statement) that labeled
1) the particular mail as a spam mail... OR
2) the sender of the mail as a known source of spam
The recipients ISP, whether they used spamhaus lists or not, allowed the
mail to be delivered.
Lord Zoolook
deposited this steaming pile:
> Actually, that's not quite accurate, since the ISP's spam filter can be
> set at different levels depending on client needs. Some of those levels
> label email coming from blacklisted IP as spam, but don't prevent them
> from coming through. \But that spam tag then triggers (I think) the
> client's spam filter to send it to the Junk folder.
Different levels of spam... Am I being too simplistic in assuming that a
total block on unwanted mail would make more sense then a "this might or
might not be spam... you decide..." attitude on the part of the ISP.
Surely they use spamhaus lists to take away the hassle of deciding that,
either on their part or the clients?
goodwin
>>
> I don't know where you got the mistaken impression I thought you were
> lying. IF I did so unintentionally pardons for doing so.
I don't know where you got the impression but I wasn't addressing you,
Phillip...
Ron Lopshire
As you correctly point out, the key is having the choice. And that means
not buying into the entitlement BS. Nowhere is it written in stone that
anyone has a /right/ to a spam-free existence. I myself have a higher
regard for the marketing/UBE spammers (other spamming is a different
matter, of course) than I do for many of those who claim to be fighting
spam.
As an aside, but germane to the OP, here is one area where the Moz
clients have always sucked. Using multiple, account-specific SMTP
setups. Even most of the help pages try to steer people away from doing so.
Quote: "Even if you have multiple mail or news accounts, you generally
need to specify only one outgoing (SMTP) server to handle the delivery
of your outgoing mail.
[...]
* Advanced: Click this option to set up additional outgoing SMTP
servers or to change the default SMTP server. Keep in mind that using
more than one SMTP server can cause errors in sending mail."
This is from the Netscape Help pages. The same sentiments are stated on
the TB SMTP settings applet (only recommended for advanced users). Only
two of my several POP3 accounts are with my ISPs, but it is generally
more convenient to just use one SMTP setup for all accounts.
And my point that anyone should be able to express one's opinion even in
the face of today's PC climate? There are tons of people who have been
persecuted and prosecuted for their /opinions/ all because it was
politically expedient to do so for the powers that be. But this is a
topic for another NG.
Ron :)
Ron Lopshire
> On 2007-03-02 09:07 (-0700 UTC), Ron Lopshire wrote:
>
>>Brian Heinrich wrote:
>>
>>>On 2007-03-01 08:36 (-0700 UTC), Ron Lopshire wrote:
>>>
>>>>And so, as we fight these idiots (the spammers), let's keep in mind that
>>>>government regulation, blacklisting and other ill-conceived ideas will
>>>>not only be ineffective, but it will put the burden on the good guys
>>>>(us), and will for the most part be circumvented by the creeps
>>>>(spammers).
>>>
>>>So (aside from not using WAB), how should the issue be dealt with?
>>
>>Of one thing I am absolutely sure. The issue _must_ be dealt with by
>>market forces, and not regulation and/or legislation by governments and
>>other authorities. I am not, of course, talking about malicious
>>spamming. Those harmed by such activity already have avenues of recourse.
>>
>>One of the problems with UBE and other marketing spam is that there is
>>virtually no cost per message. Sending a 1000 messages costs no more
>>than sending 1. This is not true with junk snail mail which is why it is
>>really not much of a problem. Same with telphone calls. And Caller ID
>>and mobile phones, not government regulation, made telemarketing a moot
>>point. Again, IMO, market forces are the way to go.
>
> provided at least part of the rationale for my disagreement: the costs
> associated with (sending) spam are much lower than those associated with
> commercial postal bulk mail and telemarketing.
>
> Market forces often tend to be reactive, and I suspect you'll only see ISPs
> take action -- and it /is/ the ISPs and others responsible for the
> infrastructure of the 'Interweb' who'll need to take action on this -- when
> the amount of spam being sent grows to the point where it threatens the very
> infrastructure of the Interweb.
>
> Personally, I wouldn't want to wait for that, because the underlying network
> infrastructure is constantly being up-graded.
>
> Part of the problem (or so it seems to me) is that ISPs tend to be in the
> e-mail business only secondarily. I'm sure my ISP could care less that I've
> moved most of my e-mail over to a proper e-mail service provider. And,
> frankly, nearly half of the people with whom I correspond regularly have
> e-mail accounts in some fashion not directly related to their ISPs.
>
> As you've pointed out, dealing with spammers has tended to be reactive, and
> I really can't see anything decisive happening till ISPs (and others
> responsible for the infrastructure of the Interweb) decide to do something
> proactive. . . .
Keep in mind that I am /only/ talking about marketing/UBE spam. The
malicious/criminal spam is an entirely different matter.
Even with a low cost per message, it is still expensive to set up and
maintain a server dedicated to spamming. And the only reason to do so,
of course, is that there is money in it. When the money goes away
(market forces), the spammer goes away. Is that going to happen?
Probably not. Certainly not entirely.
But then a top-down, centralized, pro-active approach would, IMHO, be
worse than the problem. All one has to do is look at the War on Drugs to
see how _not_ to attack a problem. Keep in mind that a camel is a horse
that was designed by a committee. [g] One-size-fits-all only works for
robber barons and other monopolistic enterprises.
And so I would rather handle this on my end (filtering), as I would
prefer to keep the choice of what I choose to get or not. Including what
some might consider spam. And again, if given the choice, market forces
will always provide me with an effective filter. Those who are whining
about spam can use Gmail and let Google wipe their noses for them. As I
remarked to Andrew, I myself have a higher regard for the marketing/UBE
spammers than I do for many of those who claim to be fighting spam.
Ron :)