On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 05:52, Thomas Cameron wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alan Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 7:39 PM > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Moved into the ex-ip of a spammer > > > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 07:02:45PM -0500, Thomas Cameron wrote: > > > Good luck. SPEWS completely sucks - I have a client in a very similar > > > situation, and my requests on news.admin.net-abuse.email only got me > called > > > all kinds of nasty names. The gist of the responses I got was "If you > do > > > business with an ISP that allows spam, allowed spam, or had anything to > do > > > in any way, shape or form with a spammer, then screw you - you've gotten > > > what you deserve." > > > > > > > While I have no doubt that you got called all sorts of nasty names on > n.a.n.e, > > your characterization of how SPEWS operates is completely inaccurate and I > > suspect deliberately disingenous. > > Um, which description was that? I don't see *any* description of SPEWS > other than my *opinion* that it sucks. You actually help make my case - you > are a SPEWS supporter and you call me a liar (and it's "disingenuous") for > no reason. > > > SPEWS is NOT a list of spammers. It is a > > partial and flexible list of address space assigned to ISP's who support > > spammers. > > Yeah, and every customer of those ISPs - even those customers who don't > spam. Customers are not in the technology business and have never heard of > SPEWS or DNSBLs so didn't know that they could/should check. So those > well-intentioned folks who are getting service from names they typically > would trust (SBC in my client's case) only find out about SPEWS when their > e-mail starts bouncing. The net result is that a lot of innocent people are > having their e-mail and therefore their business interfered with because of > SPEWS inflexibility.
If the customers business is dependent upon the internet, then it's reckless of them to operate without having someone who knows what they're doing. I totally disagree with the innocent victim bit. Sure they're innocent until they find out, but as soon as they become aware they're on a spamhaven ISP their next payment makes them a willing spam supporter not an innocent victim. SBC. Grr, I feel a rant coming on! > > SPEWS initially lists the IP addresses used by spammers. If their > complaints > > to the ISP go unanswered, then, over time, those listings expand. If an > ISP is > > particularly unresponsive or is actively hosting a great number of > spammers, > > that listing will eventually expand to cover the entire ISP. The punitive > > nature of this listing seems to be deliberate (although no one who is > SPEWS > > has ever admitted to it or really described how exactly they operate). > > Exactly - no matter how many times you call it "flexible," SPEWS is not. > There is no way to appeal a listing. Hell, there's no way to contact anyone > at SPEWS. That's BS. > There's also a good reason for that. Spammers are too good at throwing lawsuits around, SPEWS doesn't want to get litigated to pieces. Don't blame SPEWS for that, blame the litigation-happy culture in the USA for effectively giving them no choice. As I tried to state earlier, I think SPEWS would actually work better if they could do so in the open, but unfortunately they can't > > It does rather suck for the non-spamming customers of the ISP's who are > > actively assisting in network abuse. > > "Rather suck?!?!" Good Lord, there is enough working against the small > businesses who use services like SBC DSL without the idiots at SPEWS jacking > with their e-mail flow. I have tried unsuccessfully to explain the concept > of "reasonable" on that list and just been insulted over it. It is not > reasonable to expect the owner of a small non-tech company to even know that > there is such a thing as SPEWS. It is a fairly small company, and he's just > a regular guy with a mortgage and kids to feed. He needs every financial > break he can get, so he signs a long term contract with a well-known company > (SBC) to get a price break on commercial DSL. He has me set up a Linux web > and mail server for him to save on licensing dollars. The Linux box is > tight, no open relay or anything. They get a new client and can't > communicate with that client via e-mail because SPEWS lists an entire /24 > subnet even though the ISP has it carved into /29s. So my client gets > dinged, and can't do anything about it. The contract he signed with SBC > guarantees connection to their border, so there is no way to terminate the > contract. My client is screwed. > The alternative would be thousands of people blocking all of SBC, and your client would still be screwed. Even if SBC cleaned up their act they'd be blocked in so many places they'd never get out of them all. Your client bought a lemon, it happens. Has it occurred to you that the users of SPEWS are doing exactly the same thing as SBC themselves? i.e. ignoring SBC customers. Why don't you smarthost his mail for him? If he really mattered to you, you could get him out of it in a second. > > However, for the rest of the Internet it > > works very well and is the only active tool that is forcing ISP's to stop > > taking spammer money. As long as it continues to work, I'm happy to > support > > SPEWS. Lesser measures have failed to be effective. > > It doesn't work - SBC doesn't give a damn about SPEWS - I've sent over a > dozen e-mails and made countless calls to various customer service and abuse > contacts. They just don't respond. So your lofty SPEWS doesn't hurt the > ISP, doesn't hurt the spammers, but hurts the little guy trying to make a > living. > > That's just plain wrong. > > Thomas > Please also consider that your client is paying money to a company to buy bandwidth from them. The more people like your client that company takes on board the more quantity they can buy their connectivity in, and the more connectivity they can sell to spammers. Your client is knowingly subsidising the crap that ends up in my inbox, that's just plain wrong too! And SBC will continue to not give a damn as long as people are prepared to continue to shoot the messenger instead of addressing the problem. Just to put the whole thing back in perspective, the last spam I saw from SBC was attempting twice a day to sell generic v??gra to a 10 year old girl (my daughter). Of course, any company which ignores its legitimate customers has no problem ignoring my complaints. Being knowingly involved in the supply of a class B substance and attempts to supply a class B substance to a minor, that'd be good for about 20 years imprisonment here (hard time?:)). SPEWS spoils some people's ability to send email but nobody actually dies. Drugs kill people. Keep it in perspective. SBC is the one subject that gets me all worked up. There are only 2 places in the whole world that get denied at the MTA here and SBC is the only one of them that got there by spam. My feelings for them cannot be expressed without spilling blood. I'm going to shut up now before I start sounding like a raging nanae-ite :) -- Yorkshire Dave -- Scanned by MailScanner at wot.no-ip.com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
