Spam, ISPs, MAPS And Lawsuits 129
droleary writes: "Something of an update to this Slashdot article, a Yahoo News story reports that a number of large ISPs are caving in to a massive lawsuit brought by Harris Interactive regarding the delivery of their "online polls" (aka, spam, according to MAPS). I find it disturbing that large ISPs are so willing to let external agencies control what runs through their systems."
gotta love (Score:1)
Re:An idea for filtering spam (Score:1)
Re:Harris Poll is sort of spamish... (Score:2)
Thats one of the very reasons why we created sneakemail [sneakemail.com]
You may want to receive spam mail of some sort but want to have to option of stopping it even if they are too inept to stop it themselves, or dont care. It may be polls, jokes, product announcements, etc, all legit but sort of spammish. Sneakemail gives you this control.
Spam isn't the only form of shameful advertisement (Score:5)
Case in point, the "free" internet access programs. Netzero, in truth, uses a Java interface which forces the user to view a window slightly larger than a banner ad (which displays banner ads 24/7, fetching a new one each second). This window cannot be closed during connection. Essentially, this taints Netzero's claim of "free internet"; it should be "Free with a 7 second bandwidth cutoff every minute." The only free internet service that I would recommend was Worldspy. It used a Java client to interface with Dial-Up Networking, but could be easily configured to dial directly from a Dial-Up Networking window (and perhaps even with KPPP - no sloth-like Java shell!). This was good until Juno bought Worldspy.
What does this have to do with the story? (Moderators, pay attention.) These ISPs are allowing ad agencies to steal bandwidth from unsuspecting users who hate AOL, but don't want to pay for an analog modem connection. This is probably the first case of legalized e-extortion: letting the ads prevail. Doubleclick.net is one of the more prevalent banner-ad agencies.
There is a way you can shut out these banner ad sites for good! How? By tricking your web browser into mapping the DNS entries to localhost! To do this, find the "hosts" file (stuck in \windows\system or \winnt\system32; I don't know where for Linux). Simply place entries in like this:
When you go to pages which acquire banner ads from these sites, they will be replaced by either a "X" icon or a similar "Not Found" message (exactly the size of the banner ad!). This is a true sanity-saver and time-saver, even better than those cookie catcher programs.
Re:A suggestion for spam filters (Score:1)
Howcan they even sue??? (Score:1)
First, MAPS is a list and simply that... isn't that covered by freedom of speech... and since they have reasonable complaints against Harris, it's isn't libel... right??
Second, i thought that as an ISP, you were only responsible to your clients not to other hosts... if you don't want to let some data over your network, isn't that your perogative??? If the ISP's customers had sued complaining that their emails weren't getting through, then i could understand..but since harris isn't paying AOL (or MSN or whoever) how do they have the right to sue them???
11oh8...
When did (Score:2)
When did a network's owner/admin stop being able to control what goes over their own network? One of the basic precepts of the Internet is consentual peering. If one of the networks is producing a lot of garbage that the other peering partners don't want, they are fully within their rights to stop peering and/or filter.
Also, as has been pointed out, time and again, all that bandwidth used costs MONEY. Do the spammers like Harris (okay, maybe they're not QUITE malicious spammers, but they have very poorly run mailing lists and they DO have abuse complaints) have a right to dictate how a network allocates it's monetary/bandwidth resources?
I'm quite disappointed in Juno and Microsoft and fully intend on NEVER using their ISP's if I can at all avoid it.
Spam is like a COD (Collect on Delivery). Notice how FEW places accept COD's anymore. Save that SPAM would also cost the post office unrecoupable money as well.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Re:This is different than carnavore? (Score:1)
From the Harris press release (Score:5)
The original (and understandably biased) Harris Interactive press release which can be found at http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/index.asp?Ne wsID=127&HI_election=HarrisInterac tive [harrisinteractive.com] says:
Personally I think it's a perfect example of why the government should not create rules which govern Internet communications.
If it did we'd have technicalities causing the government to force us to pay for and eat spam day and night because some idiot corporation wants us to read it. MAPS on the other hand is a good example of the general population deciding whether they want to respect a certain organisation's judgement or not.
MAPS definitely has it's down side. If all the companies known to not use double opt-in were listed, nobody would use it. But that's also the strongest thing about it. If MAPS gets indiscriminite and lazy about listing organisations as spammers, nobody would use it.
===
Re:The ISP is not the right place to do it. (Score:1)
If you don't like what your ISP is doing re spam, complain to them, or vote with your feet. Let's keep the government off our backs, eh? And if you don't like what Harris is doing, they invite your questions or comments. Let them know how you feel, at 1-877-919-4765, or at info@harrisinteractive.com. Or you can chat with them live online, at: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/about/contactus.a sp
Re:The ISP is not the right place to do it. (Score:1)
Except it's probably against the law NOT to go if he's a minor...
Re:I get those Harris polls . . . (Score:1)
Unless you are requesting kiddie porn. The issue is how much worse is kiddie porn than Harris Polls?
this is different than carnavore? (Score:1)
Re:I get those Harris polls . . . (Score:1)
I never received any email from them unti. I opted in.
Then, a few months later, I decided I didn't wantr anymore, so I opted out via their webpage and I have not received any email from them since.
Re:Interesting Quote (Score:3)
> ISP's right to block incoming traffic to port 25 (MAPS blocking 23 known spam domains associated
> with "top web sites",), with some sort of censorship of traffic on port 80
>("By MAPS standards, 25 of the 25 web sites should be blocked")
The marketer knows the difference. He's just trusting that most of his readers won't.
Another case in point from the same guy - "23 of the top 25 web sites don't use the double opt-in".
The goal of the marketroid is to make "Hi. [IP address] signed you up. If that's really you, hit reply and verify that it was you" sound as inconvenient as possible.
Hence "double opt-in". There's no second opt-in, just a confirmation that's part of the single opt-in. But "double opt-in" sounds complicated and redundant.
To a marketroid, the goal is unverified opt-in, ("Hi! [Spam] To get more spam, hit reply! If you don't hit reply, we'll delete you from this list and opt you back in next week!") which is, as anyone with a mailbox knows, indistinguishable from opt-out: ("Hi. [Spam]. To get removed (and added to our sucker list), hit reply".)
Ever wonder why abortion rights advocates call themselves "pro-choice", not "pro-abortion"? Or why abortion rights opponents call themselves "pro-life", not "anti-abortion"?
Same shit, different smell.
If it comes out of a cow's ass, it's cowshit. If it comes out of a marketer's mouth, it's bullshit.
Same shit, same smell.
more whining (Score:2)
TANSTAAFL. They don't want to pay for dial-up, they should quit bitching. Since I left University, I've have to pay for net access, so why the fuck should these losers complain that their "free" access has to be paid for somehow?!
geez.
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
Re:I dunno (Score:1)
Re:An idea for filtering spam (Score:1)
self RBL'ing (Score:2)
What's so shameful about it? (Score:2)
All of these grant you a service in exchange for payment. For most of these services, the payment is in dollars. For NetZero & Co., the payment is in advertising you are forced to see when you use the service.
Sounds fair to me. In fact, for people who can't afford "regular" Net access, a business throwaway Pentium and NetZero sounds like an ideal way to get wired.
This is in contrast to spammers like Harris, who send you stuff without you asking for it and can't be made to stop even when you ask.
Re:gotta love (Score:1)
AFAIK, all DUL-listed netblocks are owned by ISPs that provide relay service, so it's not a big burden for you to use them. Or you can provide your own relay on some permanently connected box that you own.
If you want to yell at somebody about this, yell at the spammers who ruined it for you. And politely ask your congressman to bitch-slap them, too.
Re:Spam isn't the only form of shameful advertisem (Score:1)
(or something similar) works well except then you don't save any cookies.
eudas
Message to Harris Interactice (Score:2)
From: James O'Kane
To: danh@harrisinteractive.com
Cc: comments@mail-abuse.org
Subject: MAPS and RBL
Hi, please forward this to Dr. Black or as you see fit.
Sir.
Thank you for bringing MAPS and RBL to my attention. We have
looked it over and have decided to install this system on all of our
current running mail servers.
With a system that does not use an opt-in with confirmation,
anyone can find our addresses on the web and enter it into your system
forcing us to do extra work to remove ourselves. When Harris Interactive
comes out with a proposal to compensate us for that time, we will consider
uninstalling RBL.
I learned, while researching this, somethings that I should point out. The
term 'double opt-in' is different from the proper term 'opt-in with
confirmation'. One implies doing the work twice, the other, as the words
suggest, is asking for confirmation that you want to do this. There is a
difference. There is also a difference between blocking webpages and
blocking mail.
Thank you
James
President & CEO of Midnight Linux
I find it concerning too. (Score:2)
--
Not practicable if you are the mail-hub (Score:1)
In any case, our customers would be much MORE angry of they did not get important mail. So I think it is a good idea to let the end-user decide.
Re:Spam isn't the only form of shameful advertisem (Score:1)
Re:Spam isn't the only form of shameful advertisem (Score:1)
\windows
on windows9x;
\winnt\system32\drivers\etc
on winnt
and
/etc
on unix/linux.
Re:Hotmail (Score:1)
I filter on any *@hotmail.com account that dosn't come from their gateway server. (now MSN, I believe) same with yahoo, altavista, etc. If it dosn't come from their web interface, it's spam.
It's hard to spam efficiently USING the actual interface.
Spam, costs , law and about YOUR network (Score:3)
Generally I think one should be able to decide wether he is willing to accept it or not, if I decide not to want spam and therefor Im using MAPS, RBL or other stuff it my decision and if they get forced to remove certain sites from their list, I'll be forced to maintain a manual blocking list also - it will be more work for me but still the same effect. So, if the spamming lists get compromised by legal decisions, it will be time for an "Additional Open Source Spamming List" as an addon.
Re:gotta love (Score:1)
No, *you* stop using it. Then I won't have a problem. There's stuff-all I can do apart from bitch about it, isn't there?
So glad you've never had a false positive; unfortunately those of us who use our own MTAs on dialup IP#s -because we can- have had plenty enough bounces not to bother resending any other way.
~Tim
--
Wimpy ISPs (Score:2)
"I find it disturbing that large ISPs are so willing to let external agencies control what runs through their systems."
Is there a listing or rating on how close to a wet noodle a particular IPS's backbone is? Is someone like the EFF doing a freedom friendly isp list? Why should ISPs fight back if no one pays attention.
Probably a "lameness filter" of some sort (Score:2)
Slashdot seems to have a couple of lameness filters aimed at preventing people from screwing up the page layout with extremely long lines. From what I can tell, very long lines are broken with whitespace at some fixed length. The threshold seems to be around 127 characters, but I could be wrong. (I haven't downloaded and looked at the Slashcode.)
I've occasionally run up against this filter when I try to make a "table" of some sort using 's inside a <TT> block. Slashdot will insert a space at a nearly-arbitrary point in the line (usually landing inside one of the 's, resulting in a real ugly mess). Annoying, to be sure, but far less annoying than having Slashdot render at 3x the total width of the screen.
It seems like there should be a better answer, but I'm at a loss as to what that might be. At the very least, the lameness filter should insert spaces outside of tags, since it seems to be regularly breaking URLs.
--Joe--
Why you are wrong, and what MAPS and Harris did... (Score:1)
I agree. Let's have your ISP censor your content by themselves. Having 50,000 unwatched small companies deciding on filtering standards is much better then one publicly-watched one. And much more effective against rapidly changing open SMTP relays.
Let me start by saying that MAPS is a required evil for dueling spammers. While I do not like what they do, the simple fact is that you need a service like this.
The thing I find disturbing is that MAPS can be so obviously wrong. MAPS is a very powerful regulating and filtering authority for email, and their human-contact protocols for filtering spam are top-notch and well-intentioned. If MAPS did not exist, you would be getting 100,000 spam messages per useful one.
MAPS is specifically designed to establish human contact quickly to prevent any people who are not spamming from being added to a RBL. MAPS is very good at making sure postmasters and sysops know that they are being added to an RBL, and telling them why.
The fact that they can be so obviously wrong about spam shows that something has happened at MAPS's organizational and response level that prevented them from improperly filtering out someone.
Either that, or the suits who run Harris poll need to answer their god-damn email and fix the problem. I find that possibility much more likely.
Re:gotta love (Score:2)
Choice of two evils, I think. MAPS have several projects in which they're involved, including the DUL which is the worst piece of half-baked crap for valid (non-spam) emails I've ever seen, but the other approaches are at least generally a step in the right direction.
I've had so much shit from Harris before now, I've even reported it with aforementioned spamcop after complaints to harris failed to have any effect... in the end, I stuck a quick procmail rule in force to forward all their crap straight back where it came from.
Harris must lose. They must die. And then something really bad should happen to them.
~Tim
--
Hotmail (Score:1)
Re:I dunno (Score:1)
I guess my view comes down to this: When they signed up for Hotmail, did they check a box saying they wanted to receive these mailings or did they fail to uncheck a box?
If it's the former, I hardly think it's "spam" to send them a mailing. If the latter, I don't recognize that as "opt-in" in the first place. Maybe I'm just giving them too much credit for the permission they did supposedly solicit.
Nonetheless, maybe there should be some middle-ground terminology for mailings that aren't as properly solicited as they ought to have been that distinguishes them from 6 identical copies of a "Make Money Fast" letter with forged headers and a misleading subject line sent through an open mailer in Chad.
---------
Re:This is different than carnavore? (Score:2)
Wrong. The mail server usually determines whether a piece of mail is going to be spam before it even finds out who the message is addressed to or what its content is - that information is never even sent; the mail server generates an error as soon as the spammer's mail server establishes a connection.
Also, all mail is logged anyway. I have a pretty basic Sendmail configuration, and it logs every piece of mail that gets delivered, including who it's from, who it's to, the IP address of the server it's coming from or going to. Spam filters like these certainly don't need any more information than that to work with.
Sure now it's a list of "Known Mail Abuse IP's" but what happens when a list of "Known Drug trafficker IP's" or "Known Cyber-Terrorist IP's"
If someone wants to compile such a list, great. It's a free country (sort of). MAPS has the right to compile a list of IP addresses of known spammers. All MAPS is doing is making the list available; they're not touching your mail at all.
--
Re:Additional (Score:1)
----
Re:Spam isn't the only form of shameful advertisem (Score:1)
Note: Tried rebooting after the file change. Neither Netscape nor IE seemed to notice the file.
Re:I dunno (Score:1)
On the other hand, it seems to me that MAPS went overboard in claiming that the failure to use double opt-in creates the status of spam that should be blocked. Who uses double opt-in? It definitely sounds like they're applying a double standard to Harris, and acting out some grudge against the company.
Double opt-in is a name spammers use to refer to the practice of requiring a confirmationg e-mail to confirm that the person who signed up for the list actually receives mail at that address. That is, someone types an e-mail address into a web form, but they are only added to the list once they reply to a confirmation e-mail. This prevents people from signing other people up for e-mail lists.
Re:When did (Score:1)
Re:The ISP is not the right place to do it. (Score:3)
23 of the top 25 web sites (Score:2)
Re:Additional (Score:2)
Faulty wiring in a washing machine, don't buy it or you'll zap yourself. Email from a known spammer? Filter it.
---
Right. But if you buy a few duds from a given manufacturer, you'll quite often never buy from that manufacturer again. If I get a lot of spam from a certain provider, it's my right to never receive their email again.
Filters are a half-assed solution to spam anyhow. My bandwidth and CPU time is still being eaten away. When you report spam (or report something to MAPS), there's nothing stopping a given ISP from still doing what they want. MAPS just provides a tool that you can choose to use or not use - basically using the experience of others as an easy way to sample to 'product' of a whole bunch of ISPs.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Spam isn't the only form of shameful advertisem (Score:2)
Netzero, in truth, uses a Java interface which forces the user to...
---
There is where your complaint falls flat. They're not forcing anyone to do anything. It's basically whole point. If a user wants a quality ISP, they'll go elsewhere. If they're cheap, they'll go through these guys.
It's not like anyone is forced to give money to them. If it's too annoying, you just stop using it.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:I get those Harris polls . . . (Score:1)
Just a mo, that means it cannot be opt in , as *****YOU***** would not have opted in!
Starting to understand yet?
F
Connect costs (Score:1)
spamming out spam (Score:1)
in this hayday of lawsuits though, is it a wise thing. assume that you are the mail admin of an ISP and you put a spam filter on all incoming mail. sounds good.
one of your users gets some pedo file from a subscribed to list and gets caught. the lawyer for said person finds out that you filter spam. thw lawyer then points out that the ISP could have filtered out the pedo files from those email, but chose not to. forget the cost involved of putting in a machine that filters jpgs of certain titles (or even crazier, filters on content filtered by some other strange contstraints), you are shown to be a non-carrier, and are thus shown to be acceptible of pr0n of children but not of get rich schemes.
at that point, the lawyer might take this a bit further and go to town and get the perv off (from a guilty verdict).
remembering, offering only transport gives your company the ability to say "what our users do is their own business".
The correct URL... (Score:4)
b&
Re:The ISP is not the right place to do it. (Score:1)
Still, at least we can do something about it (hits "Block Sender".) I wonder how long it'll take Harris to realise *that* exists?
Guess who's getting pride of place in my upcoming site, under the "CULPRITS" section? I wonder.
Broken Link (Score:1)
Re:An idea for filtering spam (Score:1)
TA (I wonder why my postings show up as AC lately, I'm really TA)
Re:No, I've never heard of /etc/hosts. (Score:1)
Re:Confusion and misunderstandings (Score:2)
This is just one part of MAPS operations. One of their other lists, the DUL, can certainly be described as "trigger happy". As well as the result of someone failing to read RFC974 thus pulling the idea out of the air that using a third party relay is not only "legitimate" but should be the prefered way to function (even for users of fully internet standard software.)
Re:RTBL/MAPS is optional. (Score:1)
Err.. My ISP states it up front when you sign up. In addition to that, you can also ask your ISP... They will usually answer you, unless they have something to hide, in which case you don't want them anyway.
Interesting Quote (Score:5)
In my opinion, yeah 23 of the top 25 web sites should be blocked from sending me e-mail. I'm sick of automatically getting a bunch of crap from web sites that I don't even frequent.
But if you look at the quote, he's not saying that at all. He's talking about blocking web sites, which of course, MAPS isn't about at all. I'm glad all those big corporations are cowering to such genius.
The ISP is not the right place to do it. (Score:1)
Re:The correct URL... (Score:1)
Re:An idea for filtering spam (Score:2)
The only way to do this is get rid of relaying i.e. insist on everthing following rfc974 (except where there is very good reason not to. Not being bothered to write a few lines of code is a very poor reason.)
With maps we have the almost contradictory "non ISP relay bad", "ISP provided relay good". Unless ISP's insist of customers proving who they are, then an ISP provided relay machine is little better than a random open relay machine.
Re:An idea for filtering spam (Score:2)
If they are using a relay, especially one which allows a large number of RCPT entries they will most likely have gone before anyone can realise what they are up to.
An idea for filtering spam (Score:3)
Here at where I work [ultraspeed.co.uk] I'm trying to get them to add auto-filteration of spam for those who want it. (We already use MAPS and RBL). Basically it'll go through and if it's suspected to be spam, it'll add 'SPAM:' to the beginning of the Subject line in the email. On the user's end they can just set up filters to move all mail that have 'SPAM:' in their subject line to the trash.
This is something that all ISPs and web hosting companies should do besides just using RBL and MAPS.
Re:I get those Harris polls . . . (Score:1)
If it makes you feel Big and Important then do what you like. As I have already pointed out, opting out is exceedingly easy. Og course, you'll need to obtain my email address first. Here, use puppet@dial.pipex.com if you like.
"Just a mo, that means it cannot be opt in , as *****YOU***** would not have opted in! "
Wrong again, Fishy. It is "opt-in" because a request is made toi be added to the list (rather than Harris buying mailing lists and requiring you to specifically opt-out - a request to oipt in has to be made).
What YOU are thinking of is Double-Opt-In where I opt-in and get an email confirming myt request, which I need to acknowledge before I am actually opted-in.
Yes, I agree double-opt-in would be a better approach, but the fact remains Harris is opt-in (albeit single-opt-in).
"Starting to understand yet? "
Good question. Well, are you?
Harris Poll is sort of spamish... (Score:5)
To unsubscribe seems pretty simple, click on a link, enter your email address on some web page, hit "ok". Too bad it doesn't work right... it took me 6 or seven tries over a period of 6 months to get off their damn mailing list. I tried contacting humans over at harrispollonline.com, but never received a single response.
In the end, I was only partially successful.
I don't get any more invites to participate in Harris Polls, but I still get their damn Harris Poll Newsletter. I don't want to deal with this anymore, so I just filter all their stuff now.
Moral of this story: Harris Poll may not be Spam, but the mailing list is poorly run. Poorly run mailinglists deserve to get blocked until they fix the problem. If they don't suffer the consequences of getting blocked, then they will never fix the problem. Tough shit for them.
Re:I get those Harris polls . . . (Score:1)
Depending upon how far you want to take your paranoia, Mr AC, any company using double-opt-in could easily claim that they got a request and a confirmation - prove you did not send the email.
See? Isn't paranoia fun!
Re:The correct URL... (Score:1)
A suggestion for spam filters (Score:2)
remove\.html|for full details|huge savings|act now| mlm[^a-z]|works!|here.s how:|here.s how [^I]|remove[0-9-]*@|order now|now revealed|chain letter|100% guaranteed|money back|like to order|easy to order| to order.*free|age.* to order|year.* to order|for detailed information|free copy|special offer|cost\?|To be removed|absolutely free|no risk involved|absolutely no risk|with no risk|entrepreneur|added bonus|extra income|don.t delay|[^e]send check|money-order|dear sir|1-[89]00|Visa|under 18[,. ]
Re:Confusion and misunderstandings (Score:1)
Re:Confusion and misunderstandings (Score:1)
The DUL is one of those things that I'm not totally happy with (mainly because I do generally email direct-to-MX), but I can see their reasoning - a large amount of spam is sent via this method, instead of people using their ISPs smarthosts. Most people these days will just use Outlook/whatever to send to their smarthost.
Like I said, I don't especially like it, but I can appreciate the logic. It's explained somewhat better on the website.
Re:An idea for filtering spam (Score:2)
Only with a subscription based ISP who has some way to identify the customer. Otherwise the best they might have is a telephone number. It's quite possible for a customer account to contain plusable, but bogus, information.
Re:A suggestion for spam filters (Score:2)
My ISP provider DOES BLOCK my email (Score:1)
Confusion and misunderstandings (Score:5)
The Realtime Blackhole List is simply a list of IPs that have sent spam (or host spamware sites), and whose owners have refused to do anything about it. MAPS isn't "trigger happy" - in fact, many spam fighters wish they were faster, even if we can see why they aren't.
MAPS itself doesn't block anything. ISPs that subscribe to one or more of the various lists will generally just refuse connections from IPs listed in the RBL. There's no "erasing" of email going on - the sender gets a message saying that it was refused, so they can deal with it. If they don't, their ISPs mail server is seriously broken.
If you don't like the idea of an ISP filtering email for you, even based on the fact that anything in the RBL is almost certain to be junk mail, then talk to your ISP and see if they'll make an exception for you. Trying to get MAPS closed down is a stupid reaction.
Harris' suit is also a stupid reaction. They may or may not succeed in bullying companies to override the RBL on their servers, but the longer this goes on, the more filters (private and otherwise) they're being placed in. They're already in mine, for example, and they're not coming out. Ever. I'm a lot less forgiving than the RBL.
Hope this reduces the mess, anyway, so we get a somewhat more intelligent collection of articles than we did last time this came up.
Re:Spam isn't the only form of shameful advertisem (Score:1)
Re:The correct URL... (Score:1)
Now grow up.
Re:A suggestion for spam filters (Score:1)
Make money fast selling credit card merchant accounts to young shaving teens via our innovative network marketing program, while losing weight and earning a degree from a prestigious offshore institution of higher learning at the same time!
This post is in accordance with s.b. 1618. To be removed, email president@whitehouse.com. This cannot be considered spam because there's a remove address.
yields
Results
Total spam score: 16466
Word count: 60
Spam Quotient: 274.43
It is almost certain that this message is a spam.
I wonder what the max score is. Are the scripts wf & bc available?
Re:Spam isn't the only form of shameful advertisem (Score:1)
wc -l
hmmm. . . maybe I should start an underground hostz trading site.
www.ultimatehostz2000t150.ce.org
Non-Intrusive filtering. (Score:2)
Actually, ISPs do not have to check your mail at all. I am the de de facto abuse dept. for a small Canadian ISP (18,000 users or so) and I can tell you exactly how I go about dealing with spam, which, from talking to other sysadmins for other ISPs, is almost standard.
- check the abuse mail account (or postmaster if there is no abuse account)
-
respond to client complaints, requesting the full mail (headers intact) be sent to you for analysis.
-
If the mail address is legitimate, deal directly with the spammer, failing that, talk to their ISP/carrier, inform the relevant party that you have received complaints, forwarding the SPAM if relevant.
-
If no action is taken by the other side, filter them, by address, domain, or net bloack, selecting the option that will have the least impact on your clients
Simple, and non-intrusive.As to MAPS, while my ISP does not use the service, I'm all for any agency that helps pin down people who insist on harassing users. Some tools tend to be annoying to work with (Spamcop can be annoying to deal with since sometimes I'll get mail that has nothing to do with us directly...) while others can be very useful (MAPS, RBL, ORBS) and transparent, as far as the end-user is concerned. Hell, reporting open-relays that are spamming my clients sometimes makes me grin, and the clients get what they want: less spam.
I personally think that Harris, by engaging in tis legal action, is potentially damaging something that helps keep the customer satisfied.
MAPS and Censorware (Score:1)
Re:Spam isn't the only form of shameful advertisem (Score:2)
It's in /etc/hosts under Linux.
--
Woop! (Score:1)
I did. Just this week.
If Windows gives you headaches, don't use it.
Well... duh.
If you don't enjoy school, don't go.
Fine advice, depending on where you are in school. Up to a point, what you're advocating is illegal, but after that... sure, go for it!
(Still trying to think what the problem is with being "the kind of person who thinks... if windows gives you headaches, don't use it.")
!
---
Re:I get those Harris polls . . . (Score:1)
but the harris lists are not opt in, thats the whole point!
If you disagree with the policies of your ISP you can leave, thats called freedom of choice.
Harris want to destroy this, as it wants to be removed from the list, which means that every user with every type of filtering (both user defined at the ISP, and full ISP filtering) get no choice at all.
The whole point is choice, and Harris want to make sure you don't get one.
Yet again, bend over and enjoy the big biz internet.
F
Why block email? Just mark it! (Score:3)
TCPREMOTEIP=`/usr/local/bin/origip.pl || echo 127.0.0.1`
:0 /usr/local/bin/rblcheck -q "$TCPREMOTEIP";
:0 fwh
:0
* ! ? if [ -n "$TCPREMOTEIP" ]; then
fi
{
SUBJECT=`formail -zx Subject: || echo "no subject"`
| formail -I "Subject: SPAM: ${SUBJECT}"
}
${DEFAULT}
Re:The ISP is not the right place to do it. (Score:1)
I love this one... (Score:3)
Now they know how it feels when I have to sort through hundreds of "SELL YOUR PRODUCTS ON THE INTERNET!" spams.
Rather than take responsibility for the time they are wasting and the money they are costing us (and spam DOES cost you money -- whether you realize it or not), they would rather place the burden on you, the consumer.
Re:RTBL/MAPS is optional. (Score:1)
Don't like to filter? Then don't, your choice. If you don't like the fact your ISP uses the RBL, then change. It's that easy.
Dave
Re:Spam isn't the only form of shameful advertisem (Score:1)
there's are also proxy ad blocking software. Much more flexible than fake DNS entries. Can block a regular expression, so you can say block ads*.com. If you're interested, check out http://www.junkbusters.com [junkbusters.com]
Just realize that a lot of sites pay for bandwidth with advertising dollars. Not a moral thing, just a practical one. Do you wanna kill a site you visit?
Re:This is different than carnavore? (Score:1)
Re:Spam isn't the only form of shameful advertisem (Score:1)
time to DDOS harris (Score:2)
Having said that, fuck Harris. Someone make a client that attacks Harris with HTTP requests and let's get everyone to just run it. Enough is enough. As long as we make a DDOS client that is no more illegal or unethical than the way Harris does business we should be well in the clear.
They want less rules on the internet? They want ISPs to sit back and do nothing when people are fucking around? Good. It works both ways.
sig:
I enjoy taking Harris polls (Score:1)
Re:Hotmail (Score:1)
That gets about a third of my spam. I'm probably going to have to add overseas domains, but this works for now.
Re:From the Harris press release (Score:2)
I agree. I think what Harris seem to have misunderstood is that ISPs and mail admins have a choice as to whether they pull the MAPS list or not, and can always negate certain hosts if there is a requirement to receive mail from a certain company that MAPS has listed. My personal take on this is that this is another example of an organisation just not getting it when it comes to the Internet.
Ahhhh... I long for a return to the days where archie and gopher were cool, running a full Usenet feed wouldn't mean you'd be breaking several laws no matter where you were in the world and the content was interesting... I say we shoot all the guys on the net who can't explain how a subnet mask is actually used (complete with explanation of bitwise AND operations). Yes, that means you.
I get those Harris polls . . . (Score:3)
But I would be pretty annoyed if my ISP blocked those emails. If I can't get email I request, then my ISP is not providing the service I'm paying for.
An ISP should not apply the MAPS blocking list to any user who hasn't requested it -- you should have to opt-in, just like for the emails.
Re:The ISP is not the right place to do it. (Score:1)
Re:The correct URL... (Score:1)
Re:gotta love (Score:2)
The assumption behind the DUL appears to be that everyone runs Windows (or at least uses software which uses the same hack for sending email).
Self evidently the "inventor" never took the time to actually read the standards.
One hand is trying to get rid of relays, another hand is insisting that they be used...
Re:The ISP is not the right place to do it. (Score:3)
Additional (Score:5)
http://mail-abuse.org/pressreleases/2000-09-08.
Good chunks:
. "They insist on using dirty email lists, which contain the email addresses of people who do not want to receive their email, and who did not themselves sign up to receive email from Harris".
Ahh - so they are buying internet lists and sending them to people. Now thats not even single opt-in. Ok so thats a BIG problem. I dont want my e-mail address reaped just because I posted to slashdot once.
Another good snippet:
We are absolutely fine with Hotmail and AOL deciding to let Harris email enter their system" continued Thompson. "In fact this is how our system was designed to work, and it confirms our position in this lawsuit! MAPS does not dictate policy to anybody - we simply publish a list of Internet addresses known to originate or enable spam - what the individual Internet service providers ("ISPs")choose do with that information is up to them. They can choose to block email from those addresses, or, as AOL and Hotmail have done, they can choose to accept it. Perhaps now that Harris sees that MAPS does not control whether their email is accepted or rejected by the ISPs, they will realize that suing us makes very little sense indeed. We are entitled to publish our opinion, and in fact are guaranteed a right to do so by the First Amendment."
-- Thats right, *I* choose what I want to accept on my mail system, and I trust maps to be an introducer of what I want (or do not want) to receive. And yes I can choose to accept mail from RBL'd sites, but I would not want someone to force me to accept their mail. That smacks too much of losing my rights.
If I dont want to listen to what someone has to say, why should I be forced to? If i dont want someone to send me files that fill up *my* disk, take cpu resources, why should I have to?
I think maps is great in what they do, and I hope they win,
Harris already lost their request of a Temporary restraining order agains maps, and I hope its the first of a long line of losses against them. Link:
http://mail-abuse.org/pressreleases/2000-08-08.
You can show your support for maps by
mailing comments@mail-abuse.org (see http://www.mail-abuse.org) for info.
I think maps is doing a GREAT service, and I hope Paul and Nick, and the others keep fighting and dont give in.
-- C
Harris = Spam (Score:2)
"Nearly half of the Harris Poll participants are registered when they sign up for Hotmail, for instance. They have to opt out in order to be removed from its e-mail lists.
The Mail Abuse Prevention System, known as MAPS, has done a good job keeping trollish garbage like this off of mail servers, and they should consinue without altering their practices. Harris has a home page [harrisinteractive.com] that claims they are the leader in "internet market research". If it looks like Spam, and it walks like Spam, it's Spam.
On the other hand, Opensurvey.org [opensurvey.org] has already gotten in bed with Harris.
Re:I dunno (Score:2)