Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam

MAPS Sued Again 133

Posted by Hemos from the bad-legal-attacks dept.
A reader writes: " Following the third lawsuit against it in as many months, and in response to unsolicited donations having been "pouring in" (their words), MAPS yesterday announced that they've set up a MAPS Legal Defense Fund. Being as the prior two parties settled their differences with MAPS before the matters actually got to trial, maybe this will be the one MAPS says they've been waiting for in order to establish the legal righteousness of their position. Or not."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MAPS Sued Again More

MAPS Sued Again

Comments Filter:

  • I'm not a big RBL fan... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    As someone alluded to before, RBL isn't always opt-in for everyone.

    I definitely think that the case has no merit.

    However, I don't agree with all their blocking rules. For instance, the way they blackhole anyone who runs an open SMTP server, even if it's not being used for spamming, or has spam filtering built in. And since it is a blackhole, the end user doesn't get to choose what gets seen or not seen. Whole network regions can get cut off because the mail isn't being relayed.

    RBL is too proactive and too loose with their blackholing. They block spam and mail alike from offending IPs.

    I think RBL should offer several levels of blocking, minimally, if they are to use their current criteria. Further, I think the best solution is client-side filtering.

    I hate spam, but I fear the rabid anti-spam crowd more--with their desire to get government involved. I can handle spam, I can't handle lawyers and Feds prying into my servers.

  • WARNING! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I originally submitted that story. And I quickly followed it with a re-submission containing the additional line:
    Pay attention: the "Black Ice" suing MAPS is not related to the folks who make "BlackICE Defender", the MS-Windows IDS software!

    Before somebody goes off flaming the wrong people.

  • A simular view (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    In reading the news about the lawsuit, i think that MAPS might loose. My reasons are the following: 1) MAPS has targeted the seller of the spamware, Not the user. 2) The Spamware company has a right to make money 3) The Spamware company has been " badmouth " by MAPS 4) The spamware company has not violated the rules of MAPS ( they are not spamming ) I think that this suit will look like a gun manufacture lawsuit. Where people try to take to court the manufacture not the people that use the gun -Michael

  • You've almost got it right. Instead of providing a per-account option, an ISP should advertise whether it uses the MAPS RBL. The market should then decide if this is a valuable service and act accordingly. Personally, I would rather subscribe to an ISP that used the MAPS RBL, and I suspect that it would be more popular than one might think (especially if advertised along the lines of "(bullet) spam blocking software"---saying "we use the MAPS RBL" is a little too much jargon for the masses).


    Rev. Dr. Xenophon Fenderson, the Carbon(d)ated, KSC, DEATH, SubGenius, mhm21x16
  • There are no geographical monopolies, get a different pop mail account.

    Vermifax
  • I don't care for ORBS testing either, but if those tests alone can down yer box you are in serious need of a new mail server regardless. They do nothing that spammers won't also try on you, as far as I know. In fact, their tests the last time I saw 'em were far more polite than most of the spam relay attempts I've seen; ORBS doesn't attempt delivery to over 2,000 random addresses to mask their activity whilst probing for relays, the spammers do that and worse.
  • It is a myth that all MAPS does is allow subscribers to filter spam. It is also a myth that the ISPs choose to subscribe.

    I Used to work at an ISP which, because it's owner feels that it is wrong for him to dictate what his users can and cannot (within the law) send, gets put on the RBL frequently. When I moved the first thing I asked when I signed up at a new ISP was whether or not they used the RBL they said no. This was great because (a) I need to get my mail from people at the old ISP and (b) I can filter my own Spam, thank you, which I think is the way it should be.

    Anyway, the ISP claimed that they didn't use the RBL. However, when I tried to get check my mail, I couldn't reach the old ISP's server. I tried going to their web page and I couldn't web page. I tried traceroutes to their web server, news server, mailserver and a few independant web sites that they hosted. All of them broke down not at my ISP, but at their upstream, Above.net. After several calls to tech support who claimed they had no idea what was causing the problem, I emailed the technical contact for above.net and got a response back simply saying that the RBL allowed them the option to block ALL traffic from a given domain, which they did.

    So now this entire chunk of the net, not just email, but ALL COMMUNICATION to my old isp was cut off, as well as access ro all the sites they hosted! A less tech-savvy user would have just concluded that the ISP had gone out of business or something. But as far as anyone who uses any isp that has Above.net as an upstream is concerned, that entire corner of the net DOES NOT EXIST. Is that fair? Is that worth "the fight against SPAM"?

    Oh, and if anybody wants to suggest that this is Above.net abusing the RBL, and that the RBL its self has nothing to do with it, the guy I got the email from, who is one of above.net's chief techs, is also on the MAPS board!

    I think it's gone too far. Too much abuse and too little choice for the user, or even the ISP. MAPS has become more of a problem than it is a solution. It's like nuking Pueblo Colorado in order to stop the junk (snail) mail problem. In short, it's very, very fanatical and stupid.
    "(no knowledge of subject matter) + (crack cocaine) = (journalism!)"

  • I'm curious about this. I've been posting with a non-spam-blocked e-mail address for a while now and never gotten any e-mail at it. I'll admit that I don't post regularly or often, but I'd expect to get *some* if /. were as spambotted as everybody seems to think (as evidenced by all the spam-blocked e-mail addresses).

    This is a serious "knock-on-wood" situation, though. :)
  • Sometimes I wish that judges had the power to "bitchslap" companies and individuals who file bogus lawsuits intended to harass or punish people they don't like. The lawyers should also be disciplined or disbarred.
  • If (and this is a big ?If?) Network Ice can demonstrate that MAPS could be inaccurately labelling some sites as spam sites, specifically Network Ice, then MAPS could have problems.

    Network Ice [networkice.com] are not the company in this suit, Black Ice [blackice.com] are.

    Here are some samples of them spamming (found in nanae):

    http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=557977300&fmt=tex t [deja.com]

    http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=558186941&fmt=tex t [deja.com]

    http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=600168362&fmt=tex t [deja.com]

    http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=626576761&fmt=tex t [deja.com]

  • It's completely voluntary for a sysadmin to set their system up to use MAPS; nobody is forcing it down anyone's throat. This is basic freedom of choice.

    The difference between the government telling people what they can and cannot say, a corporation doing the same, and a sysadim doing the same really isn't all that great. It just works out to one person or group of people acting like they know better than the people that they're supposed to be serving.

    I don't think that any ISP should block anyone listed on MAPS unilaterally. Governments, yes, corporations, yes, because their bandwidth is bought and paid for so that their employees can get their work done. But an ISP shouldn't be making those decisions for their users. Rather, they should provide their users with the OPTION to use "advance spam blocking tools", which they could opt in or opt out of.

    Because, in most cases, it's the users that are paying for the bandwidth, expecting full access to the internet. And just because one of the offending places might have an open mail relay, that doesn't mean that an ISP's customer doesn't want to communicate with the other ISP's customer.
  • They should be based in some small european country - maybe Denmark or Sweden as there is a clear message from goverment about spam-mail (it will be made illigal in the next couple of years)

    Spam is illegal in Denmark as of 1st July 2000. If you can read Danish, please see this page [www.fs.dk]. Basically what you do is to let the Danish Central Person Register [www.cpr.dk] put your name on the so-called ``Robinson List'' (a derogative term coined by marketroids who claim that you are living on a desolate island if you do not wish to receive commercial ads). Once your name is on that list, commercial entities are no longer allowed to send you unsolicited commercial junk via snailmail, e-mail or fax, nor may they contact you on your phone.

    Suprisingly enough, since 1st July this year only about 3,000 Danes have opted to have their name put on this anti-spam list, whereas almost 200,000 people have decided to register on a send-more-spam list maintained by the Danish postal corp. Go figure...

    // Klaus
    --

  • Nice Troll.

    1. It takes shitloads of work to make a RBL nomination that works.

    2. Maps does not block maillists, it blocks hosts.

    F
  • It's definitely not Insightful. It was a comment on the parent post, and not even a well-researched one. I'd have to agree with you here.

  • "you raised a pint"

    The above post is actually subliminal spam from the United International Breweries Corporation.

    Now stop hunting for your jacket and wallet and sit down!

  • Once again...another Slashdot article that lets the acronyms/buzzwords fly without once giving a definition or synopsis.

    Authors could take a lesson from the previous article, "P2P Developers Stand Up To Intel," which defines its acronym in the first sentence. It's not that difficult, people.

  • Then solve the problem some other way. Stop whining and start hacking. You're posting on Slashdot, not AOL, right?

    Or just cough up the dough. If you want a connection to the Internet on your own terms, then pay for out of your own pocket. You want something cheap, then accept that you'll have to compromise with the other people helping to pay the bill.

    "USENET is not a right."

    "USENET is a right, a left, a jab, and a sharp uppercut to the jaw. The postman hits! You have new mail."
    -- Ed Vielmetti & Chip Salzenberg
  • What about users behind local ISPs that have a geographical monopoly in their small town? No, most ISPs' modems are not a local call in Bluffton, Indiana.

    If being able to get mail from spammers is that important to you, a POP-accessible mailbox from somebody other than your ISP is somewhere between cheap and free. I'm sure you can find one that doesn't use the RBL.

    Yeah, you have to pay extra for that. But that's how capitalism works: the things that most everybody wants are much cheaper than the the things a few people want. And most people just don't want spam.
  • MAPS isn't forcing MAPS on ISPs, but often the only ISP whose modem is a local call in your town forces MAPS on its customers.

    As I said elsewhere (in response to an identical comment on this story), this is easy to get around. You just get a POP mailbox from some other provider that doesn't use MAPS. Or you set up your own mail server and run it how you please.

    Sure, this may cost you a few bucks more a month, but that's how capitalism works. If you want what everybody wants, then it's cheap. People who want unusual things have to pay more. And damned few people are clamoring for more spam.

  • Though there are laws against unsolicited commercial bulk email, advertising usually does indeed fall under the categoryt of free speech.



    MAPS isn't restricting that right. Spammers are still free to send bulk email to people that don't want to recieve it. MAPS simply helps people exercise their right not to listen.

  • At the risk of being modded down into oblivion...

    The Constitution can be applied to private parties when they seek to use the courts to enforce contracts. Deed restrictions that prohibit the sale of the property to Blacks and Jews are common in certain areas. The courts will not enforce these restrictions.

    As far as I'm aware, cases such as these are usually challenged under federal civil rights statutes, rather than facing a Constitutional. The few Constitutional challenges that have occured were involving federally subsidised housing.

    Now that I've gone waaaaaaay off topic... :)
  • Ok, you all have to ask yourself one simple question - why dont these !@#$%^& spammers and advertisers just finally get a clue and only send the spam TO PEOPLE WHO WANT IT. That way, RBL can finally be retired and they can stop bitching and moaning about how RBL is hurting them.

    Like its said in other posts here, you have to screw up big time to get put on the RBL, so I have no remorse for anyone who brings a lawsuit against them.

    I have trusted RBL for a LONG time, and their list has managed to cut down on the bulk of the spam which passes through my servers. Imagine how much bandwidth and resources that has saved me (and my customers who have it are thrilled with how much its cut down on spam for them)!

    In my opinion, RBL is one of the most valuable services on the internet which hasn't been corrupted by big businesses and still focuses on a goal which is worthy to support.
  • I know an ISP that offers the choice of two email servers. One uses ORBS, RBL, RSS etc. and one does not. The customer gets to publish either
    address@nospam.isp.com
    or
    address@isp.com

    (or both).
    What is the problem?
  • It fails to amaze me how some people can be so clueless. MAPS is not the one blocking anyone, they are merely maintaining a list of names. The people that are blocking are at the ISPs and business who choose to use those names. If MAPS ever ceased to exist, another service would start up. People don't like getting unsolicited email and RBL and the others are excellent tools in combatting against it. If your MTA gets listed it's your own darn fault!
  • It is voluntary, but you don't know every single one of the hosts on MAPS' list, do you? What happends if a host gets added to that list by mistake, or because of some political reason, or something?

    I don't use it, not because I like spam (I don't like spam), but because it seems that they have a little 'court' there, where they sentence the hosts.. I don't have time to review every host, and I feel they deserve it.

    --

  • They should be based in some small european country - maybe Denmark or Sweden as there is a clear message from goverment about spam-mail (it will be made illigal in the next couple of years)
  • 3002 tomorrow :)
  • it occurred to me that spam might also be considered free speech, abhorrent as it is. "Speech isn't free if it arrives postage due."

    --
  • Interesting.

    I wasn't aware that Consumer Reports had been sued before, but I don't find that suprising. I guess that I'd have known something about it if they had been sued and *lost*.

    I'm behind MAPS for the usefulness of the RBL (and the DUL, etc.) but am not so sure about this whole lawsuit thing. I just don't want the RBL to go away... it sure catches a *lot* of shit.

    --
    Don't trust your Government. (Update: ..or corporations..)
  • =====
    Because, in most cases, it's the users that are paying for the bandwidth, expecting full access to the internet. And just because one of the offending places might have an open mail relay, that doesn't mean that an ISP's customer doesn't want to communicate with the other ISP's customer.
    =====

    If you ever saw what happened to an email server intended to handle x messages per day when it gets hit by a 50,000 piece spam run sent courtesy of someone else's improperly configured open mail relay you may have more of an understanding of why ISPs like the MAPS offerings.

    Maru
    www.mp3.com/pixal
  • What planet are you from? This is insane. I mean, to insinuate that SPAM is LEGAL and PROTECTED as free speech. Stupid, stupid.

    Spam fills our mailboxes with crap we don't want and didn't ask for, and in some cases even requested to not be there. If we declare spam as legal, what next, our ACTUAL mailboxes filling up with crap?

    Oh, wait, they already do.

  • I agree with you completely. My point was more to point out that it would also be nice to be able to block REAL spam.

  • 5. I am the only ISP in town that's a local call, and because I run the mail server, I have the right to block e-mail from anyone.

  • Or you set up your own mail server

    This won't always work: it could be against TOS, or it could simply be blocked at the firewall.

  • But protecting yourself against it is your constitutional right. It is the same as if Playboy sued parents that restrict what magazines their kids are buying, or having someone sorting your mailbox (your real/virtual mailbox) for you to cut the crap before you read good comments, etc. Its just a matter of choice: nobody runs MAPS because they're obligated, besides (clueless) webmail users of systems like Hotmail. In fact, the use of MAPS should be considered an optional tool, not an offense.

    --
    Q: How does a Unix guru have sex?
    A: unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount;fsck;more;yes;umoun t;sleep
  • "MAPS isn't forcing MAPS on ISPs, but often the only ISP whose modem is a local call in your town forces MAPS on its customers."

    In which case your complaint should be with the ISP, not MAPS. The key word is "force". MAPS isn't applying force to ISPs.

    If the people who ran your local TV station decided to broadcast PAL instead of NTSC, and your television only displayed NTSC signals, complaining to the people who created the PAL format would only annoy them, not do any good.
  • To the best of my knowledge, one is not free to make money in any way whatsoever. There are numerous limits to this, from criminal law to behaviors being civilly actionable.

    This negates your second point.

    With respect to your first and forth points, MAPS very clearly states that one of the behaviors which will cause a "bad review" (an RBL listing) is to sell "spamware". Thus, sending spam is not the only available reason for inclusion.

    This leaves your third point. But since there are no facts being mistated, and no rights being violated, MAPS's right to provide a "poor review" (an RBL listing) are retained. Simplistically, they may be "saying bad things", but the things are true, documented, and documented as "bad" by the reviewer's documented standards.

    Your final analogy is wanting. It would be better to use the case of a gun manufacturer suing the provider of a list of builders of things which kill. It is a nasty assertion being made, but a true one.
  • It is also worth noting that sendmail (perhaps
    with a patch that I found on the net; I'm not
    sure since it's been so long) permits selection
    of filter rules by domain or even email address.

    We, for example, have some clients which use the
    RBL and others which do not. The "do not" list is,
    not surprisingly, shrinking.

  • The beef is that Black Ice (in this case) believes that MAPS was incorrect in their assessment. Black Ice maintains that they were neither spamming or an open relay, so MAPS had no right to place them on the blackhole list.

    Since I can't find any information to confirm or deny either party's claims all I can say is:

    • If Black Ice spammed and/or was an open relay, fsck 'em. It's their own damn fault.
    • If MAPS was wrong, then they need to be held accountable.

    I've worked someplace that was screwed over by ORBS before (a long story), so I know a bit about the problems it can cause and the long-term effects it can bring up. That company still has folks on staff who won't trust email because of the "incident".

    --
    mando

  • Re:MAPS use is voluntary, what's the beef? (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If CR finds that a particular Ford vehicle is less comfortable to drive than a comparable Chevrolet model, by polling test drivers or the general public, it's not illegal for them to report this. I don't see CR bring sued. It's also completely voluntary to buy and/or read Consumer Reports. Nobody is forcing it upon you.

    Consumer Reports gets sued often (only after publishing reports that a product is poor). It is usually foreign companies which seem to want to stop CR from reporting its test results, not realizing the Constitutional protections we (are suppose to) have in the U.S.A.

    Depending on how MAPS runs their service, they should fairly obviously be equally protected. The annoying part is how they decided to place an argument on their homepage likening what they are involved in as a legal fight of a stature on par with Roe v. Wade. Not really.

    MAPS is the one who sued this other company, who then countersued. If MAPS were not behaving so recklessly with the court system, I would be more inclined to take their side. But, as it is, they made the first move by bringing suit.

    Obviously, a business can be established which sets up a list tracking whom they believe to be SPAMMERS. I'm just not sure if I'm behind MAPS due to their brazen public displays in which they've claimed (without legitimate provocation) my dick is bigger than yours (& everyone elses). It just leaves a bad impression behind.

  • There are plenty of geographical regions where the call to any of the Free (i.e. Juno) or national (i.e. AOL) ISPs are a long distance call. If some stuffed shirt sysadmin at the local provider 'opts-in' to MAPS the whole local region is SOL if they want to receive email solicitations.

    Or they can just sign up with any one of the zillions of free e-mail services and have the satisfaction of getting a little piece of spam with every e-mail. Funny thing though, I've never seen an e-mail srevice advertise proudly 'we gladly deliver spam'. Apparently, spam is not in demand.

  • I'm just now sending the following off to "sales@blackice.com":

    Gentlemen:

    Your company has just filed lawsuit against the Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) organization, for including some of your companies Internet-machine addresses on its list of IP addresses that some system administrators (sysadmins) elect to filter out.

    I am a system administrator. I know many other system administrators. And there is a very important fact that you may not be aware of:

    The MAPS people will remove your IPs from its list, pretty much immediately, if/when you correct whatever earned you that status. In that sense, MAPS are "forgiving" people.

    Sysadmins don't forgive. In suing the MAPS group, you have just put yourselves on tens of thousands of sysadmins' shitlists for eternity. They're all going to filter you into oblivion, easily, summarily, and without remorse, exactly the way I'm about to. And you're _never_ going to come out.

    Boy, did _you_ ever make a tactical mistake.

    Sincerely,
    Rick Moen

  • MAPS is free speech.

    Why? Well, because they voice their opinions, and I, as a mail admin, can decide to use my resources to listen to them. Or, I can choose not to. MAPS's free speech doesn't cost me time and money.

    SPAM is not free speech.

    Why? Well, because they voice their opinions and force me, as a mail admin, to use expend my time and money to listen to them. SPAM'ers try very very hard to keep me from even trying to choose to hear their opinions or not.

  • If your admin can't help you by using RBL or other spam-prevention measures on the server or network end, it's amazing what a few mail sorting rules will do on the user end.

    Try this: Mail Filters: Out, Spam, Out! [monickels.com]

    It's a list of my pretty good mail filter rules.
  • Why are courts are allowing an organization to be sued that is to protect our personal mailboxes? I think there should be a countersuit to set a precident for all the damages done --and punative damages for the loss of sanity too.
  • The poster almost certainly meant that it's not opt-in for individuals, since instead of being allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they receive spam from their ISP, the decision is made for them by their ISP on a block basis, not on an individual basis.

    That much is true. Although it's possible to give individuals the choice, it's rare for ISPs to offer such a choice. I guess it would cost extra anyway, since you'd need extra machinery to handle the extra load caused by spam.

    It's clearly a market niche though, so full ISPs or mail service providers offering this service are bound to emerge (if they haven't already) for those who prefer to make their own choices.
  • MAPS' decision-making process is laid out on their website, AFAIK. Anyone who uses it knows exactly what it takes to get on their list. So, I don't think that the fairness of their assertions should even be called into question. I mean, they could put rule #37 at the bottom: "All sites with system admins named Tony shall also be blocked."

    Now, that would suck, but they're not forcing it on anybody, and it's up to their subscribers to read up on their methods, and decide whether they want to subscribe. If MAPS just says "these are our criteria:" and sticks to it, they should be in the clear, regardless of the criteria...

    Now, if they deviate from those criteria, and go off on a personal vendetta, that could be cause for concern, and possibly legal action.

    ---

  • So you use one of the free online POP servers instead of your ISP's POP server, or free Web-based email, or you spend a couple bucks to get a paid alternative POP server, etc., etc.

    Steven E. Ehrbar
  • The Constitution can be applied to private parties when they seek to use the courts to enforce contracts. Deed restrictions that prohibit the sale of the property to Blacks and Jews are common in certain areas. The courts will not enforce these restrictions.
  • I work for an international telco that is starting to carry internet service to its customers. My international line costs are 10x to 15x higher than US rates and I take unsolicited mail very, very seriously.

    Perhaps if each and every one of us who is planning on sending $100 to the defense fund instead took $300 to our personal attorneys and filed suit against BlackIce this problem would vanish overnight.

    If one in a hundred users of MAPS managed to convince their employer that this issue was worth a $500 investment in a lawsuit against BlackIce the problem would evaporate.

    You don't have to *win* a lawsuit to resolve a problem. In fact, you don't even have to have an entity served to get some results.

    I recently had a situation where a script kiddie was humping my (online) leg like a rabid chihuahua.

    After a little detective work I discovered the kiddie had a close relationship with the owner of one of the sites he was using. I got no satisfaction until it became clear that I was going to simply ignore the FBI option and simply go after the assets of the site owner. I got an apologetic phone call within 36 hours from the kiddie and the problem is over.

    There are a great many people that read this site that think 'outside the box' in regards to technical issues, yet remain completely naive as to how to motivate government and corporations.

    That being said, don't post flames here, get busy and figure out a way to make this so painful and expensive for BlackIce that they decide a radio ad campaign is a safer user of their marketing dollars than harrasing MAPS.
  • Reviews are clearly expressions of opinions, and saying, "In my opinion, it stinks." is truthful and does not constitute libel. MAPS is, in effect, saying: "Company X is sending SPAM, where we define SPAM as follows...". If they are truthful about it, they are protected from libel: you can't libel by making truthful statements. And, in fact, under US libel law, MAPS doesn't even have to be entirely truthful. And they certainly don't have to be fair or nice.

    Black Ice's claims seem more insidious than that. They say that they are a "legitimate business" and that they are losing money because of MAPS. My first reaction is: well, tough. Businesses should not be legally protected from other people causing them to lose money through free, non-libelous speech. If we go down that road, you can't point out anymore that certain products are harmful or undesirable (but, then, we already have started to go down that road with "food libel laws").

    Under libel laws, I think Black Ice would have a tough time making a claim. Most likely, they are claiming something like unfair trade or unfair competition.

  • If the ISP started blocking IP addresses, you might have a point. But it's easy enough for anybody to get their mail delivered somewhere else even if they are in the unusual situation that they only have a single ISP with local dial-up.
  • Bullshit.

    You don't get onto MAPS because someone at your ISP spams. Your ISP has had to *refuse* to terminate the spammer, and specifically *allow* them to continue spamming, and show total unwillingness to terminating the spambag.

    It could have gotten itself onto ORBS, but that is because of them beeing an open relay, or beeing a relay for someone beeing an open relay.


    --
  • MAPS clames to work pritty much the way they should. For the most part thats exactly how they DO work. But it dosn't stop there.
    How you are told it works.
    SysAdmin are basicly just adding MAPS filter to e-mail filters. Thats what it's for thats how it's used if MAPS makes a few mistakes tuff luck so you can't e-mail a bunch of people if e-mail is really that importent you'll get a more respectable e-mail provider or maybe even a better ISP.
    Yes this is certenly part of what MAPS is and it is how it got it's start.
    But that is the volintary filter. There is the involintary filter to consider.
    Why oh why do sooo many lump AboveNet with MAPS? Look at AboveNets policys and you'll see why. You'd think becouse it's explainned in the AUP that it only effects users of AboveNet however it dosn't. It effects ALL traffic going over AboveNets network.
    This has the potental to effect all of the Internet. (At least anyone trying to send packings from North America to Europe)
    MAPS dosn't mention this much at all. However explainning why MAPS includes websites of spammers seems to at least acnowladge the fact that Above IS in fact doing this.
    For a small part I'm ok with Above filtering the transatlantic linkup for spam. But it would be nice if they'd leave other data packets alone. (A lot of stupid American spammers don't have a clue and are spamming people who must pay for a mettered connection)
    However even this makes the notion of a volintary filter a pure facad.
    A lot of thies lawsutes are about wanting to spam. Plain and simple.
    But there are some who are just saying "Hay I complyed and you guys are ignoring me and I can't afford to keep calling you guys on the phone all day"
    And I've said this stuff before and someone invarably replys with a link to the MAPS website. So let me reply to that before it happends.
    Someone sould sue MAPS for false advertising over that link. This isn't how things are done over there. Nice idealistic guideline that is 100% ignored.
    For a while I maintainned a website with webpages detailling RBL abuses... But I've long ago shut it down. I've fought spam for a long time and to find one of the key forces to fighting spam itself not entirely honnest really bothers me. But this is not my fight and I'm not intrested in fighting for the long term.
    Here [ifn.net] is a place to start doing some research on RBL abuse.
    For more information try Google [google.com] or AltaVista [altavista.com]
  • Yes, and no. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that commercial speech is afforded less protection than political speech. Also, corporations generally don't have the same access to constitutional rights; constitutional rights are the rights of the people. The shareholders and officers have constitutional rights; the corporation -- not so much.

    In this case, a corporation is suing for its right to commercial free speech.

    The "slippery slope" proponents will argue that speech is speech, and allowing these restrictions to stand is the first step towards the abrogation of that right.

  • I'm of two minds about MAPS. On one hand, the service they provide to the community is valuable. On the other hand, I've had first-hand experience with why some people have said that MAPS is starting to abuse it's position. They aren't always the most understanding about situations which will take time to resolve.

    That being said, the idea behind MAPS is a Good Thing (tm), and in my mind, they are far less abusive of their position than ORBS is.

    Another good way of handling spam is Brightmail [brightmail.com]. They have a wonderful system for filtering spam out of POP3 accounts. I've been working with Brightmail on various levels for about four months now and have yet to see them mark a "real" message as spam. Single user Brightmail acounts are free, by the way.

    -------

    All opinions stated are my personal opinions.

  • Just to clear this up, these are different companies. Network ICE has nothing to do with this.
  • You almost got it...

    <i>Spam is as much a form of speech as tele-marketing.</i>

    Spam is even less <b>less</b> a form of free speech (if there is such a thing), because it's theft of service (someone is paying for that bandwidth, and it's not the spammer) - telemarketing steals time, spam steals time and money.
  • If your ISP was on the list, it's because they didn't do anything to stop the guy from spamming. (after it happened)

    My guess is they got contacted by MAPS and your ISP told them to fuck off

    If your ISP doesn't care about spam, you should find another ISP. It's exactly selective enough. I use MAPS, for exactly that reason. If your ISP was responsible, they wouldn't be on the list.
  • Spam free speech?
    Does
    Cut your phone bills in half,
    Cum see me and my girlfriends new website xxx,
    Send $100 to quasi-illegal quasi-pyramid scheme,
    etc

    express any real views? Any political, religious, social opinion? Spam is as much a form of speech as tele-marketing. Intrusive and unwanted.
  • Sometimes I wish that judges had the power to "bitchslap" companies and individuals who file bogus lawsuits intended to harass or punish people they don't like.

    Actually judges do have the power to fine or jail such people. Its called "Comtempt of Court".
  • 2) The Spamware company has a right to make money

    No they have the right to attempt to make money, by lawful means. Its only in some kind of socialist society that a company has a right to make money (or a right to force people to buy their product/service.)

    3) The Spamware company has been " badmouth " by MAPS

    Poor little company, maybe they need to relocate somwhere a little less free. Someone said something bad about them, if if meets the local definition of "libel" then they have a case, otherwise tough.

    4) The spamware company has not violated the rules of MAPS ( they are not spamming )

    There are other things on the MAPS list, such as "spam support services".
  • List of IP addresses of dialup modem pools. To be used for SMTP blocking, but only blocking a "direct connection". Many believe that a dial-up user has no business attempting to pose as an SMTP server rather than an SMTP client.

    WARNING GROSS VIOLATION OF INTERNET STANDARD.

    Spammers use direct-to-MX programs to bypass any sort of filtering/throttling their ISP might use on their dedicated SMTP servers.

    You only get this happening when relays are unavailable. It is when sending the same message to multiple recipients that use of a relay makes things easier. Following RFC974 is considerably harder work for a spammer and makes their own systems more vulnerable to "retaliation".
    Unless an ISP verifies the identity of their customers then their own RELAY (The original piece's use of the terms "client" and "server" is nonstandard, apparently to obscurate the fact that they are doing something very naughty.) machines can be little better than open relays anyway.

    This prevents such spam from getting through.

    Result: everyone is expected to use a UUCP hack, a disincentive for the writing of standards complient software. Thus relays continue to be needed to get software to even work.
    IMHO the best way to hit spammers would be to minimise the usage of relays and dynamic IP addressing. Then it becomes considerably harder for spammers to spam and harder for them to hide.
  • You don't have to screw up bigtime to end up on the list - leave a server open to relay, either through ignorance, poor email server software or whatever and the first time

    An admin who dosn't know what they are doing sounds like a "bigtime screwup". Also it is past time to name and shame any supplier of an open relay in its "out of the box" setup. (Indeed the major reason for any third party relays to still exist is poor software running as GUI MUA's)
  • > Most importantly, do I have the right to ignore others

    We do. Anyone who doesn't believe this, deserves to be phoned every 15 minutes, 24-hours a day, by telemarketers, and have Jehovah's witness's and other religios groups come round trying to convert them daily.

    It's a natural conseqence of Freedom of speech plus a crowded marketplace.

  • This comes up every time any non-profit or corp. tries to block anything, and it is a completely misdirected arguement.

    Freedom of speech only applies in cases where a governmental agency (or gov't funded agent) attempts to block speech. Only your government can violate freedom of speech, corporations can use any legal method they want to restrict speech. The US Constitution affects only the US government, not corporations or other non-governmental agencies in the US.
  • The problem with the MAPS RBL is that it is
    not Opt-In.
    Yes, it is opt-in. MAPS is intended to be used at the ISP level, not the individual level (although it can be). Each ISP chooses whether or not to subscribe to and use the information that MAPS provides.
    When I had a machine at Above.net, there was a time when I wished to communicate with someone at whowhere.com, but, unfortunatly, whowhere.com was on the MAPS RBL that particular day. Above.net was unwilling (or unable) to take my machine off of the RBL so I could communicate with my friend.
    Then that's your problem with Above.net, not MAPS. It's Above.net's responsibility to inform you that they are using the MAPS system and that you might not receive some emails because of this. If they didn't do this, then you need to talk to them about it. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere where you can find the types of services that you desire.
  • The trouble is that MAPS has the power to "punish" anyone they want. If you run a large ISP (hundreds of thousands or even millions of users), the amount of spam flowing from your mail servers will be larger than for a smaller ISP, and it won't even be through any fault of your own - no matter how strong your TOS and how nasty you make the fine for spamming, the assholes will still abuse your service.

    So what happens when abuse is reported to an ISP?

    Depending on whether an ISP is running its own dialups or leasing them from one or more open provider networks (OPNs) such as UUNet or PSINet, or doing a combination of the two, reports about spamming will flow into it from agencies like SpamCop. The OPN usually hears about it first. Then they look up the account to see the username and ISP it belongs to. They will then contact that ISP and notify them of the spammer. After confirmation is done (i.e. the IP is cross-checked with the username and the spam is examined), the ISP will usually cancel the account. When that happens, the OPN will kick the spammer offline.

    Or at least, that's how responsible ISPs do it. I've heard rumors that a certain ISP was getting spammer reports, cancelling the spamming customers, and then re-activating them later. UUNet got wind of it and decided to black-hole all mail coming from that ISP to their mail and news servers (they have quite a few). The persons responsible were shown the door.

    It is dangerous IMO to have an unaccountable organization which holds the axe over ISPs. If you're a small ISP you have no recourse except to grovel before them. If you're a large ISP you can sue them. Even still, the responsible ISP can get royally screwed if MAPS decides they don't like said ISP. Examples like the above (UUNet black-holing an irresponsible ISP) would seem to indicate that OPNs and other backbone-related carriers are in a better position to enforce compliance anyway.

  • **sigh**

    Here I was being a good little moderator and I saw a question I really need to answer. There went my moderation of this topic :/

    IANAL and this isn't legal advice.... but...

    To answer your question, a resounding YES.

    Credit reporting beuraues (TRW, EQUIFAX, etc) provide written reports to their customers containing supposed facts about you. Collection agencies report on paper similar supposed facts about you TO those beureaus. The merhcnat reports such facts, in writing again., to the collection agencies.

    ANY written statement that claims to be true, but is not, that serves to damage your reputation is "libel". You can indeed sue any and all parties invovled in destributing such information. if that information is damaging to your economic standing (as bad credit info can be) the penalites can be quite severe.

    I've actually used the threat of libel action, along with involving my state utility commision, to win a fight with a phone carrier and their collection agent. If you are going to play this game though a few thinsg are very important.

    (1) Be in the right. It won't help you if you really DO owe them the money.

    (2) Keep a meticulous paper trail. Never send them ANYTHING you don't keep a copy of. Do all communication in writing. (You MAY need to call them a few tiems, such as to get the name of someone to work with. Make sure to keep notes of the phonme covnersation and write and send a letter IMMEDIATELY following the phone call detaiulking your complete understanding of what was discussed. Start your letter with somethign like "As per our phone converstion of it is my understanding that...")

    (3) Be reasonable. Really try to get them to understand that they are wrong. offer them copeis of any documents you have that prove they
    are wrong. If they refuse to listen, you THEN have a pretty strong case.
  • My question is this: What does Black Ice do?!?

    It's not the same as NetworkICE's BlackICE Defender; the difference there is between a product and a company with similar names.

    But what kind of toolkits toes Black Ice make? To they send out unsolicited email advetisizing their products?

    "Black Ice is a legitimate business," they say... well, so are a lot of companies that send out 'spam.'

    (OT - I have an acquaintance who works for one... he feels it's like being an executioner, but he executes whoever comes along. It's something he feels is morally wrong, but on the other hand, he needed the job and nobody else wanted to hire him...)

  • That said, no-one forces anyone else to actually use the RBL.

    What about users behind local ISPs that have a geographical monopoly in their small town? No, most ISPs' modems are not a local call in Bluffton, Indiana.

  • they're not forcing it on anybody

    MAPS isn't forcing MAPS on ISPs, but often the only ISP whose modem is a local call in your town forces MAPS on its customers.

  • Black Ice is suing MAPS over defamation and unfair business practices. This is not in any way a free speech issue, and the supreme court will never hear the case (unless MAPS wins). Free speech does not give you the right to defame others. By putting its IP addresses on the MAPS block list, MAPS is saying that those IP addresses originate spam. If this is untrue, that is defamation. Free speech does not give you the right to engage in unfair business practices. To use the consumer reports analogy that is used in the article, lets say Time Magazine comes out with a special consumer reports edition. Every month they rank ISPs, and every month they rank Earthlink at the top. One day AOL buys out Time Warner. The next month, Earthlink is ranked dead last. Even if everything is formulated as an opinion, such as to avoid a defamation suit, you can be sure that Earthlink will sue AOLTW for unfair business practices, and rightly so. It will then be up to Earthlink to show evidence that AOLTW acted in an unfair manner (evidence might show that a Time writer called up Earthlink to say "ha ha"), and it will be up to AOLTW to show that it acted fairly (maybe they could show that over the previous month busy signals went up 5000%). It will be up to the judge to decide who he believes. In any case, it's not a free speech issue, at all.
  • The original lawsuit was filed by MAPS against Black Ice. The Black Ice laswsuit is a countersuit.

    Under attack from firms that have wound up on its so-called ``Blackhole List'' of junk e-mailers, MAPS filed suit this spring seeking a definitive ruling from a California court that its practices did not violate any laws.

    The target of the suit was Black Ice, which makes software tool kits and had threatened legal action over being placed on the Blackhole List. Black Ice responded by counter-suing MAPS, accusing it of defamation and unfair business practices.
  • Does not matter. All MAPS does is provide a list of outfits that do not - in MAPS opinion - adhere to proper internet mail standards.

    It is the individual ISP's decision to use the MAPS data to filter e-mail. Nobody is forcing anyone to use MAPS. It's just a list.

    How someone could possibly think that could win a suit like this is beyond me. Since when were opinions actionable? Slander of course, but I do not see that here. If companys that were on the list would co-operate[1] they would find it very easy to get off the RBL. As an added plus the amount of unwanted mail processed would decrease.

    1. Example: Implementing a confirmed opt-in.

  • It's not unexpected, but I find it a bit disappointing that MAPS is setting up a fund for the public to donate to their legal fees. Not the fact that they're asking, but the fact that they need to in the first place.

    Where are all the major ISP's and other commercial entities who make use of the service, when it needs defending? After all, the big ones are at least in part responsible for why MAPS is getting so much attention from the spammers. We saw in this story [slashdot.org] that some major providers (think AOL and Hotmail) have been making effective use of MAPS in the past. Is there a reason why they shouldn't give back to it?

    What would be the legal implications against any big companes who donated money to the MAPS legal fund? Simply being able to get someone like Microsoft (please no flames for that) to say that they trust and support how MAPS works, and back it up financially, could make a major difference to the way it's perceived.


    ===
  • You're forgetting a big thing here--you don't have to use MAPS, and you don't have to read at anything above -1.
    --
  • Cyberpatrol and its ilk? Aren't these programs doing essentially the same thing as MAPS. They pick what is "suitable" to be be received through my computer. I make a choice to use it. Don't get me wrong I support both concepts. Ultimately, my computer belongs to me. If I decide to let somebody else determine what comes through it that should be my choice. "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
  • The problem with the MAPS RBL is that it is not Opt-In. When I had a machine at Above.net, there was a time when I wished to communicate with someone at whowhere.com, but, unfortunatly, whowhere.com was on the MAPS RBL that particular day. Above.net was unwilling (or unable) to take my machine off of the RBL so I could communicate with my friend.

    That's why god created free web-based email accounts like Hotmail, Yahoo, Excite, My-deja, Go and countless others.

    When I was in exactly this situation, I merely switched to one of my web-based emails to communicate. This is much preferable than clogging my main mailbox with spam just so one out of a hundred people that send me email isn't inconvenienced. Long live RBL!!!

  • RBL *is* opt-in (Score:3)

    by wayne ( 1579 ) <wayne@schlitt.net> on Saturday October 14, 2000 @07:42AM (#706527) Homepage Journal
    The problem with the MAPS RBL is that it is not Opt-In. When I had a machine at Above.net, there was a time when I wished to communicate with someone at whowhere.com, but, unfortunatly, whowhere.com was on the MAPS RBL that particular day. Above.net was unwilling (or unable) to take my machine off of the RBL so I could communicate with my friend.
    In this situation, there were a lot of people with a lot of choices. These choices have costs and benefits.

    The people at Above.net chose to use MAPS. They probably feel that the people who will not use their services because they filter out "spam" will be less than the number of people who object to getting spam. It is their choice to use the RBL.

    You have the choice of which ISP to use. Initially, you chose to use Above.net, which uses MAPS, you then changed your mind. You appear to think that receiving spam is less of a problem than not receiving email from everyone.

    Your friend chose to use whowhere.com for their email. They appear to think it is, for some reason, better to use them and risk not being able to send email to everyone rather than switching to an ISP that isn't on the RBL.

    Whowhere.com's administrators have choosen, for some reason, to be associated in some way with spam and to not change their ways.

    Personally, I would have told my friend to stop using whowhere.com. I would consider it rude of them to try and make me not filter out spam just because they don't want to switch from a spam friendly ISP.

    The only people who are trying to keep people from choosing here are the spammers. They try to force ISPs to let them use the ISPs resources to deliver unwanted mail to the ISPs customers.

  • RBL not opt-in for individuals (Score:3)

    by Morgaine ( 4316 ) on Saturday October 14, 2000 @10:24AM (#706528)
    The descriptions "opt-in" or "not opt-in" don't mean much on their own --- you've got to say with respect to whom for it to be meaningful.

    As others have pointed out, the MAPS RBL is not opt-in for individuals, since instead of being allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they receive spam from their ISP, the decision is made for them by their ISP on a block basis, not on an individual basis.

    Although it's possible for an ISP to give its customers the choice, it's rare for ISPs to offer such a choice. It would probably cost extra anyway, since the ISP would need more machinery to handle the extra load it would experience through handling spam.

    It's clearly a market niche though, so full ISPs or mail service providers offering this service are bound to emerge (if they haven't already) for those who prefer to make their own choices and/or do their own filtering.

  • The problem with the RBL is that it is not opt-in (Score:3)

    by Kiwi ( 5214 ) on Saturday October 14, 2000 @05:41AM (#706529) Homepage Journal

    The problem with the MAPS RBL is that it is not Opt-In. When I had a machine at Above.net, there was a time when I wished to communicate with someone at whowhere.com, but, unfortunatly, whowhere.com was on the MAPS RBL that particular day. Above.net was unwilling (or unable) to take my machine off of the RBL so I could communicate with my friend.

    I also have a friend with a ifn.net account who I would not be able to communicate with if my ISP told me I could not talk to machines on the RBL.

    Needless to day, I no longer have an account with Above.net.

    I agree with what the RBL is doing, since the internet is a cooperative network, and people have the right to not cooperate with hosts whose content they do not like. I also am glad to see them keep dedicated connections dedicated to broadcating spam in check. That said, I do not like the fact sysadmins can make these kinds of decisions for their users.

    - Sam

  • NO! (Score:3)

    by schon ( 31600 ) on Saturday October 14, 2000 @06:37AM (#706530)
    The simple answer to your question is NO.

    Spam is _NOT_ (by any definition) constitutionally protected speech.

    If someone were to get a big megaphone, and walk up to your bedroom window at 3:00 AM and start screaming obsceneties at you, would this qualify as "free speech"

    Not on your life.

    If a telemarketer were to call your home COLLECT, saying it's from "Your uncle John" so that you'd accept the charges, only to start telling you how you can make a million dollars in a week through some pyramid scam, would THIS be considered "free speech"?

    Again, NO.

    Spam is theft, spam is harrassment.

    Spam is NOT free speech.

    And to answer your last question: if it's opt-in, it's not spam.

  • Re:Astonishing... (Score:3)

    by timster ( 32400 ) on Saturday October 14, 2000 @06:21AM (#706531)
    But for it to be defamation, the claims have to be _false_.
    Why is that so hard to understand?

  • Astonishing... (Score:3)

    by Technik~ ( 87292 ) on Saturday October 14, 2000 @04:52AM (#706532) Homepage
    It's amazing that these lawsuits are even brought. MAPS is an opt-in system. It's entirely voluntary. I understand that one can bring suit for any (or no) reason but where do these companies get the idea that they can dictate how other companies and individuals use their own personal resources? If I, as a SA, decide not to accept email from a given source and I inform my customers of this then it's fine. If the customers decide to use my services knowing this, it's fine. My suspicion is that the customers don't understand or are not informed of these administrative decisions and it's upon this that the lawsuits are going to focus.

    +.02$

    - technik

  • Haven't we been here before? (Score:3)

    by Arker ( 91948 ) on Saturday October 14, 2000 @06:47AM (#706533) Homepage

    Haven't we had this discussion before? Why not post with your handle instead of AC?

    ORBS is listing you correctly - Manual do not test. SOME ORBS users choose to block that status along with know relays - others do not. It's up to the user - ORBS returns the correct code and the user determines which codes to block. Probably most ORBS users do choose to block that code. You know why? Because several extremely annoying high traffic relays are in there - thinking they will be real clever and sneak their spam through by preventing testing.

    The probing they do won't harm your system in any way, and there's really no sane reason to tell them not to probe (unless you have something to hide) - many consider that probing a service, helping them to make sure their server is secure. If you insist on not being probed, that's your choice, but don't be surprised when that means that some users decline to accept mail from you.

  • Re:I'm not a big RBL fan... (Score:3)

    by Senior Frac ( 110715 ) on Saturday October 14, 2000 @01:57PM (#706534) Homepage
    For instance, the way they blackhole anyone who runs an open SMTP server, even if it's not being used for spamming, or has spam filtering built in. You don't know what MAPS RBL does. You appear to be referring to ORBS.
    Various blocklists... ORBS - Open Relay Behaviour-modification System [orbs.org]
    Open relay blocklist. Not affiliated in any way with MAPS. Blocks open SMTP relays. Does not require that the relay actually be used to send spam. MAPS RBL - Realtime Blackhole List [mail-abuse.org]
    List of IP addresses of machines owned by providers who are know to be spam friendly. Manual submission. [Relatively] difficult to be placed on. This is as much admin behavior modification as spam blocking. To be used for blocking at SMTP level or BGP filtering (i.e. blackholing on the TCP/IP layer). MAPS RSS - Relay Spam Stopper [mail-abuse.org]
    List of IP addresses of machines that contain open relays. Differs from ORBS because they don't actively scan for open relays and they require a sample of the spam before considering listing. To be used for blocking at SMTP level. MAPS DUL - Dial-up User List [mail-abuse.org]
    List of IP addresses of dialup modem pools. To be used for SMTP blocking, but only blocking a "direct connection". Many believe that a dial-up user has no business attempting to pose as an SMTP server rather than an SMTP client. Spammers use direct-to-MX programs to bypass any sort of filtering/throttling their ISP might use on their dedicated SMTP servers. This prevents such spam from getting through. Please note that none of these lists block on content. They are all lists of IPs.

    --

  • Re:Astonishing... (Score:3)

    by SsC ( 119431 ) on Saturday October 14, 2000 @05:05AM (#706535) Homepage
    Heh.. looks like we agree on this point. :-)

    Personally, I'll use my systems and the ones that I am responsible for in the manner I see fit.

    I'm stuck with a few remote sites at one place that are connected over heavily saturated 56k leased lines. When I started using the MAPS RBL, the amount of email traffic over those lines diminised greatly, and i'd say it bought the company another year or so before they have to rethink their infrastructure.

    So someone explain to me how the spammers have the right to force a company to upgrade their backbone, simply because it's being pushed beyond it's limit by junk mail? I don't feel they have the right... and so I use the MAPS RBL.

    *sigh*

    What is the world coming to...
    --
    Don't trust your Government. (Update: ..or corporations..)

  • Way off base (Score:3)

    by locutus074 ( 137331 ) on Saturday October 14, 2000 @05:13AM (#706536)
    You know, Black Ice can't be as innocent as they claim to be. According to the page about how to get on the RBL [mail-abuse.org], you have to really try or want to get on the RBL to get on and stay on. They say that they make every effort to contact and talk to the people behind that domain/netblock before they'll put someone on the RBL.

    That said, no-one forces anyone else to actually use the RBL. MAPS simply puts out a list of people who they don't think play nice, and it just so happens that a lot of other people agree. The Consumer Reports analogy in the linked article fits this perfectly.

    Now I can understand why they'd be pissed off, but what right have they to complain?

    --

  • Re:Is spam also free speech? (Score:3)

    by bcrowell ( 177657 ) on Saturday October 14, 2000 @05:20AM (#706537) Homepage
    Free speech in the constitutional sense only means that the government can't gag you. Everyone involved in this case is a private company.

    Also, Spam costs ISPs money. Free speech doesn't mean that person A is obliged to pay for person B's speech.

  • Is spam also free speech? (Score:3)

    by msnomer ( 226842 ) on Saturday October 14, 2000 @04:48AM (#706538)

    First, let me say that I hate spam and I hope MAPS wins, so please don't flame me as a spam defender. But when I read that MAPS is defending itself by saying that what they're doing is free speech--which it would certainly seem to be--it occurred to me that spam might also be considered free speech, abhorrent as it is. If so, it still doesn't mean that the spammers lawsuit should prevail, because MAPS isn't preventing their speech. And if spam is free speech, are ISPs guilty of blocking free speech by filtering spam, or does opt-in justify (constitutionally, that is) what they're doing?


    --meredith

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday October 14, 2000 @04:52AM (#706539)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Black Ice Software != Network ICE (Score:4)

    by RobertGraham ( 28990 ) on Saturday October 14, 2000 @11:46AM (#706540) Homepage
    Black Ice Software [blackice.com] is in no way related to Network ICE [networkice.com], the maker of a technology we called "BlackICE", a network-based intrusion countermeasure system.

    Moderators, please moderate this up. I've seen a couple of posts that have confused this issue. I think it is important to know the difference.

    Robert Graham
    CTO/Network ICE

    PS: It appears that Black Ice Software isn't using our BlackICE product, which of course would warn them that their e-mail servers are forwarding spam :-)

  • I think you're confused... (Score:4)

    by schon ( 31600 ) on Saturday October 14, 2000 @07:03AM (#706541)
    the way they blackhole anyone who runs an open SMTP server, even if it's not being used for spamming

    I think you have them confused with ORBS.

    From the MAPS site:
    "the most common reason for a host or network being in the MAPS RBL is that it was used by a spammer as a mail relay ... Open relays may be entered immediately onto the RBL to stop spam-in-progress"

    MAPS does not scan for open relays, so how do they know that a relay is open unless a spammer uses it?

    Contrary to your belief, it's _HARD_ to get into the MAPS RBL - you have to screw up and refuse to fix it; it's also very easy to get off the RBL - fix your relay, and notify them.

    You should visit the MAPS page at maps.vix.com [vix.com] for more information.

    Really, MAPS is not ORBS.

  • /me wonders (Score:4)

    by Stskeeps ( 161864 ) on Saturday October 14, 2000 @04:36AM (#706542) Homepage
    The question is, would lawsuits like this happen if MAPS was hosted in a foreign country? (i'm not sure about the current location)

  • Re:Spam is the worst kind of free speech. (Score:5)

    by Brian Kendig ( 1959 ) on Saturday October 14, 2000 @06:02AM (#706543)
    Here are some links you might find useful in your fight against spam:

    • http://www.ecst.csuchico. edu /~atman/spam/adblock.shtml [csuchico.edu]: This site provides you with a hosts file which maps dozens of web ad banner graphic sites to 127.0.0.1. The net affect is that many banner ads won't load at all, and instead will show up in your browser as broken images. This really speeds up the loading of web pages, especially if you're on a modem connection.

    • http://spamcop.net/ [spamcop.net]: SpamCop is a great site! For free, it lets you paste a spam email into its form, and then it analyzes the spam, decides who the appropriate ISP's are to complain to, and sends those people a detailed complaint with all the info they need to find and shut down whoever violated their terms-of-service. It also keeps stats on the worst spam offenders, and makes this information available to ORBS. I swear by it, and it's immensely gratifying when I (frequently!) get email from an ISP thanking me for my help and letting me know that the offending account has been terminated.

    • http://www.spambouncer.org/ [spambouncer.org]: I haven't used SpamBouncer myself yet, but it's a procmail-based way to screen spam out of your mailbox. I've heard it's good.

    Another recommendation: If your email client loads images automatically in HTML email, turn that option off! Some spam will put your email address in the URL's of the images it loads, so that just by opening the message (and viewing the images) the spammer will know you saw their message.

    (I got one spam recently that actually ha a return receipt attached; it was a pyramid scheme and Eudora beeped and told me 'The sender has requested notification that you read this email.' What gall!)

  • Not so clear-cut (Score:5)

    by maggard ( 5579 ) <michael@michaelmaggard.com> on Saturday October 14, 2000 @05:17AM (#706544) Homepage Journal
    It's not so obvious MAPS will win this.

    (set flamers on low, please)
    (I am not a Lawyer nor do I play one on TV)

    MAPS is likening itself, correctly in my opinion, to a Reviewer. The same as one voluntarily buys a copy of /localpaper/ and then reads the reviews, deciding whether or not the Reviewer sounds reasonable, MAPS is voluntary and no one is bound to follow their opinion.

    However Reviewers have been successfully sued in the past. One cannot simply publish "It stinks!" (or "It's spam!") without having some sort of objective basis. Courts can & have walked this fine line between free speech and defamation.

    Thus the question can move from "Does MAPS have a right to do this?" to "Is MAPS being fair in it's labelling?". This is where the MAPS folks might run into difficulty defending to the Court how they determine what is "spam" (or "Unsolicited-Commercial-Email") and what is not.

    If (and this is a big "If") Network Ice can demonstrate that MAPS could be inaccurately labelling some sites as spam sites, specifically Network Ice, then MAPS could have problems.

    -- Michael

    ps MAPS is based in California, USA & Network Ice is from New Hampshire, USA.

  • MAPS use is voluntary, what's the beef? (Score:5)

    by SsC ( 119431 ) on Saturday October 14, 2000 @04:55AM (#706545) Homepage
    It's completely voluntary for a sysadmin to set their system up to use MAPS; nobody is forcing it down anyone's throat. This is basic freedom of choice.

    In regard to the Consumer Reports comparison:

    If CR finds that a particular Ford vehicle is less comfortable to drive than a comparable Chevrolet model, by polling test drivers or the general public, it's not illegal for them to report this. I don't see CR bring sued. It's also completely voluntary to buy and/or read Consumer Reports. Nobody is forcing it upon you.

    The simple fact that MAPS is so popular, and being used by so many people, should also speak volumes. I haven't heard (but this doesn't mean that there aren't) of anyone who *uses* the service complaining about it... it's just the companies who wind up on the RBL who complain.

    Don't they realize that if they changed the way they treated the Internet in regard to e-mail that they wouldn't stay on the list, and if they had the proper method of using e-mail systems they wouldn't have been on the list in the first place?

    I think that MAPS is akin to your local public utilities commission or similar, in that they help a great deal in keeping e-mail systems in-check. (And they're not as arrogant as the ORBS people, but that's a whole different discussion.)

    It's also very simple to get off the list.. I know, as I have had to get several clients off it lately. (Amazing how Exchange sets up as an open relay out of the box.)

    People need to grow a clue.
    --
    Don't trust your Government. (Update: ..or corporations..)

  • It comes down to one thing. (Score:5)

    by mheckaman ( 149644 ) on Saturday October 14, 2000 @05:32AM (#706546)
    My opinion is this:

    1. I own the bandwidth

    2. I own the server that the mail software runs on.

    3. I have the right to do most any legal thing with my own network. Such as firewalling all of AOL's IP addresses. If they don't like it, tough.

    4. I chose freely to give MAPS the authority to say who gets blocked. Since I own my mail server, it's within my rights to delegate that authority.

    I don't see what the big deal is.

    Matt

  • If so, then Trolls can sue the Moderators on /. (Score:5)

    by Seinfeld ( 243496 ) on Saturday October 14, 2000 @06:26AM (#706547)
    Does e-mail have "rights"? Does it have the right to be delivered? Do my words have the right to be heard? Most importantly, do I have the right to ignore others, or must I listen to their free speech? Not to shut them up, just to not listen to them...

    If MAPS loses, then maybe the Slashdot trolls will move forward with lawsuits agains /. and the moderators. After all, if I troll/offtopic/flamebait/hot grits myself and everyone else here to death, eventually I might have such negative karma that I'm on a blacklist and all my posts go to -1 automatically. Hey, I'm just a legitimate poster! And now no one gets to hear me rant about natalie portman or whatever unless they opt-in -- after all, default reading is at a threshold of 0.

    Maybe the judge should rule that Outlook, Eudora, Netscape and every other e-mail client that can filter out junk mail disable that feature, and even require people to read all their junk e-mail in full

    Because doesn't everyone, especially corporations and people with lots of money, have the right to force others to listen?
    -----------

Slashdot Top Deals

With your bare hands?!?

Close