One Last Spamhaus Warning Before The End 632
kog777 writes to mention that Spamhaus has released a final warning about an increase in junk email, as they prepare to lose their domain to an Illinois court ruling. From the article: "According to Spamhaus, more than 650 million Internet users - including those at the White House, the U.S. Army and the European Parliament - benefit from Spamhaus' 'blacklist' of spammers that helps identify which messages to block, send to a 'junk' folder or accept. Losing the domain name would make it more difficult for service providers and others to obtain the lists. 'If the domain got suspended, it would be an enormous hit for the Net,' said Steve Linford, Spamhaus' chief executive officer. 'It would create an enormous amount of damage on the Internet.'"
The IP Address (Score:4, Informative)
I mean, if we can get the word out to 650 million Internet users to use IP address 216.168.30.71, what damage is done? It will just take a while for people to tell ICANN how stupid they are. Maybe this is a good thing? Maybe this will cause the community to complain about ICANN and the American control of the internet?
Re:Shoulda seen this coming... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Shoulda seen this coming... (Score:5, Informative)
From what I understand (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Shoulda seen this coming... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: The IP Address (Score:5, Informative)
Why would they want to do that? From the article;
Executives at the U.K.-based Spamhaus Project...
they are spammers, see here (Score:5, Informative)
(from http://www.spamhaus.org/legal/answer.lasso?ref=3 [spamhaus.org])
Re:Shoulda seen this coming... (Score:1, Informative)
Re: The IP Address (Score:2, Informative)
Call me a hippie, but an OSS/community committee seems like the best answer.
Re:Damage is what USA does best (Score:2, Informative)
Ok, I'll bite. Firstly, which Wild West are we talking about? The Wild West of history or Hollywood?
The typical pattern of behavior in the Wild West went like this: Settlers move into new area, seeking either homesteads or easy money. If they were seeking homesteads, they were comparatively civilized, at least with their own ethnicities. If they were looking for easy money, more chaos and lawlessness ensued - Tombstone, Dodge City, etc. Hollywood liked to portray every little town as a Tombstone or Dodge City, but the incidence of violence was exaggerated to sell tickets. After all, who wants to watch John Wayne cut trees every day for a year?
Secondly, yes, it still is, at least to some degree. Each nation is bound only by treaties to which it consents to be bound. There is no over-arching body with the power or the authority to make or enforce laws to govern governments, except where the governed have entered willingly (i.e., the EU). Thus, by definition, nations co-exist in a state of quasi-lawlessness. Governments can abide by, abrogate, violate, or ignore treaties at will, and the deal with the consequences. Super-national bodies like the UN can pass resolutions all they want, but in the end, their enforcement powers are limited by the will and compliance of the governed. If you have any doubts about this, just observe the behavior of the North Korean government.
Link to the spammers website (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Missing the underlying problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Minor nit-pick. (Score:2, Informative)
BULLSHIT (Score:3, Informative)
From their own mouth (Score:1, Informative)
PS. Wouldn't hurt my feelings if, oh, 10,000 slashdot users hit the site with wget -r running as 10 separate subprocesses...this fucktard needs a serious hit from several thousand people with a cluestick, maybe he might get the point and back the hell off if the internet dumped their entire bandwidth down his pipe...
Re:Now,now (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Minor nit-pick. (Score:4, Informative)
Whoever your ISP is, gets their IP addresses in blocks, which they designate as Dynamic. Certain subnets get marked as static - and are generally reserved for loops - T1 etc. When you get a 'static' IP address from your ISP, they create a DHCP block for you with only 1 IP address in it. So your 'static' IP address is really a 'dynamic' IP address drawn from a pool of 1 possibility.
Re: The IP Address (Score:3, Informative)
In this case we are talking about a
mixed... (Score:1, Informative)
On the other hand you have spamhaus which isn't exactly an attentive understanding organization either. My colocated machine used to be in one of their blocks of blocked IPs. There is nothing they will do. They blame the data center people and the data center people say they have been trying for a year to get spamhaus to listen. Infact one email exchange with Spamhaus they told me to please go walk infront of a bus.
So this definately is a sticky situation I am happy to see the PUNKS at spamhaus get their upcommings but not at the price of having a marketer winning a case. You know maybe if Spamhaus would stop being arrogant prickies and show up at court maybe the case would have gone the other way. The whole famous story of the woman who sued McDonalds over hot coffee spillage was won simply cause McDonalds was arrogant and laughed at the woman.
Personally I have had better results using other lists, here is a typical logwatch:
Messages rejected using Anti-Spam site 1959 Time(s)
bl.spamcop.net identified 124 spam messages
cbl.abuseat.org identified 1817 spam messages
dnsbl.njabl.org identified 18 spam messages
Once I put on the abuseat.org spam dropped considerably and no customer complained of mail not getting through.
Just my $0.02
Rob
Re:so-- by your logic (Score:2, Informative)
And if it did leech, that would be a case for existing or future negotiations, with threats of military action a last resort (and one of pracical considerations as well -- is it worth it, is success likely, etc.)
Re:Minor nit-pick. (Score:2, Informative)
requiring the domain on the email to match any of those is just plain silly and i've never, ever seen evidence of this.
Re: The IP Address (Score:3, Informative)
Spamhaus is popular *because* they're good (Score:5, Informative)
They can and presumably do make mistakes, but they're about the best out there.
Most ISPs need more protection that just burning CPU on Spamassassin - diverting obviously untrustable email at the SMTP handshake instead of accepting the message is pretty critical, and the way the SMTP protocols work, if you refuse the message then, any correctly-configured legitimate email sender will get feedback, as opposed to if you accept the message and then dump it. (You can do milter-things to process the message body before accepting the message, but there are enough known-bad sources that you can kill before they get that far that it saves you a lot of CPU and transmission.)
Simply greylisting mail kills off a surprising fraction of spam, including mail from most zombies and most of the unused-address-space-BGP-hacking senders. You could certainly use Spamhaus, and for that matter just about any RBL, to drive a greylist harder (e.g. 1 hour delay for listed sites, 5 minutes for unknowns.)
Re:Minor nit-pick. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I will explain this because I'm tired of this a (Score:4, Informative)
I think you should wait before changing anything. I don't think spamhaus.org.uk, or any other name besides spamhaus.org, will ever resolve the Spamhaus RBLs.
From Spamhaus' response [spamhaus.org] to the proposed order (proposed, people, by the spammer's counsel, no judge has ordered ICANN anything), it seems they'll intend to contest this. They mention they don't think that ICANN suspending them can actually happen, for reasons I in fact agree with (go read them at their site). They also mention that "one U.S. government agency has begun working on a response."
However, if worse comes to worst, they probably won't switch to any other domain name. They state: "... if Spamhaus gets around the court order by switching domain to maintain the blocking, the judge would very likely then rule us in criminal contempt. We don't want a criminal record for the sake of fighting spam. We normally help fit the spammers with criminal records, not the other way round."
Which I read as, if this order is enforced, and ICANN caves in and all that, there will be no more Spamhaus, period.
Which would really piss me off. The whole episode already already seems like a bad dream to me. To see Spamhaus destroyed by some spammer scum would be just depressing. One thing's for certain, though: it'll be a cold day in hell before any site I manage will exchange traffic with this spammer.