[linux-elitists] Spam spam spam spam
Sat Feb 19 06:35:31 PST 2005
On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 21:02 -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 10:51:52PM -0500, Aaron Sherman (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> > Spam Support Services
> > Services providing 'bullet-proof' hosting for spam service
> > purposes, **serving 'spamware' sites**, or **knowingly providing
> > services for spam service purposes**.
> > That is, you get listed in the SBL, even if you've never sent out spam,
> > because you provide support services or sell software related to spam.
> Aaron: *please* stop posting bullshit here until you've found your
> comprehension bit or do a *modicum* of research and/or testing.
Please stop dismissing what I say without responding to it in any way.
You're flaming here, but I don't see any comprehension on your side
either. Are you just trolling for my ire? If so, I suppose I've fallen
for it. Congrats.
> SBL's definition of spammer and spam (support) services does *not*
> extend to an entire ISP of the scale of MCI, regarless of how many
> subnets of MCI _are_ actively engaged in spamming. You're spewing FUD
> worse than Microsoft prior to LinuxWorld....
I've NEVER said or implied that they did or would. Please stop re-
interpreting what I've said. I simply said that they list IPs that have
never issued spam because they are believed to be engaged in "support
services". Again -- and I don't know why this is difficult -- my concern
is stopping spam, not tying a yellow ribbon around my MTA. I now use a
DNSBL that lists known spam source IPs only, and I'm a happy camper. I
have too little data as yet, but oddly enough XBL + this new spam-only
DNSBL seems to be more effective than XBL-SBL too.
> Those are CIDR specs, and you'll find that the largest subnet is a /19.
> 8192 IPs is by no means the bulk of MCI's allocation.
Never, ever, ever said that it was. This is a classic straw-man.
> > Hell, by that logic, they could list staples.com after sending them a
> > "you sell office supplies to the following spammers" letter.
> One industrial-strength clue shipped, expedited freight. *Please* do us
> all a favor and accept delivery.
Karsten, please stop being dismissive just for the sake of it. If you
disagree that the wording of the policy could apply to any support,
technical or not (which is what my hyperbolic example was intended to
demonstrate), then please feel free to explain how you're reading it,
citing the policy wording rather than resorting to sarcasm or unfounded
dismissal (e.g. "Aaron's reading without comprehension").
However, it WAS a side point, as they're already punitively listing IPs
that have never issued spam. Thus, I'm forced to stop using them. It's
really that simple, and if you like the way they do things, you are of
course, welcome to keep using them (I'll keep using them via SA...
though I might lower the score a touch).
This whole thread began simply because someone sent out mail suggesting
that we should use an ACM event as a PR stunt to shame Vint Cerf into
making MCI do what WE think is right about a spammer. This is terrorism
(in the classic, pre-war-on-terror sense), and I was shocked by the
suggestion. However, it made me re-examine my use of a DNSBL. I noted
surprise at what they do, changed my configs and moved on. Perhaps if
you can't cope with that, we should just drop the conversation.
> > I'm looking to block spam coming to my doorstep, not tie a yellow ribbon
> > around my and my customers' MTAs.
> > > Suggest you read Spamhaus's specs _with_ comprehension.
> > Turns out I have... finally.
You seem to want anything but. I've not resorted to calling anything
you've said bullshit (sorely tempting, I admit).
More information about the linux-elitists