More Bad Spam Blacklists
from the pointless dept
Last month we were informed that Techdirt had been put on a new spam blacklist, that was trying to pick up where a few older spam blacklists had left off, after being knocked offline by angry spammers. We had no idea how we could be put on a spam blacklist, as we don't send out emails other than the emails from individuals who work here. Also, if you read the site, you'd know that we're pretty vocal about how evil spammers are. However, it still required an annoying bit of time to track down and contact the folks who run the blacklist and plead my case (they requested all sorts of info they had no right to have). It appears we're not the only ones. Broadband Reports is now complaining about how they've been unfairly placed on the SPEWS blackhole list - and the process for getting off the list is absolutely ridiculous and insulting. The thing is, all these "shoot first, ask questions later" blacklists are going around pissing off the people who should be their biggest supporters. I understand their attitude, that the collateral damage will force more people to get angry - but those people aren't getting angry at spammers. They're getting angry at the blacklists.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
funny you should see what happened here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SPEWS is a blacklist that works
Well, the target of the IP block is NOT the spammers, but the spam-friendly ISP. And it is the spam-friendly ISP which signs contracts with spammers, moving them from one IP address to another, allowing them to continue in business. And customers who naively sign up with spam-friendly ISPs get an unpleasant education. Their money is financing (at least) unethical behavior, which I'm sure was not their intent. They have been sold damaged goods.
Also lost in this "discussion" is that SPEWS merely publishes a list of ip-address areas of ISPs who ignore spam reports. When mail is denied, it's not denied by SPEWS. It's denied by a postmaster who had decided that the SPEWS list is a great way of decreasing the spam processed by his mail servers. And that is simply his right.
The bottom line is that an ISP has to ignore reports of a spammer for a certain amount of time before they end up on a SPEWS blacklist. I'm not SPEWS, so I don't know what that amount of time is, but it isn't minutes or hours.
If you contrast the number of satisfied customers of SPEWS plus the fact that some ISPs have actually become spam-unfriendly, with the small number of articles such as you have linked here, it's clear that SPEWS is a winning strategy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPEWS is a blacklist that works
I certainly agree that it's within an ISP's rights to use SPEWS, and I agree that many misuse it in automatically blocking all SPEWS-listed IPs.
However, you completely gloss over the fact that this plan HURTS INNOCENT USERS for no good reason, other than SPEWS has decided to draft them into their own fight. If people want to protest what their ISP is doing that should be up to them - not SPEWS.
Again, I'll agree that SPEWS is just publishing a list, and they're free to do that. The real purpose of getting these types of stories out is to make it clear to ISPs that SPEWS is hardly foolproof, and in many cases appears to cause more problems than it solves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPEWS is a blacklist that works
*Sigh*
OK, let me try again.
1. A customer gets an account with ISP X.
2. ISP X signs a contract with a spammer, who proceeds to spam from that ISP's ip address space.
3. ISP X gets abuse reports for months, stating that they are harboring spammers. Nothing is done about it.
4. SPEWS, over a period of time, increases the amount of ISP X's address space in their lists. Postmasters who use SPEWS deny more and more mail from ISP X.
5. Both spammer and non-spammer customers of ISP X cannot send mail to SPEWS subscribers.
At best I would call the non-spammer customers "naive" rather than "innocent". After all, their fees help support the spam-friendly ISP in their actions. Plus, the spam-friendly ISP signs such naive users up when they know that they are being blocked by SPEWS. So the spam-friendly ISP is selling damaged goods, and is using them as human shields, as you'd expect from such an organization.
The answer is, don't do business with spam-friendly ISPs. If you do, you are liable to get an unpleasant education. Other ISPs will not accept your mail, as is their right, because you didn't do your homework. SPEWS subscribers are not trying to enlist anyone in their fight. They are simply boycotting spam-friendly ISPs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPEWS is a blacklist that works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPEWS is a blacklist that works
:-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPEWS is a blacklist that works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPEWS is a blacklist that works
I have no problem with other ISPs adopting SPEWS, to slap the spam-friendly ISPs upside the head, but I wouldn't use it myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPEWS is a blacklist that works
'Hypocrite' isn't quite the right word, but it's along the same lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPEWS is a blacklist that works
SPAMCOP automatically removes IP addresses from their blocklist after 48 hours if no further reports of spam occur from that address. Sounds like SPEWS is a little more hard-assed about it. I like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPEWS is a blacklist that works
Go ahead and blame the spammers and blame the ISP, but why take it out on the innocent users?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPEWS is a blacklist that works
The customer should require the ISP to certify in their contract that their address has not and will not be used for spam. If the ISP refuses, then don't sign on with them. If the ISP accepts and then violates the contract, sue them for damages.
Failure to exercise such reasonable care in selecting an ISP is the customer's own fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPEWS is a blacklist that works
Whenever we pick a web server to place one of our sites, we do research on them to find out if they are spam friendly.
Last year we left one (Media3.net) because over the course of time we found out that they were a major supporter of spammers. They are obviously popular due to their close proximity to MAE-EAST and their Dual OC12's... we still haven't beat their bandwidth. However, we had to leave because of the high amount of "IP" anti-spam we were getting. (Anti-spam sent based on IP address)
When we realized what was going on, we dropped them like a hot skillet and went to another server that was more private and since then have received less than 10% of the email we had before.
Certainly we aren't the only major web site operators out there that have discovered this kind of thing and changed servers.
The old saying comes into effect: Let the buyer beware!
It IS up to the customers to STOP supporting spam servers. If everyone in the world stopped responding to spam, stopped buying from ANYONE who sent spam, and didn't pay for space on spammer's servers, then we'd see a reduction in spam. Not a total dissapearance, but a definite reduction. There's always going to be spam, but if no one is buying from them, a certain number of them will go away.
Spam Education is the key.
How many people actually bought a Troy-built roto-tiller from the little flyers we all got in our mail in the 80's and 90's? Must have been pretty low since you never see them anymore. They've gone to different methods of advertising that is more legitimate.
This is what I'm talking about.
Let's educate our friends and tell everyone we know that they should never buy ANYTHING from spam and it will eventually go the way of those tiny 3rd class mail flyers. No, they aren't gone, but certainly almost.
My 25 cents and then some,
-Mic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPEWS is a blacklist that works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPEWS is a blacklist that works
1. Many large, mainstream ISP's have little local guys bundling and reselling their service. If SPEWS is sending their complaints to the reseller, how in h*ll is the mainstream service suppose do anything? My company lost email service for several days under just such a situation, where an RBL blacklisted the mainstream service for the actions of a reseller--actions they could not have known about. And even if they did know about them, my company certainly couldn't have, so how were we supposed to CHOOSE based on information we couldn't have obtained? Get real.
2. The end result of these RBLs is often as bad as the spam that starts it. Indeed, you could almost imagine a malicious spammer doing just enough spam to cause an ISP to be blacklisted and then moving on to repeat the process elsewhere, kind of a slow-motion denial of service attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPEWS is a blacklist that works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPEWS is a blacklist that works
It's not about the STRATEGY, it's about the EXECUTION.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPEWS is a blacklist that works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPEWS is a blacklist that works
This is a form of abuse which is likely covered under the law. It's the same principles as are covered by slander and libel. The SPEWS folks had better get their act together before someone with enough money sues their asses off.
And mindless jerks like you should be sued as accessories for supporting such prepostereous actions. You need a lesson in the value of freedom. Go work for a dictator and see how you like it. There's still plenty of them around.
Bubble-head!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPEWS is a blacklist that works
What about the people that use RBLs as a weapon, or the people that do not try to resolve the issue before they submit to the RBL?
My ISP had a staff member that reported us to an RBL without ever contacting us the day we brought our mail server online. We WERE guilty of an open relay, but it was not intentional. We were contacted by the RBL after we were put on their list and given a chance to correct the problem, but the fact remains, we were blacklisted FIRST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Complain
If it were not for SPEWS you would get more spam. Lots more spam.
What is your alternative?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Complain
I don't complain about the many folks out there working on legitimate spam solutions that don't harm innocent users. I think they're doing a great job stopping spam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
To use Sneakemails anti spam service you need to be sure your email provider isnt blocking at SPEWS level 2 listings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Il Migliore Casino
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blacklists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]