Perspectives on Spamhaus's Dilemma

Discussion in 'Security Software' started by imhotep, Oct 10, 2006.

  1. imhotep

    imhotep Guest

    Perspectives on Spamhaus's Dilemma

    It is absolutely shameful that the US courts have chosen to protect a
    spammer and are trying to force Spamhaus into *NOT* blocking the spammer.
    Spamhaus is perfectly within their rights to block a known spamming
    company...afterall Spamhaus is in the UK where spamming is illegal...

    "The Illinois court that told Spamhaus to stop blocking the spammer filing
    suit against them ? an order which Spamhaus ignored ? is now considering
    ordering ICANN to pull Spamhaus's domain records. While Gadi Evron, whose
    blog posting is linked above, urges everyone to beat the judge with a clue
    stick, a guest writer on his blog counsels much greater restraint."

    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/09/1825232&from=rss

    Imhotep
     
    imhotep, Oct 10, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. imhotep

    Vanguard Guest


    So what happens to the owner of a list (that doesn't block a damn
    thing and simply provides the list) who decides to provide a Big
    Corporation listing, like including Intel, IBM, Microsoft, etc?
    Anyone using that list would also end up blocking those big
    corporations.

    Gee, if this law passes then the pedophiles would rejoice because they
    could use it to rescind and prosecute anyone publishing lists of child
    molesters and their locations.
     
    Vanguard, Oct 10, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. imhotep

    imhotep Guest

    DNSRBLs like Spamhaus typically harvest spammers by many ways. Using a email
    address in a newsgroup, submitting the email address for website access
    (when requested), etc, etc, etc

    When email comes in it is typically reviewed and investigated. If it is
    deemed spam, it is added to the list.

    Now, companies can request that they be removed, maybe they had some
    infected Microsoft PCs on their LAN, in which case they will be removed and
    given a small grace time.

    In the end, this is a subscription service you do not need to use it unless
    you want to...

    The real shocking thing is that the US legal system is run by idiots who
    choose to support, or at least protect, spammers...

    Imhotep
     
    imhotep, Oct 10, 2006
    #3
  4. [snip]
    [snip]

    As a non-US citizen, I find it extremely bizarre that the court didn't
    stop for a second to contemplate whether it has any jurisdiction over
    this UK-based entity, Spamhaus. Here's their take on this:
    <http://www.spamhaus.org/legal/answer.lasso?ref=3>.
     
    Michael Bednarek, Oct 10, 2006
    #4
  5. .. . .
    One and the same as those that believe they can better design Windows.
     
    Roger Abell [MVP], Oct 10, 2006
    #5
  6. imhotep

    Leythos Guest

    Fixed improper use of Follow-up
     
    Leythos, Oct 10, 2006
    #6
  7. imhotep

    imhotep Guest

    The only true way to "Fix improper use of Follow-up" is to use a news client
    that is fully RFC compliant.......
     
    imhotep, Oct 10, 2006
    #7
  8. imhotep

    imhotep Guest

    ....what are you talking about???
     
    imhotep, Oct 10, 2006
    #8
  9. imhotep

    imhotep Guest

    Exactly! In the UK spamming is illegal. The US courts are trying to take
    Spamhaus domain name away...if they do that, that is total misuse of
    power...and should be investigated...


    Im
     
    imhotep, Oct 10, 2006
    #9
  10. imhotep

    Ian Guest

    Yep, it's also unfortunate it's always the Good Guys that get hit by this
    kind of thing.

    Spamhaus is a well-run organisation and seldom gives false positives.

    Which cannot be said for some other blocklists. Our mailserver was
    blacklisted by another such service, and this caused us a lot of hassle. It
    also made us waste a great deal of time looking for a (nonexistent)
    spam-relaying incident in our mailserver logs. It turned out they were
    adding hosts on the basis of amateur submissions. Which basically says it
    all.

    If they attacked some of these false-positive-making muppets it would do
    the business community a lot more good.
     
    Ian, Oct 11, 2006
    #10
  11. On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:21:01 -0700, Ian wrote in
    microsoft.public.security, microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,
    [microsoft.public.security.homeusers,
    microsoft.public.internetexplorer.security]:
    I disagree; remember, in this case a well known spammer misused the US
    court system to attempt to harm Spamhaus - so much for what you call
    "they".

    2nd: the "attack" was totally ineffective - so much for "do ... good".

    3rd: it's up to the "business community" to make informed choices when
    selecting suppliers of block lists, not for the courts driven by
    spammers' frivolous actions.
     
    Michael Bednarek, Oct 12, 2006
    #11
  12. imhotep

    imhotep Guest


    ....well said.

    Im
     
    imhotep, Oct 12, 2006
    #12
  13. imhotep

    Ian Guest


    I think you mistook my intent; I meant that the Courts would do better
    attacking the spamblock-cowboys than attacking Spamhaus, whose record is very
    good.

    The several unreliable blocklists (I'm sure you know which ones) cause a
    great deal of grief, and it's time a few of them got their asses kicked in
    Court.

    Besides, if your mailserver finds its way onto a cowboy list, where is the
    element of choice in that? It's not whether YOU use that list that counts,
    but whether your contacts do. I see no element of choice there!

    Plead read the post carefully. Then flame. Not the reverse.
     
    Ian, Oct 12, 2006
    #13
  14. Hi,

    I think this is a terrible situation and you are right to raise it. I
    knew this was going to happen sooner or later because (in the US) the
    "free market" and the large corporation will always take precedence over
    the rights of the citizen. It's similar to the SpyWare peddlers who
    demand to be removed from Anti-SpyWare databases (or we'll sue you).
     
    Gerry Hickman, Oct 13, 2006
    #14
  15. imhotep

    imhotep Guest


    Yes. I shamefully admit that this problem is rampant in the US....

    Imhotep
     
    imhotep, Oct 15, 2006
    #15
  16. At a rough guess, I would imagine that he's talking about the various court
    cases, in the US and overseas, that have sought to define what can, and can
    not, be included in the Windows Operating System as shipped to consumers.

    Roger may be talking about other things, but if he is, I'm sure he can
    explain them, too.

    Alun.
    ~~~~
     
    Alun Jones [MS-MVP - Windows Security], Oct 16, 2006
    #16
  17. imhotep

    imhotep Guest

    Ah yes. Microsoft's Worldwide anti-trust problems...
     
    imhotep, Oct 16, 2006
    #17
  18. Hi Imhotep,
    To date, I would not call them "problems", more like "minor
    inconveniences". Even the CN govt realized there was too much at stake
    and backed down. The EU are like wet tissues. The DoJ fiasco in the US
    enshrines the reality of "anti-trust" in the context of Microsoft:)
     
    Gerry Hickman, Oct 17, 2006
    #18
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.