Perspectives on Spamhaus's Dilemma

  • Thread starter Thread starter imhotep
  • Start date Start date
I

imhotep

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
 
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
Click to expand...

Fixed improper use of Follow-up
 
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.
 
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]:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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]:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...


....well said.

Im
 
....well said.

Im
Click to expand...


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.
 
Back
Top