[Gllug] Re: www.spews.org - spamming blacklist

[David Damerell]

On , 2 Jun 2003, Mike Brodbelt wrote:
>On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 22:57, David Damerell wrote:
>>On , 2 Jun 2003, Mike Brodbelt wrote:
>>>Yep, that's spews. Nice reasoned, rational response. Find a spammer,
>>>then proceed to completely screw over a whole load of totally innocent
>>>people just because they happen to have the same ISP.
>>This response is both reasoned (perhaps not reasonable) and rational.
>>This _really_ motivates the ISP to do something about the spammer.
>It's an unacceptable level of collateral damage.

Unacceptable to you, maybe. Not to them. And, to be honest,
remembering the great days of spammer haven ISPs, before the spammers
had to exploit open relays or crack machines as a matter of
course... hmmm. Sometimes it _is_ the only solution. SPEWS is badly
run, but the underlying idea is a sound one.

However, you're also perpetrating a basic untruth about this sort of
operation. SPEWS do not block anyone's mail. The only reason they can
have an effect is that a significant number of systems _agree_ with
them that their identification of tainted netblocks is reasonable, and
_those systems_ - not SPEWS - block people's mail.

>>But there's no point saying there's not a clearly thought out
>>rationale behind this approach; in general, it weakens any valid
>>arguments you may have if you present invalid ones at the same time.
>Point taken. I should have said "they have a reasoned argument in the
>limited sense of being thought out, but they have failed to apply
>proportional judgement in considering the consequences of their actions,
>and somehow consider the damage they cause to the network to be more
>morally acceptable than the damage caused by spammers, despite it being
>far more severe for those unfortunates caught in the firing line."

What you're saying here is essentially "they are wrong because they do
not agree with me".

>but to *improve* the quality of the network for other users. It's the
>same attitude evinced by the home office to justify legislative
>excesses.

Please, spare us the bogus analogy. Next you'll be spouting "for the
sake of the children".

-- 
David Damerell <damerell at chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug