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

[Jason Clifford]

On 3 Jun 2003, Mike Brodbelt wrote:

> > Unacceptable to you, maybe. Not to them.
> 
> Fine - they should keep it to themselves then. I filter my own spam too,
> according to my arbitrary criteria. Unlike SPEWS, I don't try to force
> my viewpoint of what should be filtered onto others.

They don't force it on anyone (except the users of their own systems). 
Nobody is erquired to use any RBL or other anti-abuse measure.

> SpamAssassin demonstrates quite well that netblock lookups are an
> unnecessary blunt instrument. Content based filtering and Bayesian
> analysis can remove spam more effectively, and under the user's control.

And may well be illegal for ISPs, employers and others to use. Privacy 
laws mean that your ISP, employer etc are not permitted to peak into your 
private communications.

> The only case I see for SPEWS and its like is as a rule in a scoring
> system, where the actual block/don't block decision is left to the end
> user.

In such cases the ISP/employer is then forced to pick up the increased 
bankwidth costs as you have to accept the whole message before you can 
filter on content. RBLs allow you to refuse the message immediately upon 
exchange of SMTP headers so you don't waste such resources.

> Unfortunately, many of the users of those systems don't know what SPEWS
> is, and don't get any choice in the matter. If SPEWS was an end user
> tool, where each user could make their own mind up, fine. It isn't
> though - a sysadmin somewhere makes the choice for those users, and
> their only way of complaining about the choice (assuming they ever find
> out why their mail doesn't work properly) is to find another ISP.

Some of the anti-spam/virus solutions now allow per user configuration. 
I'm investigating a couple for UKFSN (and UKPOST) at the moment and this 
is one of the things that will swing my decision.

> If I want to remove all spam from my machine, I can just unplug it from
> the network. Most people would think that's overkill, but it's my
> choice. If, however, I choose to wander round unplugging machines at
> random to save other people from spam, I'd expect to get into trouble
> for damaging people's systems. SPEWS does almost exactly this, but
> digitally as opposed to physically. That some of the people they unplug
> may agree with them and some not is entirely irrelevant - it doesn't
> give them the right to do it.

Mike, you are simply wrong on this one. They do no such thing. As 
objectionable as I find SPEWS to be (and I very much do!) the truth is 
that they are a passive operation. Where a site uses SPEWS it is the 
decision of the site operators and they are the ones you need to address 
your concerns to.

Jason Clifford
-- 
UKFSN.ORG		Finance Free Software while you surf the 'net
http://www.ukfsn.org/			Sign up now



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