"SpamCop can do no wrong" attitude

[Farelf]

Everybody on this forum seems to have this "SpamCop can do no wrong" attitude that really ticks off people who come here looking for answers.

The thing that *really* gets in the way of resolving issues here is the assumption that SpamCop *has* done wrong. Even if true (in the sense that SC supplies the BL data that the admins of receiving servers choose to use it in the full knowledge that it is "aggressive"), unwillingness to work through the process on SC's terms is hardly going to be productive. The touching loyalty to one's ISP is little more than an ownership thing - "this is *my* IP, it must be (close to) perfect." Whether or not that assumption will withstand scrutiny is the *product* of investigation, not the precursor to it.

Are spammers really criminals?

- by legal definition, it depends on the jurisdiction in which it originates and yes there are some in which this is so. Morally? Asked and answered.

[dlivesay]

I don't recall seeing that claim made, and would argue that a bit myself

I didn't say "claim." I said "attitude." It is palpable and offensive. Maybe you folks are used to it, but to a newcomer, it just reeks.

Theft of bandwidth, theft of services,

That theory has been tried. I don't remember the details, but someone got fired from a very large corporation and sent e-mail to every account at his former company telling them exactly what he thought of his former employer. Needless to say they weren't thrilled, and they tried to prosecute him for theft of services for using their resources for unapproved communication. I don't think it even went to trial.

Speaking of "theft of service," no spammer has EVER prevented me from sending mail. So-called "anti-spam" services have done so on more than one occasion.

What's it going to take to convince you that spamming is not an "above board" business enterprize?

Hey, don't get me wrong. I think it's deplorable, but so are all kinds of things that big corporations get away with--pollution, discrimination, lobbying, graft, price-fixing, price gouging, monopoly leveraging....

I just think it's kind of ironic that many of the same people who go around preaching about the "morality of the marketplace" are the first ones to decry spam, pornography, prostitution and drug-trafficking. To me these are just the inevitable consequence of unrestrained pursuit of profit, and that IS the morality of the marketplace!

That's a pretty impressive factoid, in that the "Internet" hasn't quite been around that long .... Could guess that you just might be including ARPANET and DARPANET, but those days are a far cry from "the Internet" ....

And BITNET and TIMENET and EDUNET.... And "Internet," the "network of networks," became the name for the infrastructure that tied them all together. I don't recall exactly when they started calling it Internet, but I was definitely using it when that happened.

This is called "preaching to the choir" ...

Is it? I really haven't heard anyone else talking about this. All discussions about stopping spam seem to revolve around legislative or technological solutions rather than educational and economic ones. If you can put me in touch with an organization that's promoting this I'd appreciate it.

[dlivesay]

The thing that *really* gets in the way of resolving issues here is the assumption that SpamCop *has* done wrong.

It might be worth considering why that happens. In my case it was simply because all the available evidence seemed to point to it. That's how I make decisions: available evidence. If I didn't have all the facts it would have been possible for people to point that out without being condescending, insulting OR patronizing. When people get defensive it just makes things escalate, and, to me anyway, THAT is what "*really*" gets in the way of resolving anything.

Even if true (in the sense that SC supplies the BL data that the admins of receiving servers choose to use it in the full knowledge that it is "aggressive"), unwillingness to work through the process on SC's terms is hardly going to be productive.

Again, think about why that happens. I've been using e-mail for twenty years, and aside from gateways going down back in the eighties, nothing has gotten in the way of my ability to communicate until now. Maybe YOU think what SpamCop is doing is good, but who appointed them God? They are preventing me from doing something I have every right to do. Why should I have to work through it on their terms? To hell with their terms!

Are spammers really criminals?

- by legal definition, it depends on the jurisdiction in which it originates and yes there are some in which this is so.

So they have to move to the Bahamas? What a shame. As long as the Internet is a global network they can reach you from any jurisdiction they choose.

Morally? Asked and answered.

Yes, I think we do agree that it is immoral, but of all the injustices in the world, why do so many people pick this one to get indignant about? Furthermore, I question the morality of any supposed antispam scheme that inflicts worse harm on the innocent than the offenders. Spammers have obviously figured out how to circumvent this technology. They just heist an account on a server that isn't blacklisted, blast out a few billion messages, and go on their merry way, leaving the victimized user to beg to get his service--for which he's still paying--restored! It's just ridiculous.

[Farelf]

Why should I have to work through it on their terms? To hell with their terms!

Understand and sympathise. I felt exactly the same way when my entire domain was blocked from an important server through absolutely nothing to do with me. The problem is, venturing into an "enemy camp" with that mindset leaves you with all the disadvantages - although getting in a few shots at essentially innocent correpondents might feel good at the time. You couldn't help but notice how Jennifer's case in this same topic was handled. FWIW, I think your points are all well made. My point is the aggravation is counter-productive and leads to over-sensitivity, then (as you say) the escalation of aggravation but concede that particularly human attribute of being able to imagine where another person is coming from is not the conspicuous style here. But dedication to fixing things is. So - are your problems resolved now?

[Miss Betsy]

Everybody on this forum seems to have this "SpamCop can do no wrong" attitude that really ticks off people who come here looking for answers.

QUOTE 

At any rate, the only thing that spamcop does is to provide a list of IP addresses that spam comes from.

If that's true then the name is very misleading. A cop is someone who pulls you over for speeding, not someone who maintains a list of speeder's license plate numbers. A better name, if they want to stick with the law enforcement metaphor, would be SpamNarc or SpamInformant.

The part about 'Spamcop can do no wrong' is that the blocklist message you got *did not* come from spamcop. It was how someone else used the spamcop blocklist.

Cops do have a list of license plate numbers that they can look up when they pull someone over for speeding. However, the reports that spamcop sends to the ISP's are simply etiquette. For ISP's who are interested in controlling spam, the reports are valuable. It is only when the ISP's ignore the reports, that the IP address gets blacklisted. Unfortunately, since most ISP's are much more careful, the reports are increasingly going to ISP's who support spammers and thus the reports are being used to evade being caught.

Are spammers really criminals? I'm not convinced. I hate what they do, but then, I hate a lot of things that are perfectly legal. We live in a society that has enshrined the profit motive. Spammers exist because there's money to be made doing what they do. I am just as angry at the idiots who keep them in business as the spammers themselves, but nobody seems to be putting any heat on them.

The majority of spam that we get is sent by people who, if not outright criminals - the credit card phishing, Nigerian scam, for example - are not much better than con artists. No reputable company sends unsolicited email any more unless they are woefully ignorant of internet best practices. In addition, other people have mentioned theft of bandwidth. Sending unsolicited faxes is illegal by the same principle.

The problem is that one cannot control the 'people who keep them in business' However, the *sending* end can be controlled. Thus the *senders* of email need to be educated to select responsible email service providers.

First of all, I've been using the Internet for e-mail for 20 years. Second, I know a lot about spam. I apparently know a little more about how to avoid it than most people. I think a little education in this regard would also go a long way in curbing the problem, and it wouldn't cause as many problems as these spam blockers are.

I have been an advocate for education of the end user for a long time. However, I include in my education the ways that spam can be controlled from the *sender* end. My favorite way of explaining this is if you sent a package by an offline carrier and the carrier insisted that the recipient also accept several greasy, dirty packages crawling with bugs, would you be mad at the recipient for refusing your package? No, you would be horrified. And would get mad at the carrier. Or change carriers. If more people did that (and followed your suggestions for personal responsibility for their emails), then the responsible people would have no spam.

The spam blocklists, when there is a mistake, are a minor inconvenience like thunder storms and backhoe operators. What is really a problem is the spam content filters that never notify the recipient that their email has not been received.

You are absolutely correct that spam can be avoided. I have had a couple of hotmail accounts for years that do not receive spam. Some people, however, do not want to change addresses that have been compromised or won't, on principle, so that the spammers don't 'win'

The internet is run on netiquette. Laws are meaningless. Miss Manners says that when someone behaves badly the proper etiquette is the 'cut direct' Blocklists are the internet equivalent.

I don't like the forum set up for discussion. I have forgotten where I was in your post and I don't have time to go back and forth to pick up the thread. So if I quit here, I hope you will not feel that I am ignoring part of your comments.

Miss Betsy

[Wazoo]

That theory has been tried. I don't remember the details, but someone got fired from a very large corporation and sent e-mail to every account at his former company telling them exactly what he thought of his former employer. Needless to say they weren't thrilled, and they tried to prosecute him for theft of services for using their resources for unapproved communication. I don't think it even went to trial.

Yes it went to trial. No, these weren't the charges. Traspass of chattel was the phrase of the day.

but who appointed them God

Funnily enough, a FAQ already exists along this though line. Who appointed you the "cop" of the internet? Where do you get off?

[dlivesay]

So - are your problems resolved now?

Not entirely, but as far as this incident, yes.

I appreciate your understanding. I think we've all been inconvenienced by spam and the countermeasures some people are thoughtlessly employing. The worst examples I've seen have been when I've submitted my resume to a company and had it bounced by a spam blocker because it had certain words in it. For example, I've done some consulting for pharmaceutical companies, including new drug development feasibility studies. Well, apparently some spammers market pharmaceuticals, so the mail administrator has decided to block all messages that contain the word "drug" or "pharmaceutical." As if no legitimate message could possibly contain those words. As I was pondering the possible workarounds, it finally dawned on me: I don't really want to work for these people. If that's the best they can do to block spam (and think of all the other words for which they're probably blocking messages), that really doesn't speak very well for them. They might as well turn off their server.

In the end I think there is plenty of blame to go around. Spammers shouldn't be sending spam, people shouldn't be patronizing them, people should also be more responsible about protecting their e-mail addresses, and mail administrators shouldn't be so reckless in their efforts to combat spam that they injure the victims and innocent bystanders worse than they do the spammers and end up doing more damage than the spammers themselves.

[Spambo]

I appreciate your understanding. I think we've all been inconvenienced by spam and the countermeasures some people are thoughtlessly employing.

No one is forced to use the SCBL or any other blocklist - it is their CHOICE. It is quite presumptive of you to damn the choices that others have made regarding what they want to allow into THEIR inboxes. Their inboxes are not maintained for your convenience.

The worst examples I've seen have been when I've submitted my resume to a company and had it bounced by a spam blocker because it had certain words in it.....

And this pertains to SpamCop how . . . . ??

. . . . and mail administrators shouldn't be so reckless in their efforts to combat spam that they injure the victims and innocent bystanders worse than they do the spammers and end up doing more damage than the spammers themselves.

Again, how other people decide to manage their incoming emails is THEIR choice, not yours.

[dlivesay]

No one is forced to use the SCBL or any other blocklist - it is their CHOICE.  It is quite presumptive of you to damn the choices that others have made regarding what they want to allow into THEIR inboxes.  Their inboxes are not maintained for your convenience.

....

Again, how other people decide to manage their incoming emails is THEIR choice, not yours.

Wrong. It's NOT their choice. It's the choice of the idiots who admin the mail servers they use. Those are not the people with whom I wish to communicate. It's the poor sods who USE the servers to send and hopefully receive e-mail. We're talking about different groups of people here. If someone doesn't want to receive e-mail from me, all they have to do is ask. So far no one has, but I would gladly honor any such request. What I resent is having my communications blocked by third parties who lack the understanding to do their jobs effectively, blocking legitimate communication while allowing "clever" spammers to continue operating. THAT'S what this is all about.

[dlivesay]

P.S. Look up the word "presumptive." It doesn't mean what you think it means. I believe you meant to say "presumptuous."

[Miss Betsy]

What I resent is having my communications blocked by third parties who lack the understanding to do their jobs effectively, blocking legitimate communication while allowing "clever" spammers to continue operating. THAT'S what this is all about.

I resent being asked for my ID in order to pay for groceries with a check. If I wanted to, I could be very resentful because I had to take off my sandals to be searched before I could board a plane. I know people who are.

Having my email blocked because of 'content' and usually because of the technical aspects, it is not blocked, but deleted, is much more of a nuisance than receiving a message that my email is being blocked because my ISP is incompetent, negligent, or has a minor problem. However, content filters are useful tool for some businesses.

As you point out, if people weren't so gullible and ignorant, we wouldn't have these problems. However, they are (they always have been, and there probably always will be people who will not do what they should do). I still get Nigerian scams by snail mail and fax.

Other than everyone else should be perfect, you have not proposed an alternative to making it unprofitable or difficult for the spammers to operate.

In reality, there are few 'innocent' people who are victims of anti-spam measures any more. A large part of spam is sent through open proxies and compromised machines (a situation in which almost always incompetence or carelessness is the cause). If people want to patronize ISP's who do not provide competent, reliable service and their email is blocked, then IMHO, they are no longer 'innocent' victims.

Occasionally, there is a mistake by responsible people. The inconvenience is minimal - part of the everyday glitches we all experience - a lot of them unnecessary if it weren't for gullible, ignorant fools and the greedy, unscrupulous people who exploit them.

So, what kind of program do you think will work? Where responsible people are *never* inconvenienced?

Miss Betsy

[StevenUnderwood]

It's the poor sods who USE the servers to send and hopefully receive e-mail.

I had the "poor sods" begging me to implement spam protection for over a year before the CFO finally decided to fund something. The only requirements by the CFO (after the process was explained) were that messages be held and accessible to company employees in case of false positives.

Especially in a company environment, it is difficult to protect an email address and harder still to change it. It needs to be given out for contact. It may need to be placed on web pages and/or press releases. You have lost control once you give it out. A single virus can spread your email address across the world. I have seen it happen.

[dra007]

Especially in a company environment, it is difficult to protect an email address and harder still to change it.

That's exactly my point when people suggest I change my compromized e-mail address or addresses, that is simply not an option. I work in an academic environment. We rely on openess without the fear of being victimized, our e-mails get published in print and on websites so people can contact us and ask for re-prints or exchange information.

[StevenUnderwood]

That's exactly my point when people suggest I change my compromized e-mail address or addresses, that is simply not an option.

For some people it is an option however, which is why it is offered as a suggestion. Not everyone knows your situation and they are posting general ideas.

Personally, I refuse to give in to the spammers. I have had this email address and have used it in public for many years (mid 1996 as far as I can remember). I get a lot of spam at it, but that is why I pay spamcop to filter it for me. I could fairly easily change email addresses, informing only the parties I wished to hear from, but that would be like surrendering.

[Spambo]

Wrong. It's NOT their choice. It's the choice of the idiots who admin the mail servers they use. Those are not the people with whom I wish to communicate. It's the poor sods who USE the servers to send and hopefully receive e-mail. We're talking about different groups of people here. If someone doesn't want to receive e-mail from me, all they have to do is ask. So far no one has, but I would gladly honor any such request. What I resent is having my communications blocked by third parties who lack the understanding to do their jobs effectively, blocking legitimate communication while allowing "clever" spammers to continue operating. THAT'S what this is all about.

Right.

Every customer of the SpamCop email & filtering service didn't choose to use the service.

Every customer of external email services are forced to use their ISP provider and are forbidden to find a different email provider to handle their email even if they disagree with their ISP's policies.

I don't think so.

[Spambo]

P.S. Look up the word "presumptive." It doesn't mean what you think it means. I believe you meant to say "presumptuous."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=presumptive

presumptive

\Pre*sump"tive\, a. [Cf. F. pr['e]somptif.] 1. Based on presumption or probability; grounded on probable evidence; probable; as, presumptive proof.

2. Presumptuous; arrogant. [R.] --Sir T. Browne.

[dlivesay]

I resent being asked for my ID in order to pay for groceries with a check.  If I wanted to, I could be very resentful because I had to take off my sandals to be searched before I could board a plane.  I know people who are.

I hope you're joking, right? I mean there's a big difference between a merchant protecting himself against fraud in his own store (they have every right to insist you pay cash, after all) and some self-appointed "cop" blocking your Internet mail. The merchant owns the store, and you can take your business elsewhere if you don't like his terms. People who block my mail don't own the Internet, and I can't take my business elsewhere because there's only one Internet, and as a taxpayer I helped to pay for its construction. I also pay for access.

The state or county can legitimately close a highway for maintenance, but you have no right to throw up a roadblock just because you don't like the sound of traffic going by your house, but this is essentially what people are doing when they block my mail.

Other than everyone else should be perfect, you have not proposed an alternative to making it unprofitable or difficult for the spammers to operate.

I made two suggestions: protect your e-mail address, and don't patronize spammers. Someone on this very forum has posted his e-mail address. That shows how uninformed people are. You can post an address securely, but not the way he's doing it. I just wish people would educate themselves before they resort to measures that harm innocent people. I'm not asking people to be perfect. Just stop being perfect fools!

In reality, there are few 'innocent' people who are victims of anti-spam measures any more.

Maybe in your reality. You clearly live in a different world than I do. I have been vastly more inconvenienced by antispam measures than I have by spammers. If the police fought crime the way some people fight spam, they'd spray a crowd with machine gun bullets because they saw a purse snatcher run into the crowd.

Occasionally, there is a mistake by responsible people.  The inconvenience is minimal - part of the everyday glitches we all experience - a lot of them unnecessary if it weren't for  gullible, ignorant fools and the greedy, unscrupulous people who exploit them.

Maybe the inconvenience seems minimal to you, but I can see where it could have serious consequences, and the "everyday glitches," as you call them, are worse now than they were when the Internet was still in its infancy.

[dlivesay]

presumptive

\Pre*sump"tive\, a. [Cf. F. pr['e]somptif.] 1. Based on presumption or probability; grounded on probable evidence; probable; as, presumptive proof.

2. Presumptuous; arrogant. [R.] --Sir T. Browne.

Congratulations. You can use a dictionary. Now look up "obscure." If you had used a better reference they would have pointed out that the second meaning is obscure. Most dictionaries don't even mention it.

[yourbuddy]

dlivesay ...

Only read your last post (sorry, don't have time to go from the start)

and agree with you completely. SpamCop (which is used by others to

filter email - because they think it is reliable) is "responsible" for the

problems they cause, since they pretend to be reliable. SpamCop is

quite a mess, prone to reporting errors (some members even report

on themselves in error, and get blacklisted). In a way, you could say

that it is not SpamCop that's the problem - but people who stupidly

go along with the SpamCop blacklisting. I have asked my ISP not to

use SpamCop (was easy for them to agree, as they were mistakenly

blacklisted once - no, munchkins - I will not give particulars) and will

ask any other ISP not to use SpamCop. If they want reliable blacklist

services (realiable most of the time) they can use Spamhaus DNSbl.

[dlivesay]

Especially in a company environment, it is difficult to protect an email address and harder still to change it.  It needs to be given out for contact.  It may need to be placed on web pages and/or press releases.

I am aware of that, but there is a right way and a wrong way to do that. The wrong way is in clear text, as you've done. Any spider can parse it and save it in a database. The right way is to use a mailto hyperlink and URL-encode the e-mail address, then entity-encode the encoded e-mail address and the "mailto:" protocol identifier. Then put your name or title or whatever in the content of the tag. The source code is unrecognizable as an e-mail address, so most spambots won't recognize it. Obviously your browser knows how to convert it back to ASCII when you click on it, but spambots aren't that sophisticated--yet. Someday they'll probably figure it out, but until then, this is effective. Remember, you don't need to outrun the bears--just outrun the other hunters.

A single virus can spread your email address across the world.  I have seen it happen.

I've seen it happen too, but mostly to people who use Outlook on Windows. I've concluded that's not a really good idea either. I've tried to avoid giving my personal e-mail address to anyone who uses that combination.

[dlivesay]

I don't think...

Clearly. If you think "Right" and "I don't think so" make rhetorical points then thinking is not your strongest suit.

[dlivesay]

dlivesay ...

Only read your last post (sorry, don't have time to go from the start)

and agree with you completely.

Thanks, and you don't need to read them all. They're pretty redundant. ;-)

I think there are a lot of people who would agree with us, but this point of view is actively discouraged here. I think they need to take this very seriously, or there's going to be a mother of a backlash (which will once again make things worse for all of us).

[yourbuddy]

Well ...

I would say that most of the "help" here is from people who

are "brainwashed" into the SpamCop method, or they want to

genuinely help so badly that they are "self-brainwashed". For

Spambo, that would translate into having been "deluded".

Is "Spambo" a shortform of "Spambozo"

Sorry, just could not resist that ...

Any bets this gets moved to the Lounge now

[StevenUnderwood]

I am aware of that, but there is a right way and a wrong way to do that. The wrong way is in clear text, as you've done.

You seem to think I want to stop getting spam. I want to get rid of spammers.

Also, I know how to do it. At this point there is no point to it. These work addresses have been on the internet for 10 years before these methods were really needed and were already on spam lists when I started there. As for my personal address, again, it was used well before the spammers started in earnest and I refuse to surender it now. I didn't get my first spam until about 2 years ago, ven with my address being posted on the internet since 1996. Again, these are old addresses which have already been widely distributed but which for one reason or another will remain in use.

Remember, you don't need to outrun the bears--just outrun the other hunters.

And let other people drown in spam, That is very nice of you.

I've seen it happen too, but mostly to people who use Outlook on Windows.

That is one of the reasons we use Novell and Lotus Notes at work. With the recent viruses, I have seen an email address that was in a technical white paper (a very specific address) receiving a virus within hours of the papers release. A user who was infected at home had browsed the paper and the address was in the cache of that machine. And if you want the paper published, you follow the publishers rules (and their formatting). You have no control over how the address is presented.

I've concluded that's not a really good idea either. I've tried to avoid giving my personal e-mail address to anyone who uses that combination.

Then this is not a business address we are talking about. Company A is a supplier to Company B and needs email updates about shipments etc.. Are you (company A) not going to supply that necessary information because of the email system they use? You will not have a customer if you do.

[yourbuddy]

Yes, yes ...

SpamCop is trying to stop spammers.

It's not working, but SpamCop is continuing the pretense

and doing a good job of inconveniencing legitimate users.

The attempt is a noble one, but in the "war on spammers"

SpamCop is just carpet-bombing lots of innocent civilians.

The sooner SpamCop, and it's "aggressive/error prone"

system (if you can call it that) disappears, the better.

It's unfortunate that the emperor Julian has no clothes,

but that's the naked truth. It was a really good try.