Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nim

WTF is laposte.net blocked ?

Recommended Posts

People who leave their keys in their cars and then get their cars stolen are still victims, though the police and other people might have other names for them.

People who go skiing during avalanch weather now have to pay for their rescues.

Miss Betsy

26209[/snapback]

...But IIUC, nim's point is that the victims, in this case, are not being reckless or behaving in ways they know (or should know) are suicidal; they are customers of a service provider who has heretofore been (apparently) white hat (this is not to endorse what nim is saying about this particular service provider; I don't know about them, myself; I'm just trying to re-phrase nim's point).

...Where we might reasonably disagree with nim, IMHO, is where the burden lies for avoiding / fixing the problem and whether SpamCop has done enough to try to get the users of its blocklist to behave responsibly. We feel it is the responsibility of the service providers and their customers; nim feels that SpamCop should do more. The fact that we don't agree with him does not mean, necessarily, that his opinion is nonsensical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe my examples were too extreme.

How about getting stuck on the interstate? Lots of people who are exemplary defensive drivers experience inconvenience because of accidents .

What about the myriad rules, regulations, reports, id checks that we live with every day because there are criminals? Have you ever been annoyed by a car alarm? Or wakened when you needed your sleep?

However, it was the implicit threat in the "do your own police," that led me to use more extreme language. I have no idea what he means, but if it is to create a better blocklist, more power to him. If he wants to try to block those who are using spamcop, let him make his own list. If he wants to cry he was a 'victim', sorry. I show my id all the time and I am as honest as the day is long. I am a 'victim' because other people are criminals. In other cases, I can't do this or get that information because other people have abused that privilege.

Nobody is forced to use the scbl. There are lists out there that nobody uses.

Actually, he ought to be thankful to spamcop for alerting him to a problem. Things break down. It is a hassle. If you drive with a flat tire for very long, however, you have a bigger problem. Would you object if not knowing you had an oil leak, you were suddenly refused entry to a parking garage because they don't want oil leaks in their garage? Stupid people to be so picky, grump, grump. But aren't you better off knowing you have an oil leak than to break down on the interstate miles from an exit?

The internet runs on netiquette. I don't have to acknowledge you if you are in a bunch of rioters and shoplifters (actually in this case acting like them). When you leave their company or stop your acting, spamcop doesn't hold a grudge. Other blocklists don't care, they don't want to take the chance again.

And just exactly how does he expect spamcop to keep track of who says he is whitehat and isn't (by his behavior) and who is white hat, but only had a momentary breakdown? I know that's not what he is asking for right now. He wants to know who is using the scbl as a blocklist instead of tagging spam. But what's to stop a spammer from bombing those people who tag spam with every possible twist to evade being tagged?

People who have to be rescued can think that it is someone else's fault they needed to be rescued. The police should have put a sign that the water was too deep!

No, I don't just not agree with him; I don't think his argument has a leg to stand on.

I am sorry for his problems. I think there should be some help for white hats who have momentary glitches to get a higher weight on the algorithym to be removed more quickly. I think that bulk emailers and blocklist operators could work better together.

But I don't think saying "I am honest" is going to get your check cashed out of state without an id in a Walmart. (though some smaller merchants will do so, but if Walmart is the only store that is open, you are SOL).

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, it was the implicit threat in the "do your own police," that led me to use more extreme language.  I have no idea what he means, but if it is to create a better blocklist, more power to him. 

26213[/snapback]

This was not a threat just a real-world example.

Big demonstrations are designed to annoy sufficiently PTB to make them react. However this does not extend to pillaging. Since very often the police is all too happy to let rioters take advantage of a demo (it makes demonstrators look like criminals), a well-run demonstration will include squads of volunteers that expel people who are there to riot not demonstrate pacificaly.

I think it's pretty obvious why this work must be done by the demonstrators themselves not external entities. If you organise a party with a high risk of fire you should have buckets of water ready. Waiting passively for the fire departement to intervene and explaining to the neighbours "sorry, sh** happens, it's X. fault we told him to be careful" just does not cut it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I understand your reference now you have explained it.

As many times as those who don't like being blocked say it, no one who uses a blocking list whether one they have created or one that they have found on the internet, is using 'vigilante' or even 'demonstrator' tactics. They do nobody any harm intentionally. In fact, using a blocklist to reject at the server, rather than tag, is more 'polite' because it gives the sender a notice that their message has a problem. Instead of hanging up on a telemarketer, they are saying 'no thank you' If it turns out that the sending IP address is not sending annoying emails (spam, back scatter, auto responses), then things can be fixed quickly. If the sender is doing so inadvertently (like driving with tail lights missing), then the sender is usually thankful to hear it so the sender can fix it.

There is no reason why people should continue to receive unwanted email (unwanted by both sender and receiver) as long as it is still coming. If anyone should be inconvenienced, it should be the sender, not the recipient. Not being able to send email to particular places for a while is not the same as pillaging or rioting. Since there is a response, if an important email has to be sent and received, then there are alternatives - even alternative emails as well as fax and courier. That is not so when email is accepted and then tagged - it is not easy to recognize a legitimate email among all the unwanted email. And nobody knows until the sender asks if the email was received.

I do think that you have a point that blocklist creators should work better with whitehat admins. However, I don't think much of your idea. Did I say it before in this thread? If you don't like existing blocklists, then create your own for use by you and other white hat admins - one that gives an advantage to whitehats if something goes wrong. If it prevents spam and gives fewer false positives, then admins will use it instead of spamcop. For instance, if there is a problem, those in the same group can create some kind of filter that filters out the spam for their customers and still allow legitimate email during that period.

Since this is not a demonstration, there is no need for internal or external police. If you think that spamcop is unfair, rather than an early warning system, then you are free to say so and to try to persuade others not to use it or to use it only for tagging.

As many times as people on this forum say that spamcop is not designed to be used as a blocklist and that spamcop, itself, doesn't use it to reject email, IMHO, the sc administration don't see anything wrong with using it in that way if it suits your system. Like most early netizens, whatever they provide on the internet is take it or leave it. The internet is all about freedom, but with freedom comes responsibility.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As many times as people on this forum say that spamcop is not designed to be used as a blocklist and that spamcop, itself, doesn't use it to reject email, IMHO, the sc administration don't see anything wrong with using it in that way if it suits your system.

This was precisely my point.

As it is set up now the warning is nothing more than a xheap way for spamcop to exonerate itself from blacklisters actions.

Like most early netizens, whatever they provide on the internet  is take it or leave it.  The internet is all about freedom, but with freedom comes responsibility.

26216[/snapback]

Your definition of responsibility is not the same one as mine then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This was precisely my point.

As it is set up now the warning is nothing more than a cheap way for spamcop to exonerate itself from blacklisters actions.

26232[/snapback]

And exaclty what is wrong with that? It is the administrator who needs to answer to his users making that decision, not spamcop. Spamcop describes the conditions needed to list IP addresses on its list, makes removal automatic when those conditions no longer apply, and remove incorrect entries and punish reporters who do not follow the reporting rules. At the end of the day, it is still the email administrator that is responsible for what his server accepts or rejects.

You have no right to force your message (any message) onto someone else's personal property (the server). If an administrator wants to block any domain ending in .net (or .edu, .br...) or ant IP that ends in 1, that is their right. If it fits their situation, it is their business.

You do realize there are blacklists out there that list all valid IP addresses, right? Are they responsible if some administrator uses that list and refuses ALL email?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your definition of responsibility is not the same one as mine then.

Or perhaps, my definition of freedom is different. You have a freedom to publish whatever blocklists you want to or websites. I have the freedom to use the blocklist or not or visit the website or not.

You and I do not have the freedom to make someone use the blocklist or use the blocklist in a certain way. (I don't know technically whether that is even possible, but there are no laws or regulations that would make that requirement that would not also be infringing on some other basic rights).

You and I do not have the freedom to make someone else accept our email or trick them into visiting our website (for instance, the redirection URL's in phisher spam).

You and I do have to use our best judgment in using blocklists or visiting websites. That's the responsible part. We also have to be responsible in the way we use our freedom. The spammers annoy and harass and make email addresses unusable - they are not responsible. They have the freedom to do so only because someone is willing to allow them access to the internet through their servers. There are ways to prevent that access if the server owner wants to. Once in a while, a non-responsible person will send unsolicited, unwanted email to many people (for instance those who allow their computers to become trojanized). Then there is a momentary time when other users will have their email rejected until the problem is fixed (much like the times when one is stopped in traffic on the interstate - no fault of their own).

If accepting email and then sending undeliverable messages to the return path (most of which are forged) works for you, then you are free to continue that practice. However, I am also free to refuse to accept email from your server so that I don't have to get unsolicited, unwanted email from you. However , if you want to be a responsible netizen, you will discontinue that practice since it is annoying and, in some cases, actually disabling to others.

It is simple - using blocklists preserves the freedom of both sender and receiver. Those who are responsible netizens have no problems that aren't momentary with the use of blocklists.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do think that you have a point that blocklist creators should work better with whitehat admins. 

26216[/snapback]

The problem is you are assuming http://www.laposte.net/ is innocent? I do not see where the majority of the worlds language users (english) are given an oppotuinuty to object to the bounces they DOS everyone with!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

petzl

I understand why spamcop and other anti-spam can't verify whitehats. Since I don't know enough about how either mailing lists are managed or the technical aspecte, I can't make any concrete suggestions. IMHO, a working relationship would be better than an adversarial one.

My one suggestion for nim was that he create his own blocklist along with others who feel the same way. They would have to filter each other's email in some other way to avoid spam if one of them started sending spam to avoid stopping all email. That's not practical for the blocklist operator who simply publishes a list.

If someone wants to create a blocklist of the admins who use spamcop to block, let them figure out a way to create one. That's the freedom part of the internet. If someone uses a bl in a manner that is not acceptable to the owner, then they can deny hir access (or take down the blocklist or alter it so it cannot be used that way). Obviously spamcop admin does not object to the scbl being used as a blocklist or does not think the effects are as catastrophic as nim does. nim thinks that anti-spam fighters are like demonstrators and should police themselves. My perspective is that server admins are policing themselves by using blocklists and that the choice to use or not use a blocklist is self policing (there are blocklists that are used by almost nobody because of the unreasonableness of their criteria, many admins do not use scbl because it is too aggressive). nim is free to create another blocklist; nim is free to state that the scbl is unfair to legitimate emailers, but no one is going to agree with him here; nim is also free to talk to scbl users to urge them not to block, but to tag, and there are some here who would agree with hir. But not to protect admins who backscatter!

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is "Nim" mailing list getting on SpamCop's SCBL (is the question to ask)?

I am on a number of mail lists none I get have yet appeared on the SCBL?

The best thing is to recommend to those on mail lists is to use a hotmail account for them if this is the case (but not an answer as to why)

If one gets bounced because of a blocklist they need to remove that address from their mail list (this is so simple I do not see the problem with it?) They of course need to have a working reply address (Most competantly set up mail servers will bounce one or two emails not 1000's of Joe Job's)

It is also easy to check the posting IP's of a mailing list to see if they are on any Blocklist and figure out why.

This shooting a messenger argument does wash. A/the cause for being listed needs to be worked out and the fix applied

Edited by petzl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Petz: This shooting a messenger argument does wash. A/the cause for being listed needs to be worked out and the fix applied

Miss Betsy

It is simple - using blocklists preserves the freedom of both sender and receiver. Those who are responsible netizens have no problems that aren't momentary with the use of blocklists.

I think I already said the same thing a couple of posts back.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Petz:  This shooting a messenger argument does wash. A/the cause for being listed needs to be worked out and the fix applied

Miss Betsy

I think I already said the same thing a couple of posts back.

Miss Betsy

26272[/snapback]

I know you did and are of course completly correct as usual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please unblock laposte.net

I cant believe "state of the art" spam control is to block an entire domain!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please unblock laposte.net

I cant believe "state of the art" spam control is to block an entire domain!!

39067[/snapback]

When the spam stops the block will go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please unblock laposte.net

I cant believe "state of the art" spam control is to block an entire domain!!

39067[/snapback]

ok, I split out one of these posts from the end of another 3-page dialog, noting that it was odd that you paid no attention to what had been addressed in those 3 pages of posts .... I removed a second copy of the same post from yet another multi-page Topic .... and then I see that this is your 3rd post ... yet another copy of the same string of words, once again, at the end of a multi-page discussion .. which you apparently spent zero amount of time reading through.

Starting with the obvious, SpamCop cannot and dors not block anything, and even folks that use the SpamCopDNSbl would not find a Domain name in that list .... so if you really want some kind of response, start with the the only thing that actually vounts, the IP address involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Information needed - but laposte.net does not appear to be a model citizen of the net. MX server(s) listed on SORBS (via SenderBase - ditched a compromised one to get out of the sin bin?), open relay indicated by DNSReport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×