Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by WisTex

  1. When I first posted the suggestion, I didn't realize that it was open to so much interpretation. But I think that with a good lawyer, you could easily convince a jury that computer abuse and libel have occured, especially if the harasser is retaliating for you reporting them for spam (i.e. has motive) or is harassing you in other ways. But, you are right, on second thought, probably not a good idea to post it. Thanks.
  2. Too bad for some of us, its not so simple to block entire countries or all foreign e-mail. As an ISP or international business, that isn't an option. I am wondering if the spam is sent from zombies perhaps? Or could be dynamic IPs as well? That would make it harder to block, especially if they are sending from a large number of IP addresses. In these situations, a blacklist alone is not the answer. You will need additional filtering on your e-mail account to snag the ones who make it past the blacklist.
  3. I think it is starting to become a trend. More and more ISPs are offering it, not just for the protection it gives, but also as something that makes their ISP better than the others. Part of it is marketing, but it also addresses a real need, which is good.
  4. I think its good that Google is indexing the forum, and it should be expected. Unless you specifically deny honest search engines access, your posts, web pages, blogs, etc. will all be indexed. So it should be no surprise. Also, people are more likely to find SpamCop.net because the forums are indexed and it also sends them directly to a relevant discussion. This is a good thing. If you really didn't want the public to see, then there are security measures that prevent people from seeing it (i.e. making forums available to logged in users only, password protecting forums, etc.). By posting to a public forum, like this one, you are making your thoughts public and they could be quoted in the New York Times tomorrow if they happened to want to quote you. Google spider or no Google spider. Dishonest spiders ignore robots.txt anyway, so additional security is required to prevent the public from seeing your thoughts. Besides, it would be people who use or misused what you said, not the spider itself. I think blocking Google's robot won't stop anyone from printing out a copy and sending it to your mom, so to speak, and anyone posting on a public forums should realize what they say could be seen by anyone in the world (which is actually the power of a forum in the first place). The reason why Forums were originally called Bulletin Board Systems (BBSs) is because you, in essense, were posting something on an electronic wall for everyone to see. I don't remember what the agreement said when I signed up for this forum, but I know on forums I run, the standard agreement specifically states that anything you post is considered public information. This forum software may have similar wording to that effect, not sure.
  5. Actually, I am referring to spammers or other harassers who file malicious reports against people who reported them for spam or other violations. I have seen and heard this happen many times, and luckily your organization seems to be one of the few that checks or cares whether reports are real or not. SpamCop.net would not have warnings stating that a user would be banned and possibly fined by SpamCop.net for submitting false reports if this were not the case!!!! SpamCop.net obviously has had this problem in the past, otherwise they would not go to great lengths to discourage it. I was only suggesting that they put more teeth in their warning by stating it is illegal. (After hearing what people say, I think it "might" be illegal and some juries would say guilty and some would say innocent based on their interpretation of the law... the law may be vague enough to be interpreted either way.) I think that some of you are totally misunderstanding what I am saying. And the problem is, if I try to clarify what I said, I am accused of beating a dead horse.
  6. True. I can't control what other ISPs do and can't control renegade spammers, but I can control how I get my e-mail and what ISP I chose. I actually don't send e-mail through my ISP. I instead send most of it through my web server with dedicated IP addresses. Since I don't spam and have dedicated addresses, I know I won't be blocked because someone from my ISP spammed. Its a very expensive way to insure you get all your e-mail and a very expensive way to send e-mail, but it beats being lumped in with spammers and irresponsible parties. I don't know how many people would be willing to pay hundreds of dollars a month for a server like we do. Most are at the mercy of their ISPs policies. We are lucky enough to have our own web/e-mail servers and have full control.
  7. Too bad, due to SpamCop's decentralized approach to blocking spam (i.e. blacklist users actually block the spam, not SC), we don't have figures for number of spam filtered worldwide due to the blacklist. I know that AOL advertised how many spam they had filtered and gave a little counter showing the current total for the day and month. Not sure if they still do. It sure made a statement about them blocking spam. Something like that would get people a sense of how effective SpamCop is. You probably could do that for SpamCop E-mail Service though, where you put on the front page of SpamCop the number of spam filtered as a running total. At the very least, it would show that without SpamCop, the spam would be even worse. Edit: Showing such a figure would show results, which would motivate people more than figures simply showing number of reports. I think that some people are doubting how effective reports are. They need to see how their reports are creating results.
  8. I've seen other organizations successfully do it and it has increased the reach of their organizations tremendously. What they did was enlist volunteers to help translate the website, and then oversaw the implementation of that. It's not undoable, but it would require some coordination and soliciting help. I think it would be better to have a responsible spam blacklist like this one (who actually is responsible about what they list and what they don't) have international presence and clout, rather than have hundreds of country and language-specific blacklists, many of which are not that responsible. English, without a doubt, is an international language, but there are still billions of people who don't speak it.
  9. Your e-mail address might not be easily guessable. Many spammers have given up on lists and simply use a "dictionary" type attack. They then run the "dictionary" of usernames against any domain they want. probably 90% of the spam that hits my domains aren't even addressed to a real account.
  10. Have you ever opted-in to receive e-mail from the school? If so, you might want to ask the school if they are the ones who authorized the sending of the e-mail you received. If they authorized it, ask them how to opt-out, otherwise you will keep getting more of these, perhaps from other "authorized" senders. If they didn't authorize it, I'd report it as spam and request the university look into the spammer who is tarnishing the school's reputation. Some schools actively go after anyone who is tarnishing their reputation or effecting their students. Some do not, however. But its worth a try if that is the case.
  11. LOL. I actually thought about your points and conceded on many of them if you look back at the conversation. If I wasn't thinking or open to changing my viewpoint, I wouldn't have conceded and agreed that you made some very good points. As far as I'm concerned, I brought up a point, it was countered, I conceded on some points, I clarified others, and in the end we still disagree. End of story. I don't see where I am being a troll or refusing to listen to other people's arguments. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am not listening to and evaluating your point of view. It just means we disagree. I'm sorry if me clarifying a point that was misunderstood and misquoted looked like me beating a dead horse. That was not my intent. What initially looked like a clear cut violation of the law according to the letter of the law, now, due to this discussion, appears that it is open to more interpretation than I initially thought. Which is why I conceded, by the way, and argued no further.
  12. I have noticed that some spammers are now guessing e-mail addresses rather than buying a list. One of my domains has a catch-all account (i.e. any undefined e-mail address with my domain gets routed to the catch-all account) and 99% of the spam received on that account isn't even addressed to a real account. This may be how you got onto a list. They simply guessed your e-mail address and sent spam to it.
  13. If they are offering something obviously illegal, then be sure to report it. I have read that they are cracking down on illegal offers and scams sent through e-mail and have heard they have made some high-profile arrests. I am not sure if they are going after CAN-spam violations, but I do know that they are supposedly being very aggressive about scams and the sale of illegal products (i.e. viagra).
  14. True, but for business e-mail, you cannot afford to lose customers because they can't e-mail you. I think personal e-mail accounts can be more restrictive in filtering spam, while business e-mail accounts need to be more flexible. I've had e-mail requesting my services wind up in the spam folder. If my ISP would have bounced it, that would be one less customer, and perhaps they would tell their friends not to use me since I don't answer e-mails. Not a good situation for any business trying to please customers.
  15. Just because you disagree with me doesn't make me a troll. I am just pointing out where policies and attitudes are not fair or discriminating. Some will agree with me, some won't care... until the shoe is on the other foot and they get harmed for something they didn't do. One thing that might help is if SpamCop.net and other Anti-spam Organizations were more international oriented (i.e. multiple languages, etc.). If we could enlist people from various countries to contribute to the effort, and provide support to ISPs and businesses in their language, we might be able to make a bigger dent in international spam. Legitimate e-mailers and legitimate ISPs, as you say, have a responsibility and a vested interest in keeping the internet spam free and keeping themselves off the blacklists. But right now anyone who doesn't know English would have a hard time getting off a list, getting support and possibly even knowing they are on a list to begin with. Even think of creating an international coalition vs. being primarily an English only organization?
  16. Maybe that's what needs to be done then. Gmail needs to include the IP address of the sender's computer in the header and then SpamCop.net needs to whitelist their servers and use the sender's IP address for banning. I hope this gets done soon. I had another e-mail bounce yesterday that was sent from Gmail to an ISP that bounces IPs on the SpamCop.net blacklist.
  17. No, I was just clarifying what I said since it appeared that I was misunderstood. No additional arguments here. I could have picked apart all the responses if I wanted to. There was pleanty to fire back at, believe me. But I felt I made my point, even if you disagree. But I did feel I must correct someone's misunderstanding of what I was saying. Even if you disagree, I'd rather have you disagree about something I said rather than what you thought I said.
  18. Yep, mileage may vary. What works for some people won't work as well for others. But no matter what method you use, a whitelist and a spam folder (or other way to check for false-positives) is a requirement to insure you get all your legitimate mail, while blocking as much spam as possible.
  19. This is what I hear from some of you: [paraphrase]Yes, let's build a wall around China. I mean, 75% of the people who mail from there are spammers. So lets just lock them all away and ban them until the 75% of the bad ones stop spamming. Who cares about the innocent ones who have no choice to live in China. Who cares about the innocent. Its better to lock away 25% of the innocent people to get to the 75% of the spammers.[/paraphrase] Sounds reasonable to you, huh? Let's substitute a few words and see if what you say still sounds fair: [sarcasm]Yes, let's build a wall around the ghetto. I mean, 75% of the black and hispanic people who live there are criminals or have criminal records. So lets just lock them all away and ban them until the 75% of the bad ones stop being bad. Who cares about the innocent ones who have no choice to live in the ghetto. Who cares about the innocent. Its better to lock away 25% of the innocent people to get to the 75% of the bad ones.[/sarcasm] Thank God our justice system in the United States isn't like some people's attitudes about stopping spam! It's interesting that some people's arguments about how its justified to harm innocent parties sounds exactly like the arguments racists used for treating blacks & hispanics the way they do. It is natural that some innocent people are going to get hurt. But it makes me sick that some people have total disregard for the innocent and actually promote hurting innocent people in order to get to the guilty. That's just like saying that its okay to treat a black man who committed no crime as a criminal just because he lives in a high-crime area (ghetto) and perhaps doesn't have enough money to leave or because his sick mother lives there. Give me a break. I can understand banning known spammers, but advocating banning the innocent is not cool and will just make you enemies of people that should be your allies in fighting spam. Let's ban the spammers, not advocate harming innocent people. It's one thing to do so accidentally, but its another thing to do so intentionally.
  20. Yep. Some web-based e-mail programs format their as "from email[at]address.com [iP Address]" instead of "from reverse-fqdn [iP Address]" like SMTP would. Would this be acceptable to SpamCop.net or would the IP of the web host get pinned for it still? Example: Received: from user[at]webmailservice.com( by mail.webmailservice.net with CMailServer 5.2 SMTP; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:51:56 -0500 where user[at]webmailservice.com is the users e-mail address on the webmailservice, and is the IP address of the sender's computer. Would that be acceptable or should it be in another format?
  21. That's why I don't use any e-mail address that bounces spam without allowing me to check it. I like my spam in a spam folder where I can check it for false-positives (which happen quite often no matter how careful SpamCop and other spam-filtering methods try to be), and I also want to be able to whitelist e-mail that should never be blocked regardless of whether or not it is on a blacklist. Blacklists and filters are not 100% accurate and produce a fair amount of false positives, in my experience. I do not use them anymore. Bayesian filters work better than blacklists and content-based filters, but still produce false-positives. Good luck finding a decent host.
  22. If you are referring to the error message you sometimes get when viewing Gmail, then there is a simple explaination for it. When viewing your Gmail inbox, it periodically queries the Gmail servers to see if you have new e-mail. It does this without you having to refresh your browser. If, for some reason, it cannot reach the Gmail servers, you get the error message "No data found." Refreshing your browser window will usually solve it, assuming your internet connection is still up.
  23. http://www.pandasoftware.com also has a free online virus scanner, and unlike most of the others, theirs actually disinfects your computer in addition to simply reporting that it found viruses. Edit: Here's a direct URL. It's called Panda ActiveScan. http://www.pandasoftware.com/products/acti...n_principal.htm
  24. Maybe its getting filtered better, or some of the spammers that have your e-mail address got shut down.
  25. My point exactly. The person knowingly and maliciously submitting a false report could be held liable. I never said SC should be held liable. I never said the ISP or company doesn't have a right to control what goes in and out of its network. I said knowingly and maliciously submitting a false report is illegal and could be procecuted under libel laws and well as computer abuse laws. I am not sure if I was clear about the malicious and knowing part when I explained it before. That is the part that would make the person reporting it liable, not the incorrect report itself.
  • Create New...