Wazoo Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Here is a recommendation Why can't you blacklist part of a subject line of an IP addresses, or range of IP addresses. First of all, an IP address doesn't have a Subject Line: .... Once upon a time, SpamCop did try out blocking ranges of IPs based on spammers rotating amonst the range in order to "stay under the radar" ... This was dropped due to too much collateral damage and also led to the current situation of the now mostly unusable "spam evidence" web page when doing a BL look-up. Again, you can thank the spammers. If people have problems with a Yahoo Group sending an email with the subject line (group name in []) “[RepublicansSuck]…” then why can’t you blacklist all emails coming from the offending group instead of a group like [MacUsers]? Because this data is too easily forged. The source IP address is the lowest item that's anywhere near being the reliable datum to use to block the spew, and the mail-host configuration is an attempt to even get around spammers that are spoofing even this. SpamCop is a known political activist group, I did my research. One can only guess what lunacy was involved in doing the research and finding this bit of news. That Julian attended a spam Forum sponsored by the FTC last year did put him in Washington, D.C. so I guess that most certainly qualifies "us" as a PAC. Damn, so much for the super-sekret-handshake, we've been exposed! If not, why did one of the posters have the permissions to move my concern out of view from assistance? If you look just a bit closer, I moved it, I gave the reasons why, and you'll note a bit of a little description called "Moderator" ... Justification again, your rant is not an issue of asking for and receiving "help" .... that scenario was lost based on your ignoring any help / advice / suggestions and turning your "query" into a bit of a silly rant. Please try reading the Forum description again. For what it is worth, the Missouri Attorney General will be notified. If you go in person, tell Margaret I said Hi! It's been a few years. <snip a lot of idiotic attempted legal crap about interstate commerce>If the product infringes on peoples constitutional rights (as discussed in next paragraph), then it is not the ISP responsibility to bear the responsibility of the false advertising that the ISP relied on and is regulated by the FTC. Boy are you going to be surprised when you find out that even the FTC uses various DNSBL's <g> If SpamCop openly and actively blacklists message groups that most reasonable people use for social communication and education (as in my case), then they are engaging in censorship. Censorship is a violation of the US constitution (freedom of press and speech). Since SpamCop openly and actively promotes its blacklist services to ISPs, and members of your political activist group openly state it protects constitutional rights, you are purposely encouraging ISPs to unknowingly engage in censorship and in turn violate constitutional law. Blocking unwanted traffic from "your" server is a far cry from censorship. And apparently you've not read the headlines of AOL blocking a couple of billion messages a day, every day, from ever reaching their users. Damn, your attempt at doing research just sucks thus far, I'd say. The final issue deals with the nature of this group. It is obvious that it is a political activist group. I'd suggest you go look up this term, as you want to use it so freely. I feel so bad at not being invited to the meetings, never get a phone call, don't get my e-mail of upcoming events ... happily, I can't recall being asked to contribute either time nor money towards "the cause" ... I was only asked once if I had the time to help Moderate these Forums .. guess I forgot to ask for my membership card. Dang. Although the law (and constitution) encourages the right to assemble, it comes with limits. Due to the members of this groups’ view that their constitutional rights supersedes mine, it is a fascist militant group. Just for information, I gave up 20+ years of my life defending your right to say stupid things like this, but I never gave up my right to suggest that you might want to have your physician up your meds a bit .... In dealing with constitutional rights, the rule of thumb is that your rights end where my rights begin. A spammer does not have the rights to send unsolicited emails because I have the rights to not receive unwanted emails. However, since I am an email recipient, I have the rights to receive the emails I request and expect to receive. SpamCop members do NOT have the rights to blacklist them and encourage my ISP to block them. Oh believe me, I've been on the phone with your ISP making all kinds of deals to handle your e-mail. I'm out a whole 6-pack thus far .... And if you believe that, again, just how many times does the basics of life need to be explained to you? This being said, I feel that the state and/or federal government should regulate email blacklists to prevent vigilantes such as yourselves from deciding what email I should receive or not receive. As stated above, some U.S. Government branches, offices, use BLs and filters and guess what, it's not a secret. Your political activist group must be controlled before the Internet is crippled by fascist censorship by a group of uptight people with unmerited grudges against corporate America. Damn, I wish the spammers were so convinced. Kind of makes one dream of the days before filters, BLs, and only joy when seeing that there was one new e-mail in your InBox .... By the way, there is no need to waste your time ripping my post apart, I no longer have the time to spend dealing with a group of people that do not play well with the rest of society. And yet you threaten to waste your AG's time in addition to your own with these silly and groundless arguements? Confusion reigns .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaCentauri Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 I will try not to add to the level of animosity here: Cyberboy, your ISP is using spamcop's blocking list because it is free, not because it is appropriate to this use. Spamcop's primary benefit is submitting reports to responsible administrators who can shut down spam coming from their own networks. The blacklist is peripheral and not meant to be a full fledged spam filtering service. Given that, it is entirely possible that Spamcop filtering is optional for your email account. Most ISP's allow you to turn spam filtering on or off or set the level of sensitivity. Go to your control panel for your email and see what options are set. It sounds like your ISP is a small operation and depends on lifetime email subscribers like yourself to handle a lot of the administrative tasks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewv Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 That Julian attended a spam Forum sponsored by the FTC last year did put him in Washington, D.C. And he was seen landing in a black helicopter. Or was that the other side? This fascist activism can be so confusing! Oh well, maybe the AG can explain to cyberboy -- unless he decides to put him on the nutcake BL -- that the Constitutional protection of "free speech" says that the government cannot prohibit speech, not that his private ISP has to provide him with whatever he wants. His political ramblings and threats sound more and more like the crazed mentality of a spammer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dra007 Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 sound more and more like the crazed mentality of a spammer That is exactly what I noticed. I couldn't help thinking how much he starts to remind me of the other spammer, Richter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 That Julian attended a spam Forum sponsored by the FTC last year did put him in Washington, D.C. And he was seen landing in a black helicopter. Or was that the other side? This fascist activism can be so confusing! Oh well, maybe the AG can explain to cyberboy -- unless he decides to put him on the nutcake BL -- that the Constitutional protection of "free speech" says that the government cannot prohibit speech, not that his private ISP has to provide him with whatever he wants. His political ramblings and threats sound more and more like the crazed mentality of a spammer. Every man has a right to be heard, but no man has the right to strangle democracy with a single set of vocal chords! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dra007 Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Every man has a right to be heard, but no man has the right to strangle democracy with a single set of vocal chords! Especially one that suffers from laringitis! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.