×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Email Servers Will Choke, Says Spamhaus

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the bracing-for-the-wave dept.

576

Rub3X writes, "The legal battle between antispam organization Spamhaus and e360 Insight is heating up. Spamhaus has a user base of around 650 million, and its lists block some fifty billion spam emails per day, according to the project's CEO Steve Linford. Spamhaus CIO Richard Cox says the immediate issue is that if the domain is suspended, the torrent of bulk mail hitting the world's mail servers would cause many of them to fail. More than 90% of of all email is now spam, Cox says, and he doubts that servers worldwide would be able to handle a ten-fold increase in traffic." Others estimate Spamhaus's blocking efficacy as closer to 75%; by this metric spam would increase four-fold, not ten-fold, if Spamhaus went unavailable. The article paraphrases CIO Cox as saying that the service will continue "even if there is a short-term degradation."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

576 comments

I say let the spam come (5, Interesting)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450107)

It would be interesting if all email server admins suddenly opened the flood gates for a day or two. Maybe then the general population will gain a better appreciate of the scale of the matter.

I still think they 3360 guys just look and smell like spammers. That spamhaus aggrees just adds to this conclusion. Here's what seems to amount to the spam histroy of the "plantiff". [spamhaus.org]

Re:I say let the spam come (0, Flamebait)

Stellian (673475) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450199)

I think Spamhaus is trolling after making an ass out of itself in court. Although IMO e360 had practically no case, Spamhaus accepted the default judgement. All the judge could do was grant the requested 12 million $ to e360. Spamhaus refuses to pay, and they are threatened with suspending their domain. And now they come out bitching "oh no, the Internet will melt without us!"
I hate spam just like the next guy, but when you make a profitable business from spam fighting, you need at least some clue about how the legal system works.

Re:I say let the spam come (1)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450235)

...and you need some clue how running a profitable and functional ISP works...

Re:I say let the spam come (3, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450407)

"I think Spamhaus is trolling after making an ass out of itself in court."

Ummmm, they didn't go to court and they have not accepted anything, Spamhaus are demonstrating their view that the court does not have jurisdiction, Spamhaus seem to have a clue what they are talking about but the judge isn't listening since they refused to recognise the court by showing up. And if push really did come to shove then Spamhaus would probably just "reboot the company" in a different country.

I've been in front of a few judges in my time and IMHO many of them are the most arrogant people you could possibly imagine. I know very little about the US court system but I am guessing a district judge is not very high up the judicial foodchain and would have a hard time shutting down the internet no matter how hard he bangs his gabble. Meanwhile the rest of the planet will treat an unenforcable court order from this judge about as seriously as they would a court order from the judge in this case.

Buggy post (4, Interesting)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450417)

Meanwhile the rest of the planet will treat an unenforcable court order from this judge about as seriously as they would a court order from the judge in this case [bbc.co.uk] .

GP was missing the link above.

Re:I say let the spam come (4, Informative)

ray-auch (454705) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450445)

Actually, the problem (if you read the lawyers who've written on this) is that originally they _did_ go to court.

IIRC they asked the original (state, district ?) court to move the case to federal.

_Then_ they didn't turn up at the federal court because they _then_ decided they didn't accept its jurisdiction.

Re:I say let the spam come (4, Informative)

cortana (588495) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450479)

You're leaving out the part where their solicitors requested the venue change without instructions. AFAIK Spamhaus dismissed them and are taking them to court for creating this whole fucking mess in the first place.

Re:I say let the spam come (5, Insightful)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450231)

It would be interesting if all email server admins suddenly opened the flood gates for a day or two. Maybe then the general population will gain a better appreciate of the scale of the matter.


I think most internet users still remember what it was like before spam filtering became common. Wait a few more years. Then users will take the filtering for granted.

-matthew

Re:I say let the spam come (4, Interesting)

jemenake (595948) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450271)

It would be interesting if all email server admins suddenly opened the flood gates for a day or two. Maybe then the general population will gain a better appreciate of the scale of the matter.
Which is why I'm surprised Spamhaus doesn't just "simulate" what life would be like without them... before we're without them. Dispense with the predictions of how much spam will increase and what fate will befall the servers. Just shut off your service for a bit and wait for everyone to offer you their firstborn. Enron did it with California's electricity and it worked like a charm.

Re:I say let the spam come (2, Interesting)

MoriaOrc (822758) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450301)

Enron did it with California's electricity and it worked like a charm.
After all, just look at them now!

(Sorry, as a Californian, I couldn't resist)

Re:I say let the spam come (2, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450571)

It would be interesting if all email server admins suddenly opened the flood gates for a day or two. Maybe then the general population will gain a better appreciate of the scale of the matter.

And what exactly can we do about the problem? I'm part of the general population in this case, how can I help? I secure my machines (so no spam zombies for me), I don't buy from spammers or companies advertised by spam, and I'm not within the court's jurisdiction so I can't petition it (even assuming they'd listen, which they probably wouldn't and arguably shouldn't).

(I also appreciate the scale of the problem; I own a domain and thanks to some scum sucking low life using it in their forged From: headers, I get in excess of 1000 junk mails, bounces, etc per day.)

So what would you have me and the rest of the "general population" do?

Trying to block spam is like... (3, Funny)

skoaldipper (752281) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450115)

...tilling for weeds and replacing your entire front yard with rocks.

Re:Trying to block spam is like... (1)

kongit (758125) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450183)

no its more like fighting a virus with asprin. You can remove the symptoms but it takes more to remove the problem.

In the human body's case there are white blood cells and the like which actively remove problems. I think that persuing spam in the same fashion would be effective if done correctly.

Re:Trying to block spam is like... (3, Funny)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450409)

no its more like fighting a virus with asprin. You can remove the symptoms but it takes more to remove the problem.

In the human body's case there are white blood cells and the like which actively remove problems.

Hmm, so what would be the equivalent of white blood cells? Baseball bats?

Someone please tell me they have an alternative (3, Interesting)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450133)

I am so ready to walk away from email. I just need someone to point me to a workable replacement.

Re:Someone please tell me they have an alternative (5, Funny)

crazyvas (853396) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450159)

Dude,
I am so ready to walk away from cars. I just need someone to point me to a workable replacement.
I am so ready to walk away from television. I just need someone to point me to a workable replacement.
I am so ready to walk away from radio. I just need someone to point me to a workable replacement.
I am so ready to walk away from life. I just need someone to point me to a workable replacement.
I am so ready to walk away from my legs. I just need someone to point me to a workable replacement.

Re:Someone please tell me they have an alternative (5, Funny)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450451)

I am so ready to walk away from cars. I just need someone to point me to a workable replacement.

Here. [wikipedia.org]

I am so ready to walk away from television. I just need someone to point me to a workable replacement.

Here. [wikipedia.org]

I am so ready to walk away from radio. I just need someone to point me to a workable replacement.

Here. [wikipedia.org]

I am so ready to walk away from life. I just need someone to point me to a workable replacement.

Here. [wikipedia.org]

I am so ready to walk away from my legs. I just need someone to point me to a workable replacement.

You can't walk away from your legs. Not with the same legs, at least.

Re:Someone please tell me they have an alternative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450169)

I just need someone to point me to a workable replacement.

Easy. We just need to set up a protocol where an ISP is charged $0.01 per email sent. That will kill the spammers without having any real effect on people sending email.

Re:Someone please tell me they have an alternative (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450223)

Don't spammers tend to use hijacked and zombified PCs, not their own mail accounts?

Re:Someone please tell me they have an alternative (1)

Solder Fumes (797270) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450239)

Maybe people would start to get a little fucking common sense when they discover a fat spam bill in their mailbox after they've ignored security warnings one too many times.

Re:Someone please tell me they have an alternative (5, Funny)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450261)

Your company advocates a

(x) technical ( ) legislative (x) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(x) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
() The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
(x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(x) Asshats
(x) Jurisdictional problems
(x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
(x) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo
(x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
(x) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
(x) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
(x) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(x) Sending email should be free
(x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
(x) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid company for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

Re:Someone please tell me they have an alternative (4, Insightful)

rar (110454) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450279)

Easy. We just need to set up a protocol where an ISP is charged $0.01 per email sent. That will kill the spammers without having any real effect on people sending email.

Actually, the problem is not this simple. Spammers today send their emails from millions of hacked computers worldwide. They will just continue to do so, and these charges will drop on the clueless users whose computers are used to send the emails.

As long as computer security is as bad as it is today, there just is no easy solution to spam. All hyper-clever ideas about encrypted network id:s, black and whitelists, hashcash, etc, are just temporary solutions --- they only serve to drive the spammer to more intensly use the fact that a hacked computer also gives access to an online identity.

Re:Someone please tell me they have an alternative (1)

joshetc (955226) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450347)

I say exactly. If all these clueless people are getting zombified PCs that are sending SPAM get billed for it they will either:

a) fight the ISPs forcing them to take a loss and do something about spam
b) Learn to secure their computer
c) Stop using their computer all together
d) Pay the fee and continue on for an undisclosed period of time at the end of which they will have to choose again

Re:Someone please tell me they have an alternative (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450497)

``Actually, the problem is not this simple. Spammers today send their emails from millions of hacked computers worldwide. They will just continue to do so, and these charges will drop on the clueless users whose computers are used to send the emails.''

You're saying that as if it were a Bad Thing, but is that actually true? It will certainly give people an incentive to secure their computers, and the whole world will benefit from that (seeing that the vast majority of spam and malware are propagated by compromised PCs).

Of course, it's rather harsh to slap unsuspecting users with $10000 email bills all of a sudden, but there's a solution for that, too: insurance. With premiums dependent on how good a job you do at securing your systems, this will preserve some of the incentive to secure the systems, while taking the harshness out of the system.

Re:Someone please tell me they have an alternative (1, Insightful)

Solder Fumes (797270) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450201)

There is no alternative. As soon as any method becomes popular enough to be useful, spammers will move in. Sure, you could use IM, but spammers are there already. You could set your IM client to only accept messages from known users, but you might as well go back to email and set up a whitelist.

Let's get to the very root of this problem: spammers can send as much email as they want, with very little penalty in cost. This problem could be solved if some kind of postage system was applied to email. It's been said before, and it's always beaten down in this community because it appears to fly in the face of Free ideals. Well, everyone here is already paying for their internet connection, for their computer, for the power to run it. I'm sure some method for postage could be devised that still maintains a level of privacy.

And to be honest, I'd be interested to see what effect this would have on supposedly valid emails. Perhaps that weekly newsletter would have a little more thought put into it. Maybe Aunt Patty wouldn't forward the same joke that's been going around since 1997. Corporate internal email would be unaffected, unfortunately.

Re:Someone please tell me they have an alternative (1)

Stellian (673475) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450251)

There is no alternative. As soon as any method becomes popular enough to be useful, spammers will move in. Sure, you could use IM, but spammers are there already. You could set your IM client to only accept messages from known users, but you might as well go back to email and set up a whitelist.
Yeah, but you can at least try to design a system that is spam resistant, as opposed to a 30 years old design that is extremely spam friendly.
I use IM for 4 years now (Yahoo) and I've never received a single piece of spim. And I don't think it's because spammers haven't tried, or because Yahoo messenger is not popular enough.

Re:Someone please tell me they have an alternative (1)

coyotecult (647958) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450323)

I use IM for 4 years now (Yahoo) and I've never received a single piece of spim.

I have. Also, Yahoo IM is NOT a decentralized system, so I don't think it makes a good example. (There might be good examples out there; Yahoo just ain't one of them.)

Re:Someone please tell me they have an alternative (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450397)

"As soon as any method becomes popular enough to be useful, spammers will move in. Sure, you could use IM, but spammers are there already. You could set your IM client to only accept messages from known users, but you might as well go back to email and set up a whitelist."

a. I'd love to have that whitelist right now.

b. I've been using ICQ and Yahoo for years. I've recieved one SPAM in the last two years. I don't know what's being done to keep the SPAM down, but man I appreciate it. (I'm using Trillian, if that matters.)

YMMV, but I prefer using ICQ to correspond with people.

"Let's get to the very root of this problem: spammers can send as much email as they want, with very little penalty in cost."

In my humble opinion, the main problem is that anybody can send a message to anybody else. It's too open. Too many servers configured differently. No standard white/black list, etc. I'm curious what would happen if it was decided to completely scrap email as it is today and start it from scratch. My guess is they'd borrow ideas brought to us by instant messaging. Contact lists, invites, authorizations, etc.

Re:Someone please tell me they have an alternative (3, Informative)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450457)

``My guess is they'd borrow ideas brought to us by instant messaging. Contact lists, invites, authorizations, etc.''

Spammers now send their messages in MSN and ICQ invites/authorization requests.

Re:Someone please tell me they have an alternative (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450257)

Why? Modern filtering systems are pretty good. There is no reason why you, as a user, should be recieving much more than a few spams per week. It is kinda ugly for admins, but that is just part of the job.

-matthew

Re:Someone please tell me they have an alternative (1)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450317)

With a well-trained Spamassassin filter, Postfix's UCE controls and Mail.app's junk filtering, about 10-20 spam a day made it into my inbox, out of maybe 300-400 total. I just switched to my ISP's servers with their filters instead and I see about the same numbers.

The annoying thing is not so much the direct effects of spam as the indirect things like the fact that I can't use a wildcard address because it will be bombarded with dictionary attacks, or the possibility of false positives.

Re:Someone please tell me they have an alternative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450363)

Perhaps the telephone, fax or post.

Re:Someone please tell me they have an alternative (1)

goldseries (932320) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450377)

You can't get away from e-mail. It is even killing of blue postal service mail boxes.

Two lists needed (5, Interesting)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450135)

Maybe some legal problems could be avoided by having two lists. One, a list of spammers. The second list is people who are not spammers (cough) who have threatened or engaged in legal action to be removed from the first list. In other words a list of plaintiffs in court cases. Mail server admins could choose whether to use one list or both for blocking mail.

Re:Two lists needed (1)

penix1 (722987) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450421)

"Maybe some legal problems could be avoided by having two lists."

I agree with that except that I would use one for spammers / zombies and one for spam supporters. From what I read at spamhaus, e360 isn't a spammer but a spam supporter / enabler. By having both categories in one list, it puts pressure on the spam supporters but also affects innocent 3rd parties that get caught in the middle. I think this would also cut down the Joe Jobbing that is going on.

OTOH, spamhaus has always said they go after spammers AND spam supporters so IPSs that use them should be aware of this.

This whole thing is silly. Not only the complaint but the response by spamhaus. They were sued earlier in Florida and they responded. When it looked like they were going to get discovery the other side dropped their suit. I don't know if they got their legal fees covered (something I highly doubt since the US doesn't have a "loser pays" system). I suspect the same or similar would have happened here. In the least, they should have agrued the jurisdiction. I chalk this up to stupidity on both sides. And no, it doesn't require them to go to the US to have US legal representation. That argument is bogus. They knew about the suit and decided to ignore it instead of fighting it possibly with a counterclaim or two. They have enough evidence to support the listing. I just don't get why they ignored this one and responded to the Florida case.

B.

I work for a company... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450143)

Which houses many many servers for a LARGE online University, amd we have problems with our email servers and viruswalls anyways. An extra 10 maybe 20 percent increase in email will probably choke us until we get new hardware....

Re:I work for a company... (3, Interesting)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450215)

I don't normally reply to AC posts, and, as this is a 'me too' post it will probably be modded redundant, but...

I can back up the AC's statement. I work for an IT multinational and our e-mail servers run close to the edge. If we were to see a significant increase in e-mail levels, be it x4 or x10, or even x2, our e-mail system would grind to a halt. We, along with every organisation have become totally dependant on e-mail. For example, one of our customers requires that financial information it sent to the Bank of England by close of play every day. It is sent using (encrypted) e-mail. A delay of a few hours would give us major headaches. And yes, we could use alternative methods but it would take some time to put these in place.

If the preditions came true it would be bad for us.

Re:I work for a company... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450341)

have to agree with the above, i remember working for a large web hosting company 6 months back, fighting the rise in mail was like fighting the tide (and spam blocking was optional), a rise of 2 times the amount of email always caused delays which took a long time to filter through, one of the biggest headaches was customers complaining of delayed email (and they would phone as an order placed on their website 15 minutes ago hasnt come through yet).

if the amount of email traffic more than doubled for a day or 2 we would end up with weeks worth of backlogs as smaller isp's clog up (and even the bigger ones), then you would start losing email which is not acceptable to any business. most companies cannot upgrade their infrastructure fast enough to cope with this kind of thing.

these days email is expected to be instantaneous like a phone call, but if you were constantly being phoned by telemarketers when you were waiting for an important customers call someone would kick off, but for email it seems to be acceptable.

Re:I work for a company... (1)

pimpimpim (811140) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450381)

I just looked at the original post and started wondering if this trial and spamhaus' position in it doesn't show us something else than just the juridicial part: what if spamhaus would cease to exist due to some other reasons? (no funds, power outage, dDOS, boss gets convicted because he killed his wife, whatever). Isn't it a bit dangerous for all of us if such a huge amount of spam filtering only depends on one single organization alone? To parent: doesn't your e-mail department have a backup plan for the case spamhaus would cease to function for any reason?

Ok, maybe that's not completely fair, even if you had a backup filtering plan, the increase of initial load of mail coming in would be out of your control anyway. But still there might be room for spamhaus alternatives, or are there already? If so, why is everyone(?) using spamhaus then?

Re:I work for a company... (1)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450433)

It's an interesting aspect of the IT industry that, even more than in other industries, the winner wins. The most popular (insert application, OS, etc.) tends to grow at the expense of the others. Whatever your feelings on M$, most people buy Windows because it is the operating system, they use Winzip because it is the file compression utility, they search using Google because it is the search engine, and they use Spamhaus for the same reason. There have been plenty of well researched articles suggesting that the OS monoculture is dangerous and one of the reasons for the number of virii. Similarly, as you point out, the position of Spamhaus in the market leaves us vunerable.

However, what we do about it is another matter. Look how hard it is to persuade the world that there are alternatives to Windows. I wish I had the answer but I don't

Re:I work for a company... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450563)

I guess the problem comes from the products not being stand-alone and not being easily interchangeable. All cars serve the same purpose and you could attach a trailer to any car strong enough to pull it. With software the interchangeability is lost, you can't trivially (i.e. without many hours of setting up) replace Windows with another OS and still run the same applications. If there were like 20 different OSes and they could all run the same applications (e.g. if all OSes were Linuxes with different Kernels and stuff but the same APIs) there wouldn't be a monoculture but software has a reinforcement cycle, the software that's popular gets more stuff made for it and thus becomes preferrable over the alternatives.

Re:I work for a company... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450425)

Blah this is all horribly overhyped

1) Go get MailChannel's [mailchannels.com] product
2) throttle spammy looking hosts into oblivion
.
.
.
3) watch spammers not profit

If blacklists vanished tomorrow, then techniques like the MailChannels one would become instantly more popular. We've been using them for a while and it immediately dropped the load on our content filter by 80%.

Re:I work for a company... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450471)

If we were to see a significant increase in e-mail levels, be it x4 or x10, or even x2, our e-mail system would grind to a halt.
If your servers are already that loaded and you have additional delay requirements, you are doing something seriously wrong.

You are basically relying on some 3rd party you don't even have a contract with for your critical mail operation while seriously mis-planning your infrastructure?

You should be fired.

It would have some benefits too... (2)

Analein (1012793) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450163)

Millions of men would experience an undeniable growth in penis size, everybody would be rich because of these nice fellows in your average third world country and being happy is out of question as long as the Xanax/Oxycontin stocks are full.

Die, Spamhaus! Die!

SpamHaus users can use n.n.n.n form URLs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450167)

I understand, that SpanHaus's domain was/is at risk of being 'pulled' from the company.

If that happens, they can just get their clients to use the dotted-decimal URL format,
ie, to get the same services as can now be had via SpamHaus's domain name.

What's the problem? :-/

Re:SpamHaus users can use n.n.n.n form URLs (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450281)

Bloody hell.

It is called an IP address.

Re:SpamHaus users can use n.n.n.n form URLs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450351)

The problem is how dnsBLs work. You get an incoming IP address, say 1.2.3.4 and in order to check you send a request for 4.3.2.1.blackListDomain.ext, the result returned determines if they are listed or not.

So using an IP address would would be ok to resolve to the spamhaus web site, but *not* to perform actual lookups.

what else can you do? (1, Interesting)

grapeape (137008) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450175)

Maybe spamhaus going dark for a bit will be enough to wake people up to the problem a bit more and maybe finally get people working on a solution. Im all for registered mail (whitelists) or even pay to send email within reason.

I have a client who complains daily about the amount of spam she recieves (4-6 a day) and takes probably half an hour a day forwarding each of them to me along with rants about them. I have tried to explain that if she would parlay that half hour into about 5 seconds of clicking the delete button she would save herself alot of grief. She just wants it all eradicated, and frankly I dont think its really possible with an open email address. She will download things like weatherbug and signup for webshots or any other "free" service without regard to what "free" means when it comes to the web. I have tried explaining that you simply cant stop all of it and that level of spam control I have been able to maintain in far superior than most, but she insists I just dont know what im doing. The latest problem has been with image spams regarding penny stocks. The source shows basically nothing filterable, anyone ever find a way to deal with those?

I am now evaluating a Deep Six spam box to see if that helps but with what little is trickling through now I dont see alot of improvements, im already catching hundreds a day without it.

Re:what else can you do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450213)

Your client is an idiot.

Re:what else can you do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450217)

Eh... so stop spending your precious time on that client and let her see the real amount of spam. Just turn the spam filters off. Play the same card?
If your client doesn't value your opinion. Fine.. then the client isn't probably worth all the trouble she is. Its typically the type of client that nags on all you do and then delays paying your bills as well.

Re:what else can you do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450313)

sounds like you should reiser this bitch.

Re:what else can you do? (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450441)

I agree.

I do this and this is the best she can do: have a private (like Gmail, from what I have seen, they have the best filters) account only given to trusted friends with the instructions that they never give it out to anyone else, and an open account to give out to anybody else, including various sign-ups. If she is careful, she will have no problems on the one account. If she is not. Well....... she will see that even google can't stop spam for her.

I don't think there is much you can do with such a stubborn person: but next time she calls you incompetent, ask her if she has ever recieves junkmail in her snailmail and why it all isn't eradicated yet.

Re:what else can you do? (2, Informative)

NoSuchGuy (308510) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450455)

The latest problem has been with image spams regarding penny stocks. The source shows basically nothing filterable, anyone ever find a way to deal with those?
Use Spamassassin with the "HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_xx" rules

Re:what else can you do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450473)

The MailChannels [mailchannels.com] traffic control product worked pretty well for us. It throttles spammy looking hosts, but without the problems of greylisting. Seems to take care of image spam just fine. Plus the nice side benefit of knowing we're costing some stupid spamming bastard money every time they try to deliver to us. Oh, and no false positives either, which is sweet.

kdawson at it again. (4, Informative)

Inoshiro (71693) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450185)

Here's the dnscache (part of the djbdns family [wikipedia.org] ) solution: /service/dnscache/root/servers# cat spamhaus.org
216.168.28.44
204.69.234.1
204.74.101.1
204.152.184.186
#

No need to HUP -- once the file is created and filled with those IPs, it'll pick them up automatically. You can easily install dnscache with the other tools on your mail servers for 0 interuption of service.

Cheers.

law (1)

bobby1234 (860820) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450189)

Law of the land vs Law of common sense. my money is on the law of the land.... (never bet on common sense... it is neither common nor makes sense)

Interesting (1)

stikves (127823) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450195)

I still do not see how the courts manage to see "right to deliver unwanted messages" are as free speech, while ignoring the rights and monetary loss of others.

First while "sending" email is free, the cost of actual delivery (internet backbone) and storage (server admins) are handled by other parties.

And the spam which makes the ways to the inbox somehow causes loss of time, two times. First the time of the recepient who must carefully find "real" email which could be lost in the piles of junk. And the time of the programmer who must develop anti-spam technologies.

I guess the best "comprimise" would be "taxing" the e-mails somehow. So that the cost of 1,000,000 messages of a single sender will not be put upon the carriers and the recipients (the attitute is: you're sending me mail to store, so you must pay for it).

Re:Interesting (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450295)

First while "sending" email is free, the cost of actual delivery (internet backbone) and storage (server admins) are handled by other parties.

The financial costs of dealing with spam are exaggerated. We're assuming that the time taken 'dealing' with spam would otherwise be spent doing something productive.

The offence caused by spam isn't becuase it costs money. It's simply the rudeness of someone violating ones perceived territory in order to sell you something.

Re:Interesting (1)

jimmypw (895344) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450589)

Somone should shout out "Spam!" every time that judge opens his mouth. If he tries to silence you, argue his own point against him. No doubt you'll be thrown out.

Justice has been served.

FirsT! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450197)

Join GNAA (GAY to make sure the There's no we get there with to get involved in do, and with any non nigger patro[8s Officers. Others can no longer be join in. It can be much as Windows THERE ARE it simple, faster, cheaper, invited back again. endless conflict are attending a

Hysterical claptrap (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450203)

Spamhaus has no idea how many spams it actually blocks. No idea about what other blocking mechanisms are used by its users, and only an estimate about how much email is spam.

Re:Hysterical claptrap (3, Insightful)

deepb (981634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450299)

Spamhaus has no idea how many spams it actually blocks.
It's an estimate based on their query volume. That's certainly not going to produce an exact number, but it's way beyond having "no idea".

Bring it ON! (2, Funny)

nihaopaul (782885) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450207)

holding the pipes and tubes to the internet screaming with his war face "BRING IT ON!"

now thats a slashdot experiance

A day without spamhaus (1, Troll)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450219)

After the failed attempt of the illegal alien crowd to shut down the USA by telling immigrants to march on one day (they don't differentiate between illegal and legal), Spamhaus should try the same.

Have spamhaus pick a day and time to report empty lists from 9am to 11:59am on a Monday. Then lets see what Congress and the FTC says.

The FTC issued a report (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/06/adv1.htm) claiming that labelling spam would not be as effective as filters. If the idiots at the FTC and in Washington would feel the effect of spamhuas being down for a few hours.

Mandatory labelling os spam is effective. It would cut net traffic and processing time for some of the spam and make it easier to prosecute the illegal spammers.

I have many thoughts on the legal issues, but Steve Linford said not to discuss those as they may give the spammers idea. I will respect that.

Use the UK server name! (2, Insightful)

samfreed (572658) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450265)

Use the UK domain system, e.g. http://www.spamhaus.org.uk/ [spamhaus.org.uk] . It works, and it's not subject to US law.

Re:Use the UK server name! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450315)

Not at the moment you can't:

> 119.59.126.24.zen.spamhaus.org

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: 119.59.126.24.zen.spamhaus.org
Address: 127.0.0.4

> 119.59.126.24.zen.spamhaus.org.uk

DNS request timed out.
        timeout was 2 seconds.
DNS request timed out.
        timeout was 2 seconds.

Re:Use the UK server name! (1)

raind (174356) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450487)

I got: > www.spamhaus.org/uk
Server: ns3.mindspring.com
Address: 207.69.188.187

Name: www.spamhaus.org/uk
Addresses: 209.86.66.95, 209.86.66.90, 209.86.66.91, 209.86.66.92
            209.86.66.93, 209.86.66.94

Interesting legal argument. (4, Insightful)

cperciva (102828) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450291)

I'm starting to wonder about the sanity of Spamhaus' lawyers -- or if they really have lawyers at all. So far their arguments seem to have been

1. This case is at the wrong court, it should go to a federal court instead.
2. (to the federal court) We agreed that you had jurisdiction over this, but we're going to pretend that we didn't say that.
3. What? You've decided that we broke the law? Well, you shouldn't punish us because we're really nice people.

While I do not doubt Spamhaus' credentials as really nice people, this is hardly relevant to the case in question.

Re:Interesting legal argument. (1)

deepb (981634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450349)

1. This case is at the wrong court, it should go to a federal court instead.
2. (to the federal court) We agreed that you had jurisdiction over this, but we're going to pretend that we didn't say that.
3. What? You've decided that we broke the law? Well, you shouldn't punish us because we're really nice people.
Did you actually read this article, or any of the recent Spamhaus articles?

1. No, it should go to a UK-based court instead of a US-based court. Spamhaus does not operate in the US. The judge was lied to about this in order to push the case forward.
2. No clue what you're talking about (see #1). No federal court in either country has been involved.
3. No, they shouldn't be punished because the judge has no jurisdiction to do so. It's a matter for the UK courts, because it's a 100% UK (non-profit) company. Spamming is illegal in the UK, so good luck with that.

Re:Interesting legal argument. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450423)

Listen, asshat, you have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

1. That's not how jurisdiction works and it never has.
2. The case in question is being handled in a US District Court (that is to say, a federal fucking court), and the reason it's there is that Spamhaus asked for it.
3. That's not how jurisdiction works and it never has.

This jurisdiction issue is a red herring. Courts have jurisdiction over whatever the sovereign state that creates them says they have. There are courts in Spain and Belgium that have universal jurisdiction. UK courts and US courts are no different in this regard. In other words, a US court has jurisdiction over whatever US law says it has jurisdiction over. A UK court has jurisdiction over whatever UK law says it does. This applies to Canadian courts, Chinese courts, Spanish courts, etc. etc. etc. The only reason it matters where Spamhaus is located is the practical matter of enforcement: but that's a practical issue, not a legal one.

Sure, you can ignore the case, like Spamhaus did. But that doesn't mean the court doesn't have a proper jurisdiction: or that the orders that court makes will not be enforceable. This domain name issue is the perfect example. Spamhaus has spent too much fucking time reading the "legal threats" page on Pirate Bay. They're not untouchable just because they say they are. Just because you want the law to work a certain way doesn't mean it does. Wishing it were so won't save you.

Re:Interesting legal argument. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450557)

Wow, ignorance comes in many shapes and flavours. In this case, the flavour is 'mind-boggling'.

You appear completely oblivious to what the concept of 'jurisdiction' means. It is indeed true that the word can be defined in several ways, and _one_ way of defining it is 'you have jurisdiction over whoever you say you have jurisdiction over'. That should however be tempered by the fact that most legal systems specifically limit jurisdiction to acts related to that country or its inhabitants, and it is false to imply that the default jurisdiction of any court in any country is whoever the judge in question feels like exercising judgement over on that day. For the sake of record, I don't know the US rules for jurisdiction, but I do know that Spamhaus is a UK company with no employees nor operations in the US. I will therefore assume for your benefit of argument that US courts do indeed have jurisdiction over anything in the world.

That definition of jurisdiction is however a misleading one, as it excludes the concept of 'control' and 'power'. A US civil court giving a default judgement against a UK company is equally potent as a Nigerian court giving judgement against Microsoft - or even myself, that I bestow upon myself the power of jurisdiction over you. I could sit here on my couch and find a judgement against you - 'asshattery on Slashdot' - punishable by death - and the enforcement of the judgement would in your bizarre words solely be a practical matter!

Maybe it would be an assistance in your mind if you replaced 'The US' and 'The UK' respectively with 'Nigeria' and 'The US'? In this case, that a Nigerian court in which a US company did not bother to show found the US company guilty of something which is fully legal in the US (for the sake of example, let's say they are found guilty of 'depicting the Prophet Muhammed') to the tune of $500M. The US company would simply ignore it completely. It is bizarre and frankly completely inunderstandable that you can argue such a question is simply a matter of 'practical enforcement rather than legality' - for the main reason that in the United Kingdom THEIR ACTS ARE NOT ILLEGAL. US civil courts are equally irrelevant to the UK as Nigerian, Mongol and Congolese courts, and in this case the removal of the domain name is simply an illustration of the impotency of the court, as it futilely orders the demolition of millions of 'Yellow Pages' catalogues with the company's name in them because there is nothing else it can do.

I realise that this appears to be a lot of babble to you, all 'blah blah Jurisdiction blah blah Doing the crime but not wanting the time blah blah', but in reality it's not. This is why you lose, because what you discount as immaterial is actually material. Ultimately if the court do go ahead with this, there will simply be created an internet authority outside of US control, and the 'legality' of US judgements will be equally 'legal' and relevant to the world as the crazy ravings of an asylum patient in a third-world padded cell.

Re:Interesting legal argument. (2, Informative)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450541)

It was a commentary on spamhaus' legal argument so far. Not an opinion on how things should work.

1. Spamhaus requested jurisdiction be moved to a federal court in this (PDF) document [e360insight.com] , thereby accepting jurisdiction of the court.
2. The Illinois District Court is a general trial court of the US federal court system.
3. Their ciurrent position - after losing horribly through inept legal arguments - seems to be that they're nice people.

Spamhaus is correct (2, Informative)

mabu (178417) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450309)

Spamhaus is correct in saying that 90% of SMTP traffic on the net is spam. Based on my analysis we're seeing somewhere around 93%. People do not realize how much spam is blocked by relay blacklisting that never even gets to content-based filter systems. Virtually all major ISPs, including AOL, are heavily using relay blacklisting.

If Spamhaus goes down though, ten more RBLs will pop up. It's necessary to stop spam. And they're right... most mail servers on the Internet are not capable of handling the sheer amount of traffic if they were not also hanging up on bogus SMTP connections before even receiving content information. You ever wonder why your e-mail is delayed? This is because your ISP is queing mail processing because they can't handle it all at once. Without relay blacklisting, e-mail would be even slower and likely interrupted. I'm not suggesting that Spamhaus is that important, but what they do in theory, is.

All I can say is, pray that IPv6 doesn't get adopted or it will be even worse.

Re:Spamhaus is correct (2, Interesting)

pilot1 (610480) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450343)

All I can say is, pray that IPv6 doesn't get adopted or it will be even worse.
Why? There will be more IPs, but if everyone has a permanent IP it will be easier to block offenders and infected machines.

ICANN'T (1)

David Off (101038) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450327)

This judgement, if followed through, would be a big blow for continued US governance of ICANN. The Free speech argument is good as afar as it goes but don't people also have the right not to listen to the message? The judge is effectively saying that if someone is spouting crap defended by the right of free speech he also has the right to restrain people and force them to listen to this message. That surely can't be right, even in the United States.

Please Urgent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450331)

Please tell me which is the Judge e-mail?.

The solution is not SpamHouse, it's SPF ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450333)

This event may boost other spam fighting solutions like SPF.

In my opinion, it's a much better long term solution.

For more info see: http://www.openspf.org/ [openspf.org]

OT: SPF is NOT the FUSS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450419)

Sorry to disappoint but SPF has nothing to do with spam, spam has traditionally forged the sender address and widespread SPF adoption would put an end to that.

I've also no idea why that old SPF web site is still up. Try here instead [openspf.org]

Suggestion to spamhaus (4, Insightful)

rar (110454) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450375)

Why don't spamhaus just remove the e360 adresses from their regular spam lists and add them to a new list named "addresses no longer blacklisted becuase we were sued and ordered to remove them"?

That list would then serve as a perfect permanent black list for all sysadmins who happen to think that people who sue spam lists might not be the kind of people who send worthwhile emails.

I would actually recommend even higher priority to that list in the spamassassin config file than spamhaus' regular blacklists :)...

Where's the backup (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450431)

OK, there's legal wranglings over the domain that you use for distributing this information.

This information is NOT illegal in the UK (in fact, the exact opposite).

So where's the backup .org.uk name, controlled by a British entity, that people who are worried about ANY downtime can use instead? I've seen ten or twelve press releases on this thing and not once a single mention of their contingency plan for if the world goes insane and the domain IS suspended (which they can fight about later).

In fact, why stop at one, why not have half a dozen, registered under different countries? Why not publish lots and lots of backup domains that work in an identical manner that everyone can plug into their systems NOW and then not have to worry about things like this ever again?

Or is the press generated by such an issue more important for spamhaus than their user's mailbox?

I understand the principle of fighting the case anyway and not giving in because of some loopy judge in the US, but seriously people - this is the computing industry. Where are your backups?

Re:Where's the backup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450527)

> So where's the backup .org.uk name, controlled by a British entity, that people
> who are worried about ANY downtime can use instead?

The problem is not so much in Spamhaus putting up a new domain name and letting their mirrors answer that. The major issue here is that all of those millions of users who now have sbl.spamhaus.org or sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org configured in their MTA's, filtering systems or SpamAssassin configs have to change that config. They will have to be made aware that they have to change their configs first, and then they actually have to change that. In a very short timeframe. Lots of smaller companies might depend on external system administrators to do this, so it will surely not happen overnight.
The problem with being made aware is that when spamhaus.org is removed from the .org root zone no query will be answered with a 'is listed' answer anymore. So for the unknowing querying mailserver it will just look like that the IP it is trying to lookup is not listed. In other words, the filtering will not be broken, just perform very bad (not at all).
Normally Spamhaus could use its website to inform people that they will need to query a different domainname, but when the domain is gone www.spamhaus.org will also not answer...

Re:Where's the backup (1)

ocelotbob (173602) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450529)

Or is the press generated by such an issue more important for spamhaus than their user's mailbox?

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. Give the ${Gender} a cigar. The whole case smells of legalistic trolling, to be honest. By requesting the venue be changed to federal court, Spamhaus pretty much said through actions that they were accepting that they were under US law. Then, by not showing up for the court case at all, they accepted whatever punishment came down the pipes. Sounds to me like a planned move for some reasoning.

The more cynical side of me is wondering if they are playing this for political and/or economical reasons. They seemed to immediately tell people to blame ICANN for any possible shutdown when ICANN has said themselves that they aren't involved in this case at all; they can't shut down the domain, they have no legal bearing to stand either way on this case. Another part of me is thinking that perhaps this is all a money ploy. By playing themselves the victim, they stand to get a decent amount of sympathy money. Anyone in the UK know the laws on nonprofit financial disclosure? Can donations be charted by month, or is yearly the only level you can look at?

Only one cure for spam (1)

kronocide (209440) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450489)

I know people are going to love this... but after much thought I really only know one solid way to get rid of spam. That is by changing the system so spamming doesn't make any economic sense. Yes, what we need is a $0.2 tax on each email sent. As soon as bulk emailing has cost/benefit implications, spam is gone. Then, marketing has to work. The tax money could also be used for something good, like infrastructure development and upkeep.

Re:Only one cure for spam (1)

ocelotbob (173602) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450535)

Or move everyone to a tax free system for messaging. Additionally, who would collect these taxes? How would an email message sent from England to Hungary be taxed? How about a webmail message where the webmail user is in the US accessing a French webmail server communicating with a German mail server ultimately read by a user in russia? Taxing email is just unworkable.

Re:Only one cure for spam (1)

kronocide (209440) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450585)

That those things can't be solved off the top of one's head doesn't mean they can't be solved. There are other taxes, such as for air travel, that accumulate across nations and are paid in one place. And there is no better solution, because it exploits the one constant and real difference between spam and other email. Spam is the only email that is sent to 1 million addresses at a time. You could send 50 emails for $1, and that goes a long way to cover the monthly needs of normal people. But 1,000,000 emails costs $20,000. I believe it would kill spam overnight.

A small point (1)

BertieBaggio (944287) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450491)

Following these Spamhaus stories, I see a lot of comments from the /. denizens along the lines of "Spamhaus provides a list which is optional to use, so what is the big deal?". I agree with this sentiment, however e360insight's angle was that Spamhaus was denying them business by calling them a spammer. Of course, this entailed adding them to a list which administrators used to curb unwanted emails getting through. That's my reading (IANAL etc etc); if I'm wrong, please correct me.

Unfortunately it seems like Spamhaus went about defending this incorrectly ("I don't recognize the authority of this court, take it to the Federal court", "Okay", "I don't recognize the authority of the Federal court..."), which has complicated matters. I'd have liked to see how this would have turned out had it A) been defended correctly or B) no authority besides the UK courts recognized in the first place. Still, I think this has a little way to run before we see the end of this.

Spamhaus have their problems (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450533)

Most of the comments I've read so far seem to be in favour of Spamhaus, and while I agree that they do some good work, they are not all good. Specifically, they seem over keen to blacklist address ranges without providing any proof, and very reluctant to unblock these.

I work for an ISP providing dedicated server hosting & colocation. Recently a couple of our customers contacted us saying that they had appeared on the Spamhaus blacklist, and were consequently having trouble sending e-mails. They claimed that they had not involved in any spamming activities, and that this listing was therefore incorrect. We found out that Spamhaus had blacklisted a range of our IP addresses (specifically a /27 subnet), and their explanation was that we were hosting someone from their ROKSO list.

While it was indeed true that we were hosting a server for this person, Spamhaus had a) blocked an address range larger than the IP addresses involved with this spammer, and b) would not offer any proof that the spammer had been using the server we host for him to involve in any spamming activities. When we contacted them, they refused to unblock this range unless we suspended the account of this spammer (again without providing any proof of activities conducted from our network that would breach our TOS), even though they acknowledged that the range they were blocking involved innocent customers. For us to suspend him at the request of Spamhaus would have been US breaking our contract with him, as there was no indication that he had violated our AUP (which DOES prohibit involvement with spam).

When we refused to break our contract with our customer at the request of a third party (perfectly acceptable position imho!), Spamhaus said that if they blocked any of our customers in future, they would blacklist our entire network (which is a considerable amount of addresses). This is unacceptable in my view, they are essentially trying to hold us to ransom without providing any proof of activities. When talking with some other ISPs, we heard of similar stories. In one case, the ISP concerned suspended the spammer's account and contacted Spamhaus to have their blacklist removed, and were told that "due to under-staffing, Spamhaus would not be able to remove the blacklist entry for a couple of days. however, if they would like to make a donation to spamhaus, they would remove the entry much sooner".

To reiterate my earlier point, Spamhaus does provide a valuable service, there's not much doubt of this. But they way in which they are organised leaves a lot to be desired!

Pull the pin! (0, Redundant)

JohnnyOpcode (929170) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450537)

Let the @#$% hit the fan and effectively slap the world upside the head. I'm fighting more and more spam everyday. It's money out of my companies pocket. It's lost productivity out of our employees. Legislation has no real teeth (just loopholes for the spammers). These spammers are funding a different kind of terrorism, the kind that sucks the lifeblood out of the economy. Pull the pin, and watch the net grind to the halt. Business grind to a halt. Stop masking the problem with whitelists, blacklists et al. We are all paying for this, and spammers are virtually untouchable (and getting richer). Deal with this now, or deal with this when these whitelist/blacklist servers get DOS attacks launched against them in a crossfire exercise. You've been warned!

I so want to.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16450559)

I want to beat the shit out of the users, explode their RJ45 wires, choke them with what's left from the wire, piss on them, cuss, and then explode their house for being so full of shit and allowing their shitty Windows desktop computers spam the whole world with shitty commercials that are actually responded to by the same gullible shits who themselves actually spam and lose money buying penis enlargement (and indefinitely lowering their ePenises) == botnets.

I wish we could pull off a eugenics program on COMPUTER ILLITERATE WHO USE COMPUTERS WITH INTERNET ACCESS..

Spamhaus should have defended the lawsuit (1)

PingXao (153057) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450565)

I like Spamhaus. Hell, I USE it daily. It was a bad move to ignore the lawsuit. I understand why they ignored it, but I think it was a foolish decision in the long run.

SPAM is a serious problem (2, Funny)

atarione (601740) | more than 7 years ago | (#16450581)

please forward this slashdot story to 20 of your friends in order to fight spam.... actually just to be sure email it to them twice.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...