[MPlayer-dev-eng] to michael

[Rich Felker]

On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 01:59:11PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > SORBS is guilty of both libel and extortion.
> 
> Prove it.

Unfortunately I don't have the money for international court cases. :(

> > Libel for falsely labelling people as spammers
> 
> They don't label people. They list IPs from which spam was received (for
> example, to spamtrap addresses).

See below.

> Show me the proof that someone didn't sent spam and got listed.

This is not the direction the burden of proof goes. No one has to
prove innocence because usually it's impossible. Guilt is what must be
proved.

> Blocklists usually keep spam samples that were received from a particular
> IP and SORBS is no exception.

And why should anyone trust that? If SORBS gets mad at me for accusing
them of crimesthey can just copy-and-paste one of the popular spams
with my IP in the headers..

> > (this is blatently harmful to one's reputation and causes actual monetary
> > damage to small businesses and individuals)
> 
> Sending spam is harmful to the whole Internet.

This is irrelevant because the accused DID NOT SEND SPAM! People are
innocent until proven guilty, except according to idiotic overzealous
spam-fighting crusaders.

> > and as "dynamic ip" (which also results in wrongful denial of service).
> 
> I'm repeating myself, but SORBS isn't denying service to anyone.

I said RESULTS IN!

> Dynamic/generic DNS IP ranges are known to be infested with spam-spewing
> zombies. That's why they should be pre-emptively listed. It's up to

This is nonsense. It's as stupid as saying blacks are known to have
lots of criminals so they should be kept out of schools/neighborhoods
or whatever. You cannot make preemptive judgements against a group of
people based on characteristics that are NOT equivalent to the one
you're concerned about.

> the ISP to label them correctly in the DNS if there is a mail server
> there.

Nonsense. As you know 99% of ISPs will not take the time to do this
for their customers.

> > As for extortion, requiring a $50 "donation" to remove yourself from a
> > being listed as a spammer (and the resulting damages due to your
> 
> It's not extortion. They do not profit from it.

A scheme involving two associated parties where one party forces
people to pay money to the other party is extortion plus criminal
conspiracy. Mike Sully's "charity" he forces you to "donate" to is
definitely associated with him and his ring of spam crusaders.

> And if you sent spam,
> why shouldn't you atone for it?

THESE PEOPLE DID NOT SEND SPAM!
HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS TO GET IT THROUGH YOUR
HEAD?????

> > network not being able to send to ISPs who have been tricked into
> > using SORBS) is blatent extortion.
> 
> Tricked? ROTFL. Any administrator who uses blocking lists without
> veryifying their effects on his services is clearly incompetent.

Yes but that's irrelevant. Administrators have no business making the
decision anyway. Only the users whose accounts are affected (and thus
unable to receive legitimate mail) have the authority to make this
decision, but that doesn't stop their clueless admins from doing it
anyway.

> > > I've been studying the spam issue probably longer than you. I have
> > > extensive experience in spamfighting and I don't have to believe
> > > anybody to know how things work.
> > 
> > This is why you have no legitimacy.
> 
> Having years of first-hand experience in spam-fighting means that I have no
> legitimacy to speak about the issue. I see.

Yes, it means you have a vested interest and cynicism towards the Bad
Guys(tm)'s side.

> I assume your legitimacy comes from divine revelations?

My legitimacy comes from a refusal to compromise on the principle that
people are innocent until proven guilty and that if enforcement of a
rule/law results in even one innocent person being wrongfully affected
then it must be halted and replaced with a method that assures that
this cannot happen.

> > The "spamfighting" crowd is a bunch of overzealous idiots willing to
> > throw the baby out with the bathwater, i.e. willing to stomp all over
> > everyone's liberties
> 
> Everyone's liberties end at my network. I have every right not to receive
> e-mail from anyone based on any criteria I want. I am NOT limiting anyone's
> freedom in ANY way that way.

No you do not. If you are running a business and your criteria was to
refuse all email from blacks or from Jews or whatever you'd be in deep
shit in a hurry.

> > 2. send spammers to jail for life (or better, lynch them).
> 
> Making them go out of business and pay astronomical fines would be
> enough for me. Being unable to pay, they would end up in jail.
> A life sentence is definitely too harsh. Would you send all thieves
> to jail for life? Would you pay for feeding and keeping them?
> I don't want to.

A justice system should be based on the principle that the punishment
is not retribution but a way of preventing further damage to the
public. Spammers are a type of con artists, and con artists generally
do not reform. Con artists, rapists, and other types of criminals that
will necessarily repeat their crimes if released should not be
released. Anyway this is O/T.

> > > > procmail and spamassassin stop spam.
> > > 
> > > ROTFL.
> > 
> > Laugh all you want; it's true. Did you ever get spam thru the lists on
> > mphq1? No. Because Arpi's procmail and spamassassin setup sent it all
> > to /dev/null.
> 
> That's not stopping spam. That's pretending it never reached you, which is
> blatantly false. Moreover, devnulling mail in this way may cause some
> legitimate mail to get lost.

ROTFL!!! _NOW_ you're suddenly worried about losing legitimate mail?
You weren't before...

> It also costs cpu time and disk space.
> Rejecting spam instead of receiving it is much more cost- and
> resource-effective and is IMHO the only efficient method. I know you'll
> disagree.

Rejecting at the MTA level is better, if you can do it with content
filters and not blacklists.

> > If this isn't enough for you, you're welcome to require anyone
> > emailing you to confirm their emails via a challenge-response system
> > and use a whitelist for known senders.
> 
> Now that's throwing out the baby out with the bathwater. Not only spam
> won't reach your mailbox, but also normal people will stop e-mailing you
> because you're making them jump through hoops.

No, they're still able, it's just more trouble. Better than emails
silently being dropped and leaving the sender NO WAY to contact the
person...

> > > > blacklisting innocent people does not.
> > > 
> > > Blocklists do not list people. They list IP addresses (or domain names).
> > 
> > This is the most idiotic argument ever. It's like saying someone
> > publishing a "sex offenders list" isn't responsible for the horrible
> > things that happen to people on the list due to others reading it.
> 
> Bad analogy. That is a list of people. A list of IPs is NOT a list of
> people. An IP blacklist is like a list of dangerous city districts.

No it is not. It's like a list of street addresses, which directly
corresponds to a list of people.

> > And these lists, just like the spam blacklists, have lots of mistakes with
> > catastrophic consequences.
> 
> You're welcome not to use them or any provider that uses them.

And welcome not to send mail to people on these ISPs who WANT TO
RECEIVE MY MAIL but CANNOT??

> Why do you think so many ISPs use SORBS and other blacklists?

Because their admins are idiots like yourself.

> Anyway, if you wish to discuss this issue further, please do so in an
> appropriate place, like news:news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting. I consider
> this thread closed, because it's highly off-topic.

I don't. This should be discussed in public among people it's relevant
to, which is EVERYONE.

Rich