[MPlayer-dev-eng] to michael

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Thursday, 25 May 2006 at 17:59, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 01:59:11PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
[...]
> > 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..

There's no point in forging evidence by a blocklist. If they're caught,
everybody will stop using them. It's about trust. That goes for every
blocklist.

> > > (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.

Yet spam was received from the IP they're using. It doesn't matter who
is using it. The fact remains the same. They may have had their computer
cracked, it doesn't matter.

> > > 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!

I you feel it's wrongful, complain to your ISP.

> > 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.

It's not the same as racial discrimination. It's not people we're talking
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.

It is technically possible and any good ISP will do that if you ask them.
If they don't, it's not my problem.

> > > 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.

Prove they're associated. Otherwise you're the one wrongfully accusing
them.

> > 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?????

Well, I receive spam from the IPs they're using. I don't care if they
pressed the "Send" button or not. It doesn't matter.

[...]
> 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.

Oh, please. Be my guest. Come up with a better method and EVERYBODY will
thank you.

It's not about being guilty or innocent, though. It's about spam being
sent from a given IP or not. And if there's a lot of spam coming from
different IPs in a range, it's ineffective to block them one by one.

> > > 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.

If I were, then yes. But that's not I'm suggesting. Besides, it's
impossible to know if the person behind an IP (if there even is one) is
black or white or yellow. And yet you maintain blocklists are listing
people.

[...]
> > > > > 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...

Of course I am and of course I were. Losing != rejecting it.

> > 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.

Agreed, and that's what I meant by rejecting, but blacklists are still more
resource-efficient, especially when someone is mailbombing you. Will you pay
for everyone's bandwith usage increase when they stop using blocklists?

[...]
> > > > > 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.

IPs don't correspond directly to 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??

That's between them and their ISPs.

> > Why do you think so many ISPs use SORBS and other blacklists?
> 
> Because their admins are idiots like yourself.

I'm trying to avoid calling people names, but you're really trying my
patience. No, they do it because using SORBS is beneficial to them.

> > 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.

Fine. I hope other subscribers share your view.

Regards,
R.

-- 
MPlayer developer and RPMs maintainer: http://rpm.greysector.net/mplayer/
There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and
oppression to develop psychic muscles.
	-- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan