[MPlayer-dev-eng] to michael

[Rich Felker]

On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 06:25:03PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> 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.

No, if everyone would stop using them due to them being caught doing
unscrupulous things, everyone would have stopped a long time ago. The
madness of "we must fight spam at all costs" kicks in, just like the
madness of "we must fight terrorism at all costs" and no one even
cares that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11.

> > 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

You REALLY believe this?? I sure as hell don't.

> > > > 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.

It's not my ISP but the recipient's ISP.

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

Yes it is people.

> > > 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.

They won't because they're worried you'll send spam with it and then
they'll be branded as spammers for "opening the door". Again this is
not a decision they should have to make.

> > 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.

They're associated by virtue of having the same goals and by knowing
one another. That's a plenty when it comes to demanding a ransom like
this..

> > > 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.

You did? No. SORBS claims they did. Or maybe they recieved spam from a
nearby/similar IP.. Or...? Do you even know?

> > 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.

My better method is called "suck in and deal".

> 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.

OK you just admitted what this is about. Laziness and "efficiency".
It's more "efficient" to brand isolated small groups of innocents as
spammers, and hope they won't complain too loudly, than to do the
fine-grained labelling necessary to make sure that only the guilty
parties are blocked.

This is unacceptable.

> > > 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.

The point is that you do not have an unlimited right to block emails
to your customers.

> > 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?

No, and I also won't pay the funeral expenses of the people who died
in the 9/11 attacks, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to allow
martial law to prevent (yeah right, prevention is impossible) the same
thing from happening again.

It's not the responsibility of the few individuals who strongly demand
the preservation of freedom to pay for whatever convenience everyone
loses due to that freedom. It's everyone's responsibility to bear the
cost of keeping freedom, however it ends up affecting them. We don't
subsidize freedom.

> > > 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.

Yes they do! Not in all cases, but in some. ISPs should be forced to
drop dynamic addressing entirely. That would do a HUGE benefit to the
fight against spam because spammers would have to buy new accounts
each time rather than just redialing.

> > 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.

No, it's a public issue because it affects large groups of people in
unjust ways.

> > > 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.

Beneficial to their laziness.

> > > 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.

I hope they do too, but on the issue of blacklisting, not on the issue
of relevance. And apparently they do.

Rich