MAPS vs. Gordon Feyck: Who Owns the DUL? 211
etrnl writes "The spam-l mailing list has an interesting post from Nick Nicholas about a recent lawsuit between MAPS, LLC. and Gordon Fecyk, who had arranged with Paul Vixie to host the DUL with MAPS in 1998. Even more interesting is that Nick was the Executive Director of MAPS who hired Gordon at MAPS in 1999. Notable quote from Nick: 'I find
it extremely ironic that an organization which is currently soliciting donations
to its own legal defense fund would now be using its limited resources to pursue
litigation against a former employee.'"
MAPS wants a temporary restraining order on two separate copyright claims:
first, that Feyck can't use the DUL database, and second, that he can't run a too-similar website (now
down). The bone of contention is that Feyck claims he
bought back
the DUL from MAPS, and
MAPS disagrees.
Incidentally, the DUL is currently stopping CmdrTaco from directly emailing one of the Slash coders.
I know Gord (Score:3, Funny)
On the other hand, since I know Gordon to be an honest guy, I suspect that the other party is trying to screw him out of what rightfully is his.
Kickstart
Speaking of antispam.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Over the last few years, the Internet provider for Costa Rica has been targetted by anti-spam types as a spam hoster.
Now.. that's all well and good, but the end result is that
a) The entire country's IP range is on SPEWS
b) Internet is a government run monopoly here.
c) There is no direct way to be removed from SPEWS. You cannot contact them. You cannot explain your situation. (My situation is that we happen to have some IP addresses in this country, and have trouble reaching our customers because of it. We don't spam.)
Now.. I fully support the fact that the Internet is an anarchy, that each individual is free to decide how their network will or will not accept traffic from others, yada yada yada. On that I am firm.
But when it comes to an ISP.. we have a problem. An ISP that subscribes to this, sure, it's their choice, but it's awfully hard to explain to the client that they have to instruct their ISP to stop using this service. And the odds of the ISP stopping? Not likely.
The point is, in theory, it's all fair, in practice, it's a problem.
Re:Speaking of antispam.. (Score:2)
For most ISP's it's a simple choice. Do you want your service to go down frequently due to overloaded connections and mailboxes, or do you want to loose a dissastified consumer while retaining the rest. It's a simple choice for most ISP's.
Re:Speaking of antispam.. (Score:2)
Re:Speaking of antispam.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically they want to make it as inconvenient as possible for the ISP's legitamate customers so that the ISP is pressured to change their ways from the inside.
I agree that you're in a difficult situation, but nothing else works.
Re:Speaking of antispam.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree the system works. Unfortunately for anyone doing business in Costa Rica, there IS no competition. You have no choice. None whatsoever, and given the way things work, it's going to take quite a while to actually get changes made.
The other thing is..
This isn't just an ISP in the country.. it's the national (and only) telecom carrier. This is more like UUNET being blacklisted because on some level they sell bandwidth to spammers.
Re:Speaking of antispam.. (Score:1)
Re:Speaking of antispam.. (Score:2)
I agree the system works. Unfortunately for anyone doing business in Costa Rica, there IS no competition. You have no choice. None whatsoever, and given the way things work, it's going to take quite a while to actually get changes made.
I guess that just means you have to find a way to put pressure on your ISP to get the spammers removed from your network, otherwise you'll slowly get disconnected from the internet.
Connecting to my server is not a right, it's a priviledge. If an ISP hosts too many spammers it'll end up in SPEWS and I won't allow connections from it.
My server, my rules. Your ISP, your money, your rules. If enough ISPs block all trafic from RACSA(sp?) maybe they will find a reason to terminate the spammers. It worked for other ISPs, just google and see how many ISPs already kicked off the spammers now hosted by your ISP.
Wow. (Score:2)
I support completely your right to filter out what you want. Absolutely. I also support the right of lists like spews to exist.
My problem is just that we *can't* pressure ICE/RACSA. There is no competition. There is no way to financially impact them. They don't WANT our money. They have as much business as they can handle already.
Believe me, if we had a choice, many businesses here would go with someone who does not support spam. We would gladly shop with our dollars, and put pressure on the company.
But with a government enforced monopoly that is *absolute*, there's basically fuck all we can do to pressure them.
It's your server, your rules. Feel free to block the entire country.
And my ISP is not RACSA. It's ICE. (ICE is the telco, RACSA is the domestic ISP., We get our bandwidth from ICE directly)
IT's easy (Score:2)
You might think it's so simple, but I guarantee you have no idea what things are really like.
The ISP has no motivation to change; they are a monopoly. They get the business regardless of what they do or do not do. The ISP is the national carrier. You can't set up a second ISP, you can't get bandwidth from somewhere else.
OH! Wait! LEt me get this straight.
By your logic....
Why aren't France Telecom and alter.net on the list? After all, they sell us the bandwidth. Why? Because they are main carriers.
This is not like an ISP being blacklisted.. this is like an entire national carrier being blacklisted.
Re:Speaking of antispam.. (Score:2)
Is it UUNET's responsibility to filer spam? No, it's not. They may have some policies.. but you would not block UUNET because they sell bandwidth to ISPs who are spammers.
Re:Speaking of antispam.. (Score:3, Informative)
I disagree with this assessment. There are at least two other things that work, and IMHO work better. The first is spamassassin [spamassassin.org], and the second is TMDA. [sourceforge.net] I use both of these in series. And I've not received a single spam in my inbox since January (when I started using them). I used to get 20-30 per day. Now I'm down to zero.
I don't know how well SPEWS works. But I've used other RBL type systems and they always, at some point or another failed, and could sometimes fail big - where I suddenly start getting hundreds of spam from a non-listed IP. The two systems above can fail, but on a single instance, single email at a time. When they fail, they fail small.
IMHO, SPEWS, RBL, and any other IP based list systems are antiquated technology in comparison to spamassassin and TMDA. But YMMV.
$.02
Re:Speaking of antispam.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Spamassassin is an email heuristic system that takes ordb (and other rbl's) under advisement. But it is not the final say. It also uses vipul's razor [sourceforge.net] as an advisor, but again it's not the final say. Spamassassin has hundreds of different tests [spamassassin.org] that it performs to determine whether or not an email is a spam. Only a few of which are rbl based tests.
TMDA is a system that doesn't depend on any RBL (Realtime Blackhole List). And contrary to your understanding, it's primary mechanism is NOT a blacklist, it's a whitelist. It's a completely different technology than an RBL. Even if you do use it with a blacklist, it's based on email addresses not IP addresses. So if you spam me, and I blacklist you, your brother on the same email server can still send me email.
I stand by my original claim. RBL's are antiquated technology in comparison to TMDA and spamassassin. They paint too broad of a brush stroke, blocking many people who you want to receive email from, while failing to block many others who you don't want to receive email from.
Re:Speaking of antispam.. (Score:3, Informative)
Do you recognize the name Ralsky? There's less than 6000 Google hits for him. 13,000 is a big number.
RACSA has a spam problem. They need to fix it. Until they do, they're going to be running what amounts to a big LAN.
Shaun
No. (Score:2)
I deal with ICE directly.. the national telco.
I am not a racsa customer.
IF you think spews turns this into a big lan.. you are sadly mistaken. It has an effect, yes, but only a minor one overall (currently)
Re:Speaking of antispam.. (Score:1, Flamebait)
c) There is no direct way to be removed from SPEWS. You cannot contact them. You cannot explain your situation. (My situation is that we happen to have some IP addresses in this country, and have trouble reaching our customers because of it. We don't spam.)
I'll put it quite bluntly.
The reason there's no avenue to "explain your situation" is because none of the rest of us on the internet give two shits about Costa Rica's connectivity. Straight up.
You could launch Costa Rica to the moon, and it would take me 12 years to notice my World Atlas was a little bit lighter.
The lame argument that "we can't force our [national] ISP to be responsible" is total bunk. Consider all our email blocks to be documentation you can use to explain to RACSA [racsa.co.cr] of why reform is needed. Bad political decisions on your part is not going to make me pay for delivery of more spam.
Re:Speaking of antispam.. (Score:3, Informative)
c) There is no direct way to be removed from SPEWS.
Bullshit. Or are all those SPEWS: messages in news:news.admin.net-abuse.email [news] figments of my imagination?
From the spews faq [spews.org]
So sort your spam problem, then post in nane once its sorted. Until then, don't expect a lot of us to accept your crap.
Re:Speaking of antispam.. (Score:3, Flamebait)
And your quoting from the SPEWS FAQ confirms that to be correct.
Then you said, "So sort your spam problem, then post in nane once its sorted. Until then, don't expect a lot of us to accept your crap." But he already told you he doesn't SPAM. The problem is that SPEWS has blocked his entire country because they operate on the theory of putting a bunch of people in the same boat as the spammers with the (completely misguided) hope that someone else will then take care of the spammers.
This guy works for a company that can't send mail to anyone on an ISP that uses SPEWS, and yet he has no probelm with SPEWS. He just wants them to stop blocking his non-spamming netblock.
You seem to be under the impression that only spam originating netblocks are blocked by SPEWS. Consider your delusion to be corrected.
Re:Speaking of antispam.. (Score:2)
Actually, I would characterize the Internet as more a "community" than "anarchy". It works via a network of relationships. It does have standards - but they are really more related to technical issues and ensuring the continued functionality of that community. The community is always open to new members. But if one member wishes to behave in a way that goes against the community's standards, they will find themselves eventually ostracized. And they have only themselves to blame.
The ISP shouldn't have to stop using this service. You're putting effort in the wrong direction. The direction to go is YOUR ISP. Government or not, your challenge is to collect some references and explain the situation. Get them to understand that their actions are effectively cutting themselves off from the Internet.
You are the one with the sociopath in your family and its your problem to deal with. Not the community's.
Re:Spews is a solution worse than the problem itse (Score:2)
It's like living in a society where you go to jail for the crime your neighbor commits.
No, its like paying a criminal boss who happens to employe burglars. If you're paying, you're supporting spam. Tough shit.
People often get listed simply because their domains are used in forged email addresses and/or forged HELO headers
Care to offer links or evidence to that?
SPEWS' philosophy is that once a domain is used for spamming, it's blacklisted forever
Utter bullshit. None of the mainstream spam blacklists run on a domain basis. It's done on an IP block basis.
SPEWS is run by a bunch of shady and unaccountable people.
Shady no. It's run by a group of international news admins. Unaccountable, perhaps. But when black lists keep getting sued by spammers, then what else are you going to do.
SPEWS fights spam by exerting a heavy burden on innocent people who unknowingly become associated with spammers
Unfortunately, this is the only way to get ISPs to take notice these days. SPEWS is based on collateral damage. However the fault lies with the ISPs, not spews.
would advise anyone who cherishes the democratic values of our society to stay away from SPEWS
It's my democratic right to use it or not use it. SPAM is not a right. It's not a free speech issue. You do not have a right to communicate with my servers. Oh, and remember, the internet is international. Not all of us hold your consitution so dear.
Re:Speaking of antispam.. (Score:2)
You should try dealing with services in a country other than your own, even for neighbors with close ties it can be a royal pain in the ass (Canada and the U.S. in my case). Never mind that the exchange rate puts a significant damper on things. (Ironic twist: I can buy most music cheaper in Canada than you can in the U.S., but the Canadian dollar is worth a fraction of the U.S. dollar...)
I personally know Gord, can't say he's a friend of mine, but I don't hate him either. I just dislike his politics when it comes to SPAM.
I'd rather see the judge in this case declair the whole list void and deny either party from using it.
I had dinner with Gord back in about 1998 just after he relocated to Manitoba from B.C. and we discussed the DUL. I didn't like the fact that during the discussion he indicated that my server, running attached to a cablemodem, would be on his list. At the time my Internet provider was having problems sending mail, my solution was to setup my Linux box (firewall, etc) to send outgoing mail. (Relaying explicitly PREVENTED) For me it was the perfect solution, Shaw/@home was not having significant problems receiving mail. Even if there mail server was down mail intended for me would eventually make it through, outgoing mail was an issue because my Windows based mail program would not try repeatedly to send mail. (And I liked what I was using).
My solution allowed me to continue using the software I wanted to use, and I didn't have to go overboard trying to configure sendmail. (That program is almost scary, but thats a discussion for another day).
The amusing, to me, thing about the DUL list is that any provider that feels they should use the list should, in that view, filter outgoing traffic intedned for port 25. Thereby making it impossible for their users to send the same type of email they are filtering on incoming. If all providers which used DUL did that there would probably be less span, and even less of a need for DUL, and it would be *OBVIOUS* your ISP was the issue. Not the ISP at the other end you have no control of.
Personally I find the various balcklists on the net for dealing with SPAM amusing. They don't work 100%, and as such they (in my mind) discourage a proper solution to the problem as they limit it, without remivng it. Enough spam gets through that spammers continue with it, and providers don't get fed up to the point of declaring all out war on SPAM.
The post? (Score:2, Funny)
-jag
Re:The post? (Score:2, Informative)
Why is Taco trying to directly email him anyway? (Score:2)
If 'the DUL' or, rather, someone utilising the DUL, is preventing him from emailing a second person, that must mean that Taco is using a dialup and has no smtp server of his own to access? That seems more than a bit improbable.
Because that's how Unix email works (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, Taco does have an smtp server of his own to access. On his own machine. Like he should. If you're a dialup user, it's beneficial to have an inbound mailbox server somewhere that's always connected, whether it delivers the mail to you by SMTP or POP/IMAP. But no need to do that for outbound.
The reason the DUL is helpful for blocking spammers is not because there's no legitimate reason for a dialup user to run SMTP - it's just that many of the popular clients use a relay so they don't have to handle error messages or hang out trying to deliver to slow servers or delay delivery on temporarily unavailable servers, and that many spammers abuse cheap disposable dialup accounts, but they get booted off of their ISPs' mail servers too fast to make them practical, or rate-limited, so they deliver their own email so they can reach more suckers before being squashed.
Some ISPs block outgoing Port 25 that doesn't go through their servers - really annoying if you've got more than one ISP account, and don't like having to reconfigure your machine just because you're dialing in from work or on the DSL at home instead of the other dialup.
Re:Because that's how Unix email works (Score:2)
Re:Because that's how Unix email works (Score:2)
what are they trying to do? (Score:2, Interesting)
later,
Jess
Misconception...again (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh. No it's not. (How many times does this need to be said.) The mail server CmdrTaco is trying to email is stopping him. The DUL is just a listing; it does no blocking.
Re:Misconception...again (Score:2)
Re:Misconception...again (Score:2)
Well, there's the obvious, "marketing"... I.e., Direct marketing by email necessarily involves marketing (and by extension, most if not all spam goes here). Directly Emailing is a superset which includes the previous category, but if I work at a company with a T1 and send an e-mail to my friend, chances are I just Directly Emailed him, since my company's SMTP server connected to my friend's SMTP server. So you're reading way too much between the lines.
Re:Misconception...again (Score:2)
Re:Misconception...again (Score:2)
You die when your heart stops and oxygen stops getting to your brain.
Re:Misconception...again (Score:2, Insightful)
It's an important distinction when the collateral damage victims go whining to the press.
It reminds everyone that the administrator of the machine receiving the emails has chosen to use that list maintainer's recommendations as possible spam sources, and that they should be blocked.
Without subscribers, all spam source listings are toothless. This isn't some evil government agency blocking your email on the sly. It's sharing of information, and only as good as the maintainer's policies and reputation.
The SPAM-L post: MAPS Sues Former Employee (Score:5, Interesting)
Sender: Spam Prevention Discussion List
From: Nick Nicholas
Subject: COURT: MAPS Sues Former Employee and DUL Founder, Gordon Fecyk
I have been a strongly outspoken supporter of MAPS for many years.
When I was at pacbell.net I nearly had a heart attack when Paul Vixie called in 1997 to warn us that we were about to be listed in the MAPS RBL for running unsecured mail servers. But I supported his actions even then. Indeed, his call was very helpful in speeding up the bureaucracy at pacbell.net and getting the unsecured mail servers closed to relaying even more quickly. I appreciated Paul's willingness to work with us on resolving our problems.
I wanted pacbell.net to use the MAPS RBL, but instead I was instructed by management to compile my own list. I felt my meager efforts could not compare to the quality of the RBL made available by MAPS, but, unfortunately, my own wishes were overruled.
When Paul offered me the opportunity to become Executive Director of MAPS in December 1998, it was an offer I simply could not refuse, and for the next year and a half I was one of the leading cheerleaders for MAPS.
Even though I left MAPS in August 1999, it was an amicable departure. Soon afterwards I was hired as Chief Privacy Officer for a company in the direct marketing industry, and I still continued to defend MAPS against its many critics in that industry.
Last year I decided to write a book about the history of MAPS. My intent was to focus on the companies that sued MAPS and abused the legal system in order to prevent MAPS from exercising its legitimate free speech rights. I wanted to portray Paul and Dave Rand as beleaguered but slightly flawed heroes.
However, my opinion of MAPS was forever changed this past April when it decided to sue DUL founder, Gordon Fecyk, after Gordon attempted to exercise a December 1998 contract he entered into with Paul Vixie in his capacity as MAPS CEO.
My overview of this matter, as well as copies of court documents filed in the case, can be found at the following URL:
http://www.lawsuitinfo.com [lawsuitinfo.com]
It seems that MAPS has learned a great deal from the lawsuits brought against it by Harris Interactive and others, and has adopted the same slimy tactics. In particular, the affidavits filed by Margie Arbon and Anne Mitchell are full of factual errors and material misrepresentations. I will add my commentary on these affidavits at a later date.
A hearing will be held in the Manitoba court tomorrow (5/7). We will add additional info as soon as possible.
Gordon may have to sell his car in order to pay his not inconsequential legal bills. Is anyone interested in making a contribution to help Gordon with his legal expenses? If so, please send your contributions to Gordon's attorneys at the following address:
Cassidy Ramsay
385 St. Mary Avenue, 2nd Floor
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 0N1
CANADA
Checks or money orders should be made out to Cassidy Ramsay
Be sure to include a note with your contribution stating that it is on behalf of Gordon Fecyk in the Mail Abuse Prevention System v. Fecyk case.
All contributions will be placed in a trust fund by the law firm and used solely to cover Gordon's legal expenses.
Contributors will receive an acknowledgement from Cassidy Ramsay. However, all contributions are covered by attorney-client privilege, and thus the identities of contributors will remain anonymous. Information about contributions *cannot* be obtained by MAPS through the discovery process.
I cannot describe how much it saddens me that it has become necessary for me to bring all of these disturbing facts to light, but I think it is essential for the Internet community to be aware of what MAPS has become. MAPS is no longer devoting its energy to fighting spam and co-operating with others in that fight, but instead is suing a former employee who attempted to exercise his legitimate rights pursuant to a contract with MAPS. I find it extremely ironic that an organization which is currently soliciting donations to its own legal defense fund would now be using its limited resources to pursue litigation against a former employee.
Regards,
Nick
Re:The SPAM-L post: MAPS Sues Former Employee (Score:2, Funny)
Darth Vader switched careers as well.
This story is very DUL (Score:2, Funny)
SPAM-L mailing list info, FAQ and archives (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.claws-and-paws.com/spam-l/ [claws-and-paws.com]
Search and archives are at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/spam-l.html [lsoft.com]
But you have to be a subscriber to use the above.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Interested in MAPS? Also Check out DCC... (Score:5, Informative)
That is nothing worked until a few days ago. I recommend anybody that has spam problems, can run procmail or is in charge of a mail server running sendmail check out the "Distributed Checksum Clearinghouse" (DCC) at http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/
It took me some time to get the dcc sendmail milter dccm working correctly but, since I did, this has become my new best friend. Its catching 100% of spam targeted at me and rejecting it.
From what I know about MAPS I think its a needed service to keep ISPs in check. But it seems targeted at attacking the delivers of spam and doesn't seem to provide much to directly protect the recipients of spam mail. DCC is the only solution I've found that accurately prevents spam mail from even being delivered to myself or users. I think this is necessary because if nobody actually receives spam the spammers will starve.
So If you're like me and think spam is a rashy plague that you can't get rid of their is a cream available and it is named DCC. Check it out.
Re:Interested in MAPS? Also Check out DCC... (Score:3, Informative)
But here's the cool part. Spamassassin doesn't do anything with it. It simply marks it as a spam. Then you can use something like procmail to decide what to do with it. Me, personally, I store it into a folder called SPAM. I then configure my imap server (courier imapd [inter7.com]) to treat that mailbox as a trashcan, and automatically delete anything in it older than 14 days.
This allows me to check if there are any stragglers that get through, but also allows me to forget about it for a couple of weeks at a time. Spamassassin has been tuned to avoid false positives. I've been using spamassassin for months. During that time, I've not had a single email that was not a spam get marked as a spam. I've had emails that were spams get marked as non-spam (false negative). Which, if there's going to be an error, that's the kind I want. I'd hate to call a real email spam, have it sent to my SPAM mailbox and automatically deleted before I read it. The good news is that not a single false positive has occurred, although a few false negatives have occurred.
So I've started using another tool to help deal with spam. It's called TMDA [sourceforge.net]. It's somewhat more complex to setup and use than spamassissin. But a brief description is that it acts like an email firewall. Outgoing messages can be replied to, but incoming messages require that a person prove that they are a person. After which they'll be allowed unrestricted access to send me email.
TMDA is much more exact than spamassassin, which is mostly complicated guessing. It successfully blocks every spam that spamassassin lets through. However, TMDA is also much more complex from an end user perspective. So it might not be for everyone. For example, I only use spamassassin on my wife's account - not TMDA because she's made it clear to me that she doesn't want to learn how to use it. I personally use both of them at the same time, and I've been 100% spam free for months. I used to get 20-30/day.
$.02
Re:Interested in MAPS? Also Check out DCC... (Score:2)
Re:Interested in MAPS? Also Check out DCC... (Score:3, Informative)
I want to keep spam from even so much as entering my server. How can DCC help in that case? I don't see how, being as I don't have the content to check against DCC with. Now if this check can be done during the SMTP delivery of the content, and be used to force a failure of delivery, well maybe that would work. Is this doable? Last time I looked at the DCC site, it wasn't even close to this.
Re:Interested in MAPS? Also Check out DCC... (Score:2)
Yes, that would do the job of keeping the mail on the server, and giving a 5XX to the spamware or the open relay. Any word on a Postfix version?
Re:Interested in MAPS? Also Check out DCC... (Score:2)
These things should be done by dlopen(), dlsym(), call a specific function to filter/check data, and dlclose() ... instead of fork() and execve(). I've already discovered that dynamic web pages built from shared object files run much faster on the server than corresponding CGI even with the CGI program written in C.
In-joke: "The bone of contention is that ..." (Score:1)
Would that be a chicken bone? [spamfaq.net]
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
What a surprise... they're unpleasant people! (Score:5, Insightful)
MAPS is a joke. A classic case of the old saying about the pavement on the road to hell, and also a classic case of people thinking there's a technical solution to a social problem.
-b
Re:What a surprise... they're unpleasant people! (Score:1)
I had an email exchange once with one of em, and I've never seen such animosity before or sense. It was terribly disturbing. I'm glad this is coming out and the community is reacting with disgust.
not funny (Score:2)
Just try dealing with these people, or the many others doing the same thing, and you will understand exactly what I mean.
I don't even want to talk about my dealings with them... just don't feel like talking about it...
PGP signed message? (Score:1)
The signature on the argument would carry more weight if he left the signature intact so others could verify it from themselves.
Get a contract (Score:1)
DUL 'stopping mail'? (Score:2)
um, no - in this case, use your ISP's mail server.
Problem solved.
chickenboner spam spew 5-5-0 (Score:1, Funny)
By: Gordon Fecyk
Inspired By: Kostadis Roussos' "Devil went down to Sunlab"
Parody of Devil Went Down to Georgia by The Charlie Daniels Band (BMI) Brunner went down to Florida,
He was looking for an ISP.
He was in a bind, 'cause he's off line
And was willing to pay the fee.
When he came across John from MegaPOP
With bandwidth real hot,
And Brunner jumped on the Popsite bench and said,
"Boy, let me tell you what!" I bet you didn't know it
But I'm the king of spam and spew.
And if you care to take a dare
I'll make a bet with you.
Now you run a pretty good server, boy
But give the devil his due.
I'll bet Avalanche Pro against your soul
'Cause you can't stop 'Spamdrew.' The boy said, "My name's Johnny
And it might be a sin
But I'll take your bet, your gonna regret
'Cause I'm the best that's ever been." Johnny, lock your dial-ups and start working them real hard
'Cause hell's broke loose in Popsite
And the devil deals the cards
And if you win you get to stop his new Avalanche Pro
But if you lose, Brunner gets your soul! Then Brunner opened up NT and said,
"I'll start this show."
And fire flew from his fingertips
as he watched his Avalanche load. And he sent his spew across the 'net
But it was blocked with "5-5-6".
Then a band of Chickenboners joined in
And it was blocked again, like this... (instrumental) When Brunner finished Johnny said,
"Well you're pretty good ol' son!
But we work with the Dial-up User List
let me show you how it's done!" Avalanche dead, run DUL run.
Devil's running NT Workstation.
Chickenboner spam spew 5-5-0.
Stop the Devil's junk mail, Go DUL Go! (fiddle solo) And Brunner bowed his head
Because he knew that he'd been beat.
And he tossed his Avalanche Pro
in the trash, and cried "Lawsuite!"
Johnny said, "Devil, just come on back here
If you ever wanna try again.
I done told you once,
You son-of-a-bitch,
I'm the best that's ever been!" He mailed: Avalanche dead, run DUL run.
Devil's running NT Workstation.
Chickenboner spam spew 5-5-0.
Stop the Devil's junk mail, Go DUL Go! (solo finale)
on really fixing email (Score:2)
too-little, too-late patch to a broken
system. My long term average for spam is now 7.2
spams/day -- EVEN with working to try and
prevent it. Why should I have to pay some
company more to track people who spam?
Can someone please present a way to overhaul
the email system so that it works the way it
was intended? Call it something else --
something new -- direct, personal, intentional
communication. (Cripes, they even have
spambots now on IRC and IM too.)
I'm groping here -- but what are the real
steps we can take so that end users
don't need to spend the money/time to defend
against unwanted commercial mail?
I'm thinking along the lines of new rfps for
the way mail servers transport and
authenticate mail / requiring digital signatures
from your ISP / elimination of mail from
spoofed IPs / elimination of all anonymous mail,
even...
where is the hangup in making (i.e. forcing
technologically, not leagally) spam
nonexistant?
it will never be nonexistent (Score:2)
Re:on really fixing email (Score:2)
I think the email system is already working the way it was intended.
Near instant delivery at near zero cost.
What you probably want is a system that overhauls email so that it works the way you want.
I.e. you only get email that is of interest to you.
Although there are several things that improve on the current situation, (Spam Wolf [spamwolf.com],
Spam Assassin [spamassassin.org], Vipul's Razor [sourceforge.net]...)
IMO, the only long term solution is digitally signed email to identify friends,
and a large fee for unknowns.
The fee could be real cash, or hash-cash, or a donation to charity,
or held in escrow, but the principle is the same -
make it cost a lot to send email to people you don't know.
-- Spam Wolf, the best spam blocking vaporware yet! [spamwolf.com]
Not copyrightable (Score:1)
Quick summary (Score:3, Interesting)
To sum up 3 years:
Gordon Fecyk: Hey Paul, here is the DUL - I'll even indemnify you of any damages because of the list.
Paul Vixie: Great - I'll make you the maintainer of the DUL and we'll draw something up saying you can regain ownership of the DUL for $10 (the contract minimum in the US at the time). MAPS will take the good and the bad - all the publicity and all the legal trouble associated with it. When you want to leave, you can take the DUL back for $10.
forward 3 years
GF to Dave Rand/MAPS: I'm leaving. Here is $10. I have a recent copy of the DUL. I own it. You can use it free for a little while and we'll work out a contract after that. I'll even let you have first change to negotiate for it.
MAPS to GF: Lawsuit.
MAPS argues in the lawsuit that GF doesn't own the DUL and even if he did, he couldn't maintain it properly on his own, it causes legal issues with MAPS (privacy issues), saying that he owns it hurts MAPS, etc.
If I was MAPS, I'd be protecting my income sources as strongly as possible. Not having followed the MAPS project/organization much and seeing they still accept donations, I would be worried too.
The right thing to do would be to honour the agreement between Paul Vixie and Gordon Fecyk. If it bankrupts the organization, it is a sad thing but something could be worked out. (eg: cheap licencing - Gordon seems *very* reasonable)
The wrong thing is to fight for your life and not even try to do the right thing first.
Then again, if the DUL is a major source of income for them, I can't seem them caring much about doing the right thing. Morals are nice but survival comes first I suppose.
My morals suggested I check google for a cached version of the DUL and post the link but it looks like google didn't get it in time. Anyone have links?
Jeff
The problem is, Gordon's "contract" isn't (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The problem is, Gordon's "contract" isn't (Score:2)
So here's what needs to be shown: (1) by MAPS, an unequivocal statement by Gordon assigning ownership of the DUL to MAPS; (2) by Gordon (but only if MAPS can show (1)), a contract granting him the option to buy back.
Neither of these things appears to have been shown.
I think Gordon should make a counter-claim for the $10 as money paid under a material mistake of fact.
Rob should be using his ISP's SMTP server (Score:2)
That's because he's trying to connect to the coder's ISP's SMTP server directly to send the mail. That SMTP server sees that Rob is coming in from a dialup pool and refuses the mail, as it bloody well should.
Solution: Rob should be using his ISP's SMTP server.
Re:Rob should be using his ISP's SMTP server (Score:2)
There is almost never a legitimate reason for dialup clients to be doing direct delivery of mail!
Re:Rob should be using his ISP's SMTP server (Score:3, Informative)
Doo yoo reely whant emale phrom CmdrTaco? (Score:3, Funny)
Lucky Slash coder. That's one less email sender who's message he'll have to decipher from proto-Pigeon English to the real thing...
Re:Doo yoo reely whant emale phrom CmdrTaco? (Score:2)
Of course, I suppose that could be irony at work...
www.orca.bc.ca/dul/ was archived by alexa (Score:2, Interesting)
http://web.archive.org/web/20010619203232/http://w ww.orca.bc.ca/dul/ [archive.org]
Fun to see the name change from ORCA.BC.CA DUL to MAPS DUL in progress.
MAPS making ISPs Email Monopolies? (Score:2)
ISPs are consolidating into larger and larger groups of users under a smaller and smaller set of companies.
ISPs help out by blocking port 25 from regular users.
MAPS knocks out the dial in users.
As one message notes, entire countries are blocked from sending email.
MAPS, while a good idea in a growing thriving ISP world, is not a good idea in a shrinking ISP world.
MAPS will destroy the email internet as we know it in a few years.
Re:MAPS making ISPs Email Monopolies? (Score:2)
SPEWS is the current favorite because unlike MAPS it doesn't pussy-foot around trying to "educate" spammers and their hosts.
Beyond any of this though, MAPS only blocks those who spam and (in the case of the DUL) those who are trying to use their dial-up lines to send e-mail directly (rather than going through a mail server on a static IP). While MAPS has in the past shown favoritism towards large companies (giving them ridiculous amounts of time to clean up), they don't block small companies because they're small.
So no, Chicken Little: The sky is not falling.
CmdrTaco (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:CmdrTaco (Score:2)
Re:CmdrTaco (Score:2)
It really pisses me off when some dumb son of a bitch thinks he has the right to tell me what to do with my computer.
It really pisses me off when some dumb son of a bitch thinks his personal pet peeve (here: spam prevention) is so much more important than everything else that the whole world has to be changed to accomodate his wishes.
And finally, it really pisses me off when said dumb son of a bitch not only entertains all these delusions but also fails to think what kind of internet he creates in pursuit of his goals, with second class citizens under strict and draconian ISP rule.
There is no such thing as a "mandatory DNS server registration process". Whoever pays you for consulting is royally wasting his funds.
Don't tell, ASK! (Score:2)
But MAPS just seems too draconian for my taste! I've never liked the idea, as it's just too much of a shotgun approach to the problem. We need something more surgical.
SPAM filtering results in false positives. It's like having emails deleted for you at random.
Then, I discovered ASK (Active Spam Killer) [wiw.org]. This thing ROCKS!
ZERO false positives. ZERO false negatives. (so far, out of hundreds of junk mails)
In order to use it, you pretty much have to sit at the command prompt on your mail server as a local user, but it's effectiveness is (so far) flawless!
This is why I hate MAPS and DUL (Score:3, Insightful)
No, its not DUL preventing our fearless leader from sending e-mail, its the admin of the box using DUL.
This is why I hate things like DUL and MAPS that block everything and are prone to false positives that keep you from even seeing the mail. Stuff like spamassassin can take MAPS and DUL into account and add "spam" score based on that, but at least with spamassasin the mail isn't completely toss away, you at least have the filter it to a "spambox" you look at like once a week for the false positives and/or you can put CmdrTaco on your white list, so he doesn't ever register as spam.
Spamassasin is a much better solution, IMHO.
MAPS == Intellectual Property Pirates (Score:2)
When they got a fat enough database, they changed their tune and wanted to charge me to use the data we researched and gave to them, thinking we were benefitting the whole community. How wrong we were. That was the first death-wheeze as far as I am concerned. This story is just the latest labored breath by what will soon be the corpse of MAPS. And good riddance. They won't be missed.
Jamie: please get a life. (Score:2)
Why is trolling a bad thing when done in comments, but apparently entirely acceptable when done by editors in story submission addenda?
DUL side-effects... (Score:2)
I would say that IF you are filtering with the DUL, you should
However, I do agree that the best solution is to use your ISP's mail server, and have your box set to forward the mail to your ISP's server - they (by definition) have better connectivity than you do, and their mail server can be trying to deliver the mail while you are installing a new kernel or whatever would cause your machine to reboot.
Ideally, distros would have this be a part of the normal setup - when you install any MTA, it should ask you if you want to forward your outbound mail to a different server.
If you wanna know what spam software sellers say (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong! (Score:2)
No, the slash coder's ISP is stopping Cmdr Taco's email from being delivered. It's *NOT* the DUL/MAPS thats doing it. Don't blame the blacklist for blocking people, blame people who use the blacklist to block people.
Here's a novel idea... use your ISP's smtp relay to send email. DUL tracks blocks of dialup/customer IPs. Normally emails DO NOT originate directly from these addresses to the final destination unless something fishy is going on, or the customer runs their own mail server. At either rate, simply route your outbound mail through your ISPs smtp server and your fine.
Wow, how hard was that?
Re:Acronyms Abound (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Acronyms Abound (Score:1, Redundant)
And before you tell me to read it, consider that some of us like to have an idea of what we're reading about before we go off reading articles. In other words, define ur acronyms!
Re:Acronyms Abound (Score:5, Informative)
DUL (Dial-up User List) is not a blacklist, though it is often mistaken for such. The DUL is a listing of dynamic ISPs that is used as a filter by subscriber ISPs to prevent direct e-mail from those addresses.
Re:Acronyms Abound (Score:1)
What am I missing?
Re:Acronyms Abound (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, this prevents someone from running their own SMTP relay on a dynamic IP, but it's the only effective way of preventing such direct-to-target-server spam from going through.
Re:Acronyms Abound (Score:2)
Re:Acronyms Abound (Score:3, Informative)
It drops any connections from any IP address within the list. It doesn't check any headers, it just checks the IP address of the connecting machine.
So, for example,
a) if dialup user a sends through an smtp server on dialup user b's box, it gets rejected, as the smtp server is running on dialup space.
b) if dialup user a sends directly to an smtp server using the DUL, it gets dropped again
c) if ddialup user a sends to smtp server on dialup user B, which in turn forwards and relays properly through his ISPs SMTP server, it will get through, as the ISP SMTP server will not be in the DUL.
Re:Acronyms Abound (Score:2)
Third party relaying wasn't even in the original SMTP spec. Even though it is now mentioned there is no requirment for any MTA to support either using or acting as a third party relay at all.
Yes, this prevents someone from running their own SMTP relay on a dynamic IP,
It dosn't need to be any kind of relay, a mail originator which conforms 100% with thre relevent RFCs will also be given problems.
but it's the only effective way of preventing such direct-to-target-server spam from going through.
Given the chance most spammers would use a third party relay, including an ISP provided one. Since this protects their identity and their machine. Indeed techniques such as Telegrube are easily defeated by using a third party relay.
Re:Acronyms Abound (Score:2)
Of course, due to DUL use in some places, my e-mail would bounce when trying to send to them. :(
I'm not really bitter against DUL users. The spam shit is out of hand and you do what you gotta do. It's just one more reason to hate selfish spammers who are ruining the net...
Re:Acronyms Abound (Score:1)
Re:Acronyms Abound (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Acronyms Abound (Score:4, Insightful)
Essentially, for something to be useful against spam it has to reject as much spam as possible while leaving as much legitimate email as possible alone. The DUL may succeed on the first ground, but it fails miserably on the second. It also promotes ignoring RFCs, as relaying was never blessed as the way for ordinary users to send email.
You can reject spam by setting up your mailbox as a softlink to
Re:Acronyms Abound (Score:2)
Well, I assume myself and CmdrTaco are not the only two people having legitimate, non-spam, emails blocked by people using the the DUL. I've had several rejected by Netcom and I assume CmdrTaco has had more than one blocked too from the nature of his complaint, so I'm assuming "Almost exactly zero" is accurate for quite a wide range of "almost exactly".
No on both counts. The RFCs have never suggested that relaying is the legitimate, "correct", way of sending email. It's nice that ISPs provide relays, it means you can have dumb email clients, but show me the RFC that makes their use compulsory, or even recommends them.
You can't. The RFC does not exist. The DUL provides a means to block email on the basis of a criteria that has nothing to do with spam.
A machine that is configured to deliver its own email when connected to the Internet is correctly configured according to the RFCs. A machine that isn't needs support that is usually there, but doesn't have to be. Punishing users for doing it properly is a poor, inane, idiotic thing to do.
Re:Acronyms Abound (Score:2)
Regardless, valid email is sent this way, and precious little spam (spam, remember, is meant to be sent to hundreds of thousands of users, something which is pretty much impossible on a DUL.), so your criteria for rejecting emails is not only wrong, but ineffective.
Give it up. Correctly configured machines send email this way. You're rejecting valid email. Your filter does not work as intended, you need a different filter.
Re:Acronyms Abound (Score:2)
Ths means he refuses perfectly valid mail. q.e.d.
Let me bluntly state you are an arrogant asshole. Because you know many of us don't have these choices. If we go through our ISP's relays we have to subject ourselves whatever ludicrous restrictions he puts on this usage, and static IPs are something just not available for an ordinary private citizen in many parts of the world (including the one I live in).
So your "solutions" amount to that french queen's suggestion "let them eat cake". And we all know how that lady ended.
Re:Acronyms Abound (Score:2)
Spam is perfectly valid email. (Except when the headers are forged.) Having an open mail relay is perfectly valid. That doesn't mean that they're acceptable on today's Internet.
Re:Acronyms Abound (Score:2)
Well I was going to post our counts for you but the Slashdot Lameness filter decided I shouldn't bother. For us the RSS always gets more hits. I've never used the RBL or any of the other so I can't compare to the other MAPS lists.
PS, It's worth noting that the Slashdot "Lameness filter" is an absolute piece of shit. Whoever wrote it should be flogged with old Sparc keyboards. Thanks for giving us a list of "junk characters" asshole. Feedback is a wonderful thing isn't, dick?
Re:Acronyms Abound (Score:2, Informative)
Did you try clicking the link on "MAPS, LLC"? It's in the story. The linked page also has a link to the DUL [mail-abuse.org].
MAPS = Mail Abuse Prevention System
DUL = Dial-up User List
The DUL *sucks* (Score:2)
The DUL is a fecking stupid POS service set up primarily to screw over the sorts of people that don't use Windows, don't sit behind a corporate firewall and don't shove all their stuff through a corporate mail gateway using Outlook.
The DUL is a system designed so that any mail incoming from any IP know to be a dial-up address is immediately dropped. Needless to say, it's not tremendously popular with those of us who move around from Internet connection to Internet connection and would prefer to just use the mail server on our computer instead of having to remember to change the mail gateway each time we move.
I had a friend that worked at Compaq all summer. They used the DUL, and though I could send mail to *everyone else I knew*, sending mail to him was just throwing mail into a black hole, since I was on a modem and the DUL flagged me. Frankly, I find it tremendously amusing that Compaq is now going under.
The DUL is pretty much designed solely to destroy the peer-to-peer nature of the Internet and force everyone to have an ISP with a mail gateway if they want to even send mail. What's next, requiring Web connections to come from a proxy, because any "worthwhile users" use a proxy and someone else might be just a worm spreading around?
I *hate* the DUL. It's caused me far more misery than all the spam I've ever recieved put together. If MAPS is taking it in the ass, I'm just going to sit here and chortle about it.
Re:who cares (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A sad day for the Internet (Score:2)
Proof that "trolling" involves less bridges and more hook-line-and-sinker.
Re:How do I figure out IP blocks for entire countr (Score:2)
Re:How do I figure out IP blocks for entire countr (Score:2)
Download the data from the APNIC, TWNIC, KRNIC, etc. FTP sites, convert to your mailer's file format, and let it use that to look up each IP address. That's what I do for my Postfix mail servers.