Spam Control Considered Harmful
I am worried about the tools we are developing and deploying to control spam. Some of them are esentially centralsied methods of controlling Internet content. Paul's anti-spam feed for instance prevents users of some providers from seeing spam. The user has no choice; they cannot opt to receive spam other than by switching to another provider. Even worse: they may not even be aware that they are "missing" some content. Combatting spam is considered a Good Thing(TM) by almost everybody here, including myself. However the same technology could just as easily be used to do Bad Things(TM). Even worse: if it works it demonstrates that *centralised control* of the content of Internet services like e-mail is *feasible*. This will give some people ideas we may not like, and sometime in the future we may ask ourselves why we have done this. The end does not always justify the means. I hope that methods like the anti-spam feed will not be taken up widely. Please consider the consequences before you use them. I stress that I do not question the morality or good intentions of those involved. I am just concerned about the almost ubiquitous and apparently unreflected zeal that spam seems to evoke and the danger of it making us accept methods we would otherwise despise. I would prefer to see more work in technology that is less centralised and gives the users a choice of the content they wish to see. Yes this may be harder to do, but the consequences of deploying the easier methods may be just too severe. Waehret den Anfaengen (beware of the beginnings) Daniel PS: I hope this is more coherent than my contribution at the meeting yesterday when my brain failed due to jet-lag while my mouth was still working perfectly ;-).
I am worried about the tools we are developing and deploying to control spam.
Some of them are esentially centralsied methods of controlling Internet content. Paul's anti-spam feed for instance prevents users of some providers from seeing spam. The user has no choice; they cannot opt to receive spam other than by switching to another provider. Even worse: they may not even be aware that they are "missing" some content.
Here at MegsInet, we have a procmail script called "despam" available from ftp.servtech.com://pub/users/phoenix/despam We put a web front-end on it so our users can turn it on and off at will. If you have a seperate mailservers and have extra cpu cycles to burn it is pretty much the way to go... it's totally configurable either by user or for the entire system (only affecting users that turned it on, of course) and has regular-expression matching to throw messages away... Plus, since it uses procmail, it can throw messages into a file for later persual if you so wish... We find that this works much better than blocking them at the routers, at the expense of more cpu power being needed on our mailservers... but then again, it's an added feature that our customers have come to enjoy. Plus, since it's user activated we don't have to worry about the legal issues of us filtering content. -- Jason Jason Vanick ------------------------------------------ jvanick@megsinet.net Network Operations Manager V: 312-245-9015 MegsInet, Inc. 225 West Ohio St. Suite #400 Chicago, Il 60610
Yes, right now the techniques Paul has used are for blocking his notion of Spam, a certifiable Bad Thing(tm). What is to prevent, say, China from requiring all ISP operators to take an "Anti-Party" Black-Hole Feed, blocking IP blocks where "dangerous" ideas are found on some hosting operators Web Servers? There is already at least one ISP in the US that filters out 'un-Christian' material, using quite primitive techniques... I'm sure they and their fellow Brothers would welcome a black hole feed for their and related networks to block such "evil" content as birth control material and other Bad Things(tm). This is one, I think, that once you open the door, there is no going back. No offense to Paul, or his good intentions, but as they say, they are what the road to hell is paved with, no? Just think twice, at least, I'd say, before promoting unconditional system wide blocks on your network...Ethics is the land we're in here, and there are no easy answers. David Mercer Tucson, AZ On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
I am worried about the tools we are developing and deploying to control spam.
Some of them are esentially centralsied methods of controlling Internet content. Paul's anti-spam feed for instance prevents users of some providers from seeing spam. The user has no choice; they cannot opt to receive spam other than by switching to another provider. Even worse: they may not even be aware that they are "missing" some content.
Combatting spam is considered a Good Thing(TM) by almost everybody here, including myself. However the same technology could just as easily be used to do Bad Things(TM). Even worse: if it works it demonstrates that *centralised control* of the content of Internet services like e-mail is *feasible*. This will give some people ideas we may not like, and sometime in the future we may ask ourselves why we have done this. The end does not always justify the means. I hope that methods like the anti-spam feed will not be taken up widely. Please consider the consequences before you use them.
I stress that I do not question the morality or good intentions of those involved. I am just concerned about the almost ubiquitous and apparently unreflected zeal that spam seems to evoke and the danger of it making us accept methods we would otherwise despise. I would prefer to see more work in technology that is less centralised and gives the users a choice of the content they wish to see. Yes this may be harder to do, but the consequences of deploying the easier methods may be just too severe.
Waehret den Anfaengen (beware of the beginnings)
Daniel
PS: I hope this is more coherent than my contribution at the meeting yesterday when my brain failed due to jet-lag while my mouth was still working perfectly ;-).
On October 28, 1997 at 09:41 dmercer@world.std.com (David Mercer) wrote:
Yes, right now the techniques Paul has used are for blocking his notion of Spam, a certifiable Bad Thing(tm). What is to prevent, say, China from requiring all ISP operators to take an "Anti-Party" Black-Hole Feed, blocking IP blocks where "dangerous" ideas are found on some hosting operators Web Servers? There is already at least one ISP in the US that
People would simply have to protest effectively (eg, via their free-market options) OR THEY'RE SCREWED. Nothing can protect them, they can do this anyhow. C'mon, this slippery slope thing is nonsense (in the sense of yielding any effective decision.) What if you go outside and the police all decide to kill you? YOU'D BE DEAD. Oh well, better make sure that doesn't happen I guess.
filters out 'un-Christian' material, using quite primitive techniques...
So? That's their right. No doubt they'll find customers for that. And if not, then they're bankrupt. Oh well. So long as they're not defrauding anyone then that's their business. What's your point? I don't get it. Sounds like you're the one trying to control things not them, they can only control their little corner (eg, block "un-Christian" material from THEIR site and see if there's customers for that.)
I'm sure they and their fellow Brothers would welcome a black hole feed for their and related networks to block such "evil" content as birth control material and other Bad Things(tm).
Ok, good for them. I disagree, but so what? Should we drag the guy out of his house at 4AM and beat him senseless for doing this?
This is one, I think, that once you open the door, there is no going back.
The door is wide open, always has been, always will be.
No offense to Paul, or his good intentions, but as they say, they are what the road to hell is paved with, no?
Just think twice, at least, I'd say, before promoting unconditional system wide blocks on your network...Ethics is the land we're in here, and there are no easy answers.
David Mercer Tucson, AZ
On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
I am worried about the tools we are developing and deploying to control spam.
Some of them are esentially centralsied methods of controlling Internet content. Paul's anti-spam feed for instance prevents users of some providers from seeing spam. The user has no choice; they cannot opt to receive spam other than by switching to another provider. Even worse: they may not even be aware that they are "missing" some content.
Combatting spam is considered a Good Thing(TM) by almost everybody here, including myself. However the same technology could just as easily be used to do Bad Things(TM). Even worse: if it works it demonstrates that *centralised control* of the content of Internet services like e-mail is *feasible*. This will give some people ideas we may not like, and sometime in the future we may ask ourselves why we have done this. The end does not always justify the means. I hope that methods like the anti-spam feed will not be taken up widely. Please consider the consequences before you use them.
I stress that I do not question the morality or good intentions of those involved. I am just concerned about the almost ubiquitous and apparently unreflected zeal that spam seems to evoke and the danger of it making us accept methods we would otherwise despise. I would prefer to see more work in technology that is less centralised and gives the users a choice of the content they wish to see. Yes this may be harder to do, but the consequences of deploying the easier methods may be just too severe.
Waehret den Anfaengen (beware of the beginnings)
Daniel
PS: I hope this is more coherent than my contribution at the meeting yesterday when my brain failed due to jet-lag while my mouth was still working perfectly ;-).
Combatting spam is considered a Good Thing(TM) by almost everybody here, including myself. However the same technology could just as easily be used to do Bad Things(TM). Even worse: if it works it demonstrates that *centralised control* of the content of Internet services like e-mail is *feasible*. This will give some people ideas we may not like, and sometime in the future we may ask ourselves why we have done this. The end does not always justify the means. I hope that methods like the anti-spam feed will not be taken up widely. Please consider the consequences before you use them.
Every technology can be used for evil.. it's a matter of someone taking the step to use it that way. Never let fear of technology stop the development of said technology. Or to put it in broader terms: If technology is outlawed, then only outlaws will have technology :) Personally I feel I have the right to know about every tool I possibly can, to evaluate it's use and consider it's ramifications <sp?> to me. I think information should be free, and that we all must know what is going on in order to make proper informed decisions. I agree with blocking spam on selected ISP mailservers as a user choice. But I also agree that there are certain entities who have proven themselves to be a detriment, and I believe that in those cases it would be my right as an op to block them at my router, because they are *hurting* my network or machines. Because they put such a horrid load on my systems, or because they have violated my systems <mail relaying off a server, etc>, they are, IMO, ending their right to transit across my network. I don't *CARE* what their content is. I'm not blocking content, I'm blocking misuse of my network.
I stress that I do not question the morality or good intentions of those involved. I am just concerned about the almost ubiquitous and apparently unreflected zeal that spam seems to evoke and the danger of it making us accept methods we would otherwise despise. I would prefer to see more work in technology that is less centralised and gives the users a choice of the content they wish to see. Yes this may be harder to do, but the consequences of deploying the easier methods may be just too severe.
No offense, but none of the presently used tactics are exactly new :) Sure, vixie only recently started the RBL <is it RBL?>, but the ability to block networks at the router has existed as far back as I can recall :) And I've surely used it in the past to protect my network from time to time. I only think that we should remember not to fear the new ways we develop to help ourselves. What we are doing now is what we have to do. And we will come up with other ways to do it once things shape up. But the one thing ppl seem to forget is that the spammers are sending a lot of this mail without being asked to. And they refuse to stop when asked politely. Will they follow standards when those standards are established? If yes, then this can all go away. If not, then efforts like this will continue. The internet seems to change somewhat every year. What I remember of it is that ppl stick together on some things. When most of the netops in the world want spammers to follow rules and not send ppl mail they did not ask for, I feel the spammers should do just that. If they refuse, and decide they have an unlimited license granted upon themselves to send whatever to whomever, then I feel that they have crossed the line of what should be allowed. And at that very point, they are violating the policies of my network. And at that very point, I will stop them if I can. These are my opinions, and yours may vary. lateron.... dstacy@visi.com
This sounds nice and principled but who is going to pay the bill for the spam? It's non-trivial. Perhaps someone can make a business selling spam-able accounts. Maybe you're willing to go into that business? Tell us how it works out, let the market decide. At any rate, at the heart of this one is "follow the money", spammers will gleefully send *millions* of messages per day, each. And if they were successful in doing that they'd no doubt send more (that is, it might even become an effective advertising channel, why not, it's just about free so return on investment can be tiny and appear quite successful.) To handle that deluge requires hardware and bandwidth which means money, expanded without any control or check (since the spammers aren't paying why shouldn't they double their requirements on you? Doesn't cost them double, doesn't cost them much anything.) No one is paying for that at this point, and the business sense is that subscribers aren't interested in paying say, double what they pay now for spam-able accounts. In fact the subscribers, in my non-trivial experience, are most vociferous about demanding that spam be blocked, tend to hold the ISP responsible (since no one else is available to blame), and consider blocking spam a valuable service (as I said if you believe otherwise then perhaps you can be the next AOL, go for it.) Anyhow, I say that your sentiment amounts to principle at someone else's expense. Spammers will have "rights" when they pay their way. Right now they're just the graffitti vandals of the net, and no they can't paint their message on my store just because maybe one of my customers likes graffitti art. But if you think otherwise by all means go for it and start your service. On October 28, 1997 at 12:14 Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) wrote:
I am worried about the tools we are developing and deploying to control spam.
Some of them are esentially centralsied methods of controlling Internet content. Paul's anti-spam feed for instance prevents users of some providers from seeing spam. The user has no choice; they cannot opt to receive spam other than by switching to another provider. Even worse: they may not even be aware that they are "missing" some content.
Combatting spam is considered a Good Thing(TM) by almost everybody here, including myself. However the same technology could just as easily be used to do Bad Things(TM). Even worse: if it works it demonstrates that *centralised control* of the content of Internet services like e-mail is *feasible*. This will give some people ideas we may not like, and sometime in the future we may ask ourselves why we have done this. The end does not always justify the means. I hope that methods like the anti-spam feed will not be taken up widely. Please consider the consequences before you use them.
I stress that I do not question the morality or good intentions of those involved. I am just concerned about the almost ubiquitous and apparently unreflected zeal that spam seems to evoke and the danger of it making us accept methods we would otherwise despise. I would prefer to see more work in technology that is less centralised and gives the users a choice of the content they wish to see. Yes this may be harder to do, but the consequences of deploying the easier methods may be just too severe.
Waehret den Anfaengen (beware of the beginnings)
Daniel
PS: I hope this is more coherent than my contribution at the meeting yesterday when my brain failed due to jet-lag while my mouth was still working perfectly ;-).
This sounds nice and principled but who is going to pay the bill for the spam? It's non-trivial.
The spammers pay by hooking up with an ISP. How do your customers pay the recipients of their messages for them downloading them? Have you not noticed that email delivery is a cooperative process? Matt. -- Matt Ryan - Network Engineer matt@planet.net.uk Planet OnLine Ltd, The White House, Tel: +44 113 2345566 Melbourne Street, Leeds, LS2 7PS, UK Fax: +44 113 2240003
On Wed, Oct 29, 1997 at 08:29:52PM +0000, Matt Ryan wrote:
This sounds nice and principled but who is going to pay the bill for the spam? It's non-trivial.
The spammers pay by hooking up with an ISP. How do your customers pay the recipients of their messages for them downloading them? Have you not noticed that email delivery is a cooperative process?
Actually, Karl would be the first to point out that often spammers don't pay .. they hook up for their free trial period and get the boot a few days later. The presumption made when you send somebody an email message is that they wish to read what you have to type. Nobody wants spam, so if you send it to them, you are wasting their time and their Internet connection. The whole point of spam being wrong is that since it is a cooperative process, it costs the recipient to receive it. (Contrast this to bulk postal mail, which only costs the sender anything.) -- //Dan -=- This message brought to you by djhoward@uiuc.edu -=- \\/yori -=- Information - http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/djhoward/ -=- aiokomete -=- Our Honored Symbol deserves and Honorable Retirement
[ On Wed, October 29, 1997 at 15:40:01 (-0600), djhoward@uiuc.edu wrote: ]
Subject: Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful
[....] (Contrast this to bulk postal mail, which only costs the sender anything.)
A popular, but unfortunately all too untrue fallacy. Bulk snail-mail costs us all on the less tangible side. Here in Canada our postal service would like us to believe that bulk mail subsidises the cost of first class mail, but in the opinions of many the savings are hardly worth those less tangible costs that might affect us much deeper than just our pocket books. -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP <gwoods@acm.org> <robohack!woods> Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>
On Wed, Oct 29, 1997 at 11:40:26PM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
A popular, but unfortunately all too untrue fallacy. Bulk snail-mail costs us all on the less tangible side. Here in Canada our postal service would like us to believe that bulk mail subsidises the cost of first class mail, but in the opinions of many the savings are hardly worth those less tangible costs that might affect us much deeper than just our pocket books.
We have the same theory here that it subsidizes first class stuff. I don't mind it so much, coz it's free paper, and I get a warm fuzzy feeling when I recycle or burn it. :) -- //Dan -=- This message brought to you by djhoward@uiuc.edu -=- \\/yori -=- Information - http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/djhoward/ -=- aiokomete -=- Our Honored Symbol deserves and Honorable Retirement
If I had to write the Post Office a monthly check to bring my junkmail, I would be considerably less amused when I burn it... On Wed, Oct 29, 1997 at 10:43:46PM -0600, Dannyman wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 1997 at 11:40:26PM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
A popular, but unfortunately all too untrue fallacy. Bulk snail-mail costs us all on the less tangible side. Here in Canada our postal service would like us to believe that bulk mail subsidises the cost of first class mail, but in the opinions of many the savings are hardly worth those less tangible costs that might affect us much deeper than just our pocket books.
We have the same theory here that it subsidizes first class stuff. I don't mind it so much, coz it's free paper, and I get a warm fuzzy feeling when I recycle or burn it. :)
-- //Dan -=- This message brought to you by djhoward@uiuc.edu -=- \\/yori -=- Information - http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/djhoward/ -=- aiokomete -=- Our Honored Symbol deserves and Honorable Retirement
On Wed, Oct 29, 1997 at 11:53:26PM -0500, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
If I had to write the Post Office a monthly check to bring my junkmail, I would be considerably less amused when I burn it...
I keep getting email like this. I know this is irrelevant to NANOG, but I'm getting the feeling that the time for Revolution is approaching. :) -- //Dan -=- This message brought to you by djhoward@uiuc.edu -=- \\/yori -=- Information - http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/djhoward/ -=- aiokomete -=- Our Honored Symbol deserves and Honorable Retirement
Actually, Karl would be the first to point out that often spammers don't pay .. they hook up for their free trial period and get the boot a few days later.
Then companies need to look at wether free trial accounts should be able to send email. I think most trial are more useful to test connectivity, try the chat rooms etc. How many need email?
The whole point of spam being wrong is that since it is a cooperative process, it costs the recipient to receive it. (Contrast this to bulk postal mail, which only costs the sender anything.)
I would guess that the thousands (millions) of tonnes of junk mail cost us nothing to put into landfill sites, or incinerate... Matt. -- Matt Ryan - Network Engineer matt@planet.net.uk Planet OnLine Ltd, The White House, Tel: +44 113 2345566 Melbourne Street, Leeds, LS2 7PS, UK Fax: +44 113 2240003
On October 29, 1997 at 20:29 matt@planet.net.uk (Matt Ryan) wrote:
This sounds nice and principled but who is going to pay the bill for the spam? It's non-trivial.
The spammers pay by hooking up with an ISP. How do your customers pay the recipients of their messages for them downloading them? Have you not noticed that email delivery is a cooperative process?
You're talking about social justice or some such basis for judging, parity or something, I'm talking about simple business. If the spammers don't pay their way such that it's in the interest of my customers and myself (&c for other ISPs) to receive their messages then they will not be effective: They will be hounded, they will be blocked, their business format will be vilified and "spammer" will remain synonymous with "crook" as is the case now. No decent business will deal with them. They can keep trying to make money off of scams and con-artists and other sewer-rats I suppose... Very simple, really. There's absolutely no reason to bring "fair play" into the picture when one is dealing with a band of howling jackals, and that's all spammers are; the graffitti spray-painters of the net. If they can present a business proposition which makes sense, then it's merely an advertising business. As it is now they're just crooks, kind of what shoplifters are to retail establishments, a type of destructive parasite.
Matt.
-- Matt Ryan - Network Engineer matt@planet.net.uk Planet OnLine Ltd, The White House, Tel: +44 113 2345566 Melbourne Street, Leeds, LS2 7PS, UK Fax: +44 113 2240003
-- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | http://www.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
Very simple, really. There's absolutely no reason to bring "fair play" into the picture when one is dealing with a band of howling jackals, and that's all spammers are; the graffitti spray-painters of the net.
I think that this sums up the problem with the over-reaction to spam. Their appears to be a missionary zeal applied to this problem that is OTT when compared to (my experience of) the problem. We get spam, so do our customers, but it's a couple of messages, each of ~500 bytes. Even on modems connections this takes little time to download. And if you put in place customer modifiable spam filters on your mailservers, then they need not even download any messages. If people are having trouble with their mailservers dying under the spammers attack(!) then I would suggest they need a more scalable system. Matt. -- Matt Ryan - Network Engineer matt@planet.net.uk Planet OnLine Ltd, The White House, Tel: +44 113 2345566 Melbourne Street, Leeds, LS2 7PS, UK Fax: +44 113 2240003
On Thu, 30 Oct 1997, Matt Ryan wrote:
Very simple, really. There's absolutely no reason to bring "fair play" into the picture when one is dealing with a band of howling jackals, and that's all spammers are; the graffitti spray-painters of the net.
I think that this sums up the problem with the over-reaction to spam. Their appears to be a missionary zeal applied to this problem that is OTT when compared to (my experience of) the problem. We get spam, so do our customers, but it's a couple of messages, each of ~500 bytes. Even on modems connections this takes little time to download. And if you put in place customer modifiable spam filters on your mailservers, then they need not even download any messages.
If people are having trouble with their mailservers dying under the spammers attack(!) then I would suggest they need a more scalable system.
That is the most mild case of 'spam attack' I have ever heard of! :> When someone decideds to use your mail server to forward 5 or 6 THOUSAND email messages, (half of which are invalid), I think you will understand why people get so upset about this problem. <Lightbulb> Why not setup a special AUP for Spammers, where they DO NOT get transit services to the rest of the net? Then, If Agis, MCI, or whomever want to sell to them, only thier customers get affected! A Spammer would then need to purchase from ALL IAPs to get the kind of coverage they get pretty much for free now, and UBE would suddenly not be provitable at all! Not to mention eliminating a lot of the finger pointing that seems to be going on about 'who is responsible for UBE'. </Lightbulb> Just a simple-minded thought... Paul Flores Williams Communications
On Thu, 30 Oct 1997, Matt Ryan wrote:
If people are having trouble with their mailservers dying under the spammers attack(!) then I would suggest they need a more scalable system.
Obviously, your servers have never been hit by thousands upon thousands of bounced spams returned in a short period of time by AOL. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. Florida Digital Turnpike | ______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key____
On Thu, 30 Oct 1997, Matt Ryan wrote:
If people are having trouble with their mailservers dying under the spammers attack(!) then I would suggest they need a more scalable system.
If the spammers argue that they have a right to send a machine 4000+ messages then why is it mail bombing when someone retaliates and sends the spammer 4000+ messages? Do the spammers need a more scalable system? - James D. Wilson netsurf@pixi.com
On Oct 28, Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Some of them are esentially centralsied methods of controlling Internet content. Paul's anti-spam feed for instance prevents users of some providers from seeing spam. The user has no choice; they cannot opt to receive spam other than by switching to another provider. Even worse: they may not even be aware that they are "missing" some content.
Users should be aware if their ISP is blocking something, no matter what it is. However, that's not a technical or operational issue...I'm not sure what category it is. ********************************************************* J.D. Falk voice: +1-650-482-2840 Supervisor, Network Operations fax: +1-650-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "The People You Know. The People You Trust." *********************************************************
On Tue, Oct 28, 1997 at 11:15:24AM -0800, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Oct 28, Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Some of them are esentially centralsied methods of controlling Internet content. Paul's anti-spam feed for instance prevents users of some providers from seeing spam. The user has no choice; they cannot opt to receive spam other than by switching to another provider. Even worse: they may not even be aware that they are "missing" some content.
Users should be aware if their ISP is blocking something, no matter what it is. However, that's not a technical or operational issue...I'm not sure what category it is.
It's a truth-in-advertising issue, J.D. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592
How about "ethical issue" Rik Schneider Unix Systems Administrator Net Asset LLC 1315 Van Ness Ave Suite 103 Fresno CA 93721 On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Oct 28, Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Some of them are esentially centralsied methods of controlling Internet content. Paul's anti-spam feed for instance prevents users of some providers from seeing spam. The user has no choice; they cannot opt to receive spam other than by switching to another provider. Even worse: they may not even be aware that they are "missing" some content.
Users should be aware if their ISP is blocking something, no matter what it is. However, that's not a technical or operational issue...I'm not sure what category it is.
********************************************************* J.D. Falk voice: +1-650-482-2840 Supervisor, Network Operations fax: +1-650-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
"The People You Know. The People You Trust." *********************************************************
On Tue, Oct 28, 1997 at 11:38:15AM -0800, Rik Schneider wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Oct 28, Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Some of them are esentially centralsied methods of controlling Internet content. Paul's anti-spam feed for instance prevents users of some providers from seeing spam. The user has no choice; they cannot opt to receive spam other than by switching to another provider. Even worse: they may not even be aware that they are "missing" some content.
Users should be aware if their ISP is blocking something, no matter what it is. However, that's not a technical or operational issue...I'm not sure what category it is.
How about "ethical issue"
Not at all, Rik. The only time it becomes an ethical issue is if you _lie_ to your paying customers about what you are doing. As long as you tell the customers what you're doing, then they have the option to vote with their wallets. There are better than 4000 IAPs in this country; no one has any excuse for limiting how those people can operate their business on this particular point on the grounds of 'free speech'. The first amendment only limits the _government_, anyway; this has been the topic of much case law. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592
Jay, I am a little confused here. First you state that I am wrong for stating that IAP's informing users of any blocking is an ethical issue. Then you state that lying about any blocking is an ethics issue. IMHO not informing customers (paying or otherwise) of these blocks is as bad as lying about them. Rik Schneider Unix Systems Administrator Net Asset LLC 1315 Van Ness Ave Suite 103 Fresno CA 93721 On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 1997 at 11:38:15AM -0800, Rik Schneider wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Oct 28, Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Some of them are esentially centralsied methods of controlling Internet content. Paul's anti-spam feed for instance prevents users of some providers from seeing spam. The user has no choice; they cannot opt to receive spam other than by switching to another provider. Even worse: they may not even be aware that they are "missing" some content.
Users should be aware if their ISP is blocking something, no matter what it is. However, that's not a technical or operational issue...I'm not sure what category it is.
How about "ethical issue"
Not at all, Rik. The only time it becomes an ethical issue is if you _lie_ to your paying customers about what you are doing. As long as you tell the customers what you're doing, then they have the option to vote with their wallets. There are better than 4000 IAPs in this country; no one has any excuse for limiting how those people can operate their business on this particular point on the grounds of 'free speech'.
The first amendment only limits the _government_, anyway; this has been the topic of much case law.
Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592
As a customer with separate ISP connections for business and personal use, I would pay, as a feature, for SPAM blocking that was managed by my ISP. I believe ALL your major business customers would pay to have SPAM blocked from delivery to their employees. Being upfront with your customers will most likely be very beneficial, as well as mildly profitable. Cheers, Marty Rik Schneider wrote:
Jay,
I am a little confused here. First you state that I am wrong for stating that IAP's informing users of any blocking is an ethical issue.
Then you state that lying about any blocking is an ethics issue.
IMHO not informing customers (paying or otherwise) of these blocks is as bad as lying about them.
Rik Schneider Unix Systems Administrator Net Asset LLC 1315 Van Ness Ave Suite 103 Fresno CA 93721
On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 1997 at 11:38:15AM -0800, Rik Schneider wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Oct 28, Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Some of them are esentially centralsied methods of controlling Internet content. Paul's anti-spam feed for instance prevents users of some providers from seeing spam. The user has no choice; they cannot opt to receive spam other than by switching to another provider. Even worse: they may not even be aware that they are "missing" some content.
Users should be aware if their ISP is blocking something, no matter what it is. However, that's not a technical or operational issue...I'm not sure what category it is.
How about "ethical issue"
Not at all, Rik. The only time it becomes an ethical issue is if you _lie_ to your paying customers about what you are doing. As long as you tell the customers what you're doing, then they have the option to vote with their wallets. There are better than 4000 IAPs in this country; no one has any excuse for limiting how those people can operate their business on this particular point on the grounds of 'free speech'.
The first amendment only limits the _government_, anyway; this has been the topic of much case law.
Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592
-- ***************************************************** YAGO Systems, Inc. http://www.yagosys.com Martin Cox mailto:mcox@yagosys.com Director, Product Management 795 Vaqueros Ave. Phone: 408-774-2900 x244 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Fax: 408-774-2908 *****************************************************
I agree. My point was that not informing ones customers about said filters is effectively lying. Rik Schneider Unix Systems Administrator Net Asset LLC 1315 Van Ness Ave Suite 103 Fresno CA 93721 On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, Martin Cox wrote:
As a customer with separate ISP connections for business and personal use, I would pay, as a feature, for SPAM blocking that was managed by my ISP. I believe ALL your major business customers would pay to have SPAM blocked from delivery to their employees.
Being upfront with your customers will most likely be very beneficial, as well as mildly profitable.
Cheers,
Marty
Rik Schneider wrote:
Jay,
I am a little confused here. First you state that I am wrong for stating that IAP's informing users of any blocking is an ethical issue.
Then you state that lying about any blocking is an ethics issue.
IMHO not informing customers (paying or otherwise) of these blocks is as bad as lying about them.
Rik Schneider Unix Systems Administrator Net Asset LLC 1315 Van Ness Ave Suite 103 Fresno CA 93721
On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 1997 at 11:38:15AM -0800, Rik Schneider wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Oct 28, Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Some of them are esentially centralsied methods of controlling Internet content. Paul's anti-spam feed for instance prevents users of some providers from seeing spam. The user has no choice; they cannot opt to receive spam other than by switching to another provider. Even worse: they may not even be aware that they are "missing" some content.
Users should be aware if their ISP is blocking something, no matter what it is. However, that's not a technical or operational issue...I'm not sure what category it is.
How about "ethical issue"
Not at all, Rik. The only time it becomes an ethical issue is if you _lie_ to your paying customers about what you are doing. As long as you tell the customers what you're doing, then they have the option to vote with their wallets. There are better than 4000 IAPs in this country; no one has any excuse for limiting how those people can operate their business on this particular point on the grounds of 'free speech'.
The first amendment only limits the _government_, anyway; this has been the topic of much case law.
Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592
-- ***************************************************** YAGO Systems, Inc. http://www.yagosys.com Martin Cox mailto:mcox@yagosys.com Director, Product Management 795 Vaqueros Ave. Phone: 408-774-2900 x244 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Fax: 408-774-2908 *****************************************************
On Tue, Oct 28, 1997 at 01:43:54PM -0800, Rik Schneider wrote:
I agree. My point was that not informing ones customers about said filters is effectively lying.
Certainly. But I don't recall anyone even striking a glancing blow off the _side_ of suggesting that... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592
On Oct 28, Martin Cox <mcox@yagosys.com> wrote:
As a customer with separate ISP connections for business and personal use, I would pay, as a feature, for SPAM blocking that was managed by my ISP. I believe ALL your major business customers would pay to have SPAM blocked from delivery to their employees.
I really don't want to get into moral arguments on NANOG, but this one I really take issue with. <SOAPBOX> Specificially, I feel that it is Very Very Wrong[TM] to charge people so that they don't receive messages that almost everybody agrees should not be sent to them in the first place! If the spammers had not been allowed to run rampant for as long as they currently have (and we all know who let them do that), this would not even be considered a viable option. </SOAPBOX> ********************************************************* J.D. Falk voice: +1-650-482-2840 Supervisor, Network Operations fax: +1-650-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "The People You Know. The People You Trust." *********************************************************
If you're willing to do for FREE, all the better! The point that I was making is that as a customer I see "value" in having SPAM blocked. This would be an extremely valued "feature" for business customers. You may lose customers by not telling them even though you may be filtering for other reasons such as network abuse. They may go to another ISP who is promoting a "SPAM free network" whether or not it is technically feasible -- just as long as they're trying and working with customers to eliminate it. The bottom line...if you do filter, tell us [customers], and we thank you... As far as letting spammers run rampant for a while, well, what's done is done. The same thing should have been said about computer viruses. Viruses will be with us for a long time, if not forever...and a lot of money has been made on virus protection. Hell, who ever thought McAfee could buy a $1.3 billion dollar company... Cheers, Marty J.D. Falk wrote:
On Oct 28, Martin Cox <mcox@yagosys.com> wrote:
As a customer with separate ISP connections for business and personal use, I would pay, as a feature, for SPAM blocking that was managed by my ISP. I believe ALL your major business customers would pay to have SPAM blocked from delivery to their employees.
I really don't want to get into moral arguments on NANOG, but this one I really take issue with.
<SOAPBOX>
Specificially, I feel that it is Very Very Wrong[TM] to charge people so that they don't receive messages that almost everybody agrees should not be sent to them in the first place!
If the spammers had not been allowed to run rampant for as long as they currently have (and we all know who let them do that), this would not even be considered a viable option.
</SOAPBOX>
********************************************************* J.D. Falk voice: +1-650-482-2840 Supervisor, Network Operations fax: +1-650-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
"The People You Know. The People You Trust." *********************************************************
-- ***************************************************** YAGO Systems, Inc. http://www.yagosys.com Martin Cox mailto:mcox@yagosys.com Director, Product Management 795 Vaqueros Ave. Phone: 408-774-2900 x244 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Fax: 408-774-2908 *****************************************************
Ok... this is going to get interesting... On Oct 28, Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Some of them are esentially centralsied methods of controlling Internet content. Paul's anti-spam feed for instance prevents users of some providers from seeing spam. The user has no choice; they cannot opt to receive spam other than by switching to another provider. Even worse: they may not even be aware that they are "missing" some content.
Ok, so they'll have to switch providers. As long as they were informed that the provider they chose engaged in such filtering before either they signed a contract, or such filtering was implemented, I don't see that the customer has recourse. On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, J.D. Falk replied:
Users should be aware if their ISP is blocking something, no matter what it is. However, that's not a technical or operational issue...I'm not sure what category it is.
My observation was "truth-in-advertising", but Rik had another idea:
How about "ethical issue"
I replied:
Not at all, Rik. The only time it becomes an ethical issue is if you _lie_ to your paying customers about what you are doing. As long as you tell the customers what you're doing, then they have the option to vote with their wallets. There are better than 4000 IAPs in this country; no one has any excuse for limiting how those people can operate their business on this particular point on the grounds of 'free speech'.
The first amendment only limits the _government_, anyway; this has been the topic of much case law.
Then, Rik replied:
I am a little confused here. First you state that I am wrong for stating that IAP's informing users of any blocking is an ethical issue.
Ok...
Then you state that lying about any blocking is an ethics issue.
Yes. They're not the same thing.
IMHO not informing customers (paying or otherwise) of these blocks is as bad as lying about them.
Don't disagree. My point is that the thrust of your commentary appeared to be that you agreed with Dan Karrenberg, that blocking was in itself, unethical. My point is simply that I feel it's a simple business matter of truth in advertising, and that appeal to the (usually more ethereal) topic of ethics isn't really necessary. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592
The whole discussion is cuckoo. Here's a better idea: If someone wants to advertise why don't they figure out a way to do business so everyone is reasonably happy, rather than starting wars and trying to appeal to some crazy interpretation of "rights" made to absolutely no one (letters to the editor, only there is no editor, as Larry Wall once put it)? This isn't assisted suicide or abortion or some similar emotional, moralistic issue. It's spam, it's advertising, it's business (or some bizarre perversion thereof.) If it doesn't make those who have to pay for its resources a buck (or some equivalent tangible benefit) THEN TO HELL WITH IT. All these crazy schemes proposing to make spam somehow more "fair" are just that: CRAZY. Pay money and people will be happy. Steal resources, annoy people to no possible benefit to them, bombard them 24 hrs/day with come-ons for porn and transparently fraudulent business claims and pyramid schemes and chain letters etc and they won't be happy. It's not that hard to understand: Pissing people off is not a great way to do business. In fact, it doesn't work. Anything else is nothing but a pretty good simulation of severe mental illness, very simple really. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | http://www.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
At 07:53 PM 10/28/97 -0500, Barry Shein wrote:
Steal resources, annoy people to no possible benefit to them, bombard them 24 hrs/day with come-ons for porn and transparently fraudulent business claims and pyramid schemes and chain letters etc and they won't be happy.
It's not that hard to understand: Pissing people off is not a great way to do business. In fact, it doesn't work.
I agree with the fundamental principle, however, some people are making money at UBE without regard to who, or how many people they piss off. The money is being made in selling software to do spamming, or running services that spam. At AGIS, we've seen it all. Address mungers, relay hijackers, bcc bombers, etc. It has always been our intent to stop this kind of abuse of technology. Albeit, our position and motives were misunderstood, our end has always been clear. UBErs exploit the weaknesses in the email infrastructure of the net. I still believe that until we can find technological solutions the the theft of service and forgery issues, spam as we know it will continue. Phil Lawlor President AGIS Voice - 313-730-1130 Fax - 313-563-6119
On Tue, Oct 28, 1997 at 08:22:59PM -0500, Phil Lawlor wrote:
At 07:53 PM 10/28/97 -0500, Barry Shein wrote:
Steal resources, annoy people to no possible benefit to them, bombard them 24 hrs/day with come-ons for porn and transparently fraudulent business claims and pyramid schemes and chain letters etc and they won't be happy.
It's not that hard to understand: Pissing people off is not a great way to do business. In fact, it doesn't work.
I agree with the fundamental principle, however, some people are making money at UBE without regard to who, or how many people they piss off. The money is being made in selling software to do spamming, or running services that spam. At AGIS, we've seen it all. Address mungers, relay hijackers, bcc bombers, etc.
It has always been our intent to stop this kind of abuse of technology. Albeit, our position and motives were misunderstood, our end has always been clear.
I don't believe that's true Phil. The bottom line is this - delivering unsolicited email to me of *any kind* which is unwanted (ie: solicitations, pyramid schemes, etc) is *theft of service*. Period. The "IEMMC", which you were involved in at AGIS, was a fraud. Period. It was a fraud PRECISELY because it did not organize to handle broadcast solicitations via the ONLY means that are defensible - that is, OPT IN. OPT OUT is fraudulent EVEN IF IT ACTUALLY WORKS. Its a fraud because the spammer STEALS FROM THE RECIPIENT AND THEIR ISP initially, then tells them they won't steal any more if they ask that you not do so. The point is that the spammer has no right to steal *IN THE FIRST PLACE*. It doesn't matter how much or how little is stolen. That's just not the point from a moral and/or ethical point of view. If you steal a penny from me, you've still stolen and you've still committed a fraud against me. Whether I can prosecute you for the theft of that penny and see you sent to jail isn't the point. This country has declined in its morals to the point that if I can't put you in jail for what you do then you deem it to be "ok". That has NEVER been the case, and it NEVER will be. Deception, fraud, theft. They are what UBE is all about. ISPs who shelter people who commit these acts are themselves complicit in the act. The excuse evaporates as soon as you become aware. Today, the rule is "anything for a buck". Its sad, but its what's happening.
UBErs exploit the weaknesses in the email infrastructure of the net. I still believe that until we can find technological solutions the the theft of service and forgery issues, spam as we know it will continue.
Phil Lawlor President AGIS Voice - 313-730-1130 Fax - 313-563-6119
You either stand for what is right, or you don't. Theft is immoral. Leave aside the legalities of the issue, and whether I can send you up the river for it. They're cute discussions, but they're not related to the actual issue, which is that UBE is *wrong*. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | NEW! K56Flex modem support is now available Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| 56kbps DIGITAL ISDN DOV on analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
Karl Denninger wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 1997 at 08:22:59PM -0500, Phil Lawlor wrote: [...]
It has always been our intent to stop this kind of abuse of technology. Albeit, our position and motives were misunderstood, our end has always been clear.
I don't believe that's true Phil.
[...]
The "IEMMC", which you were involved in at AGIS, was a fraud.
While I'm willing to accept that Phil Lawlor and AGIS were misinformed aboit "IEMMC", principly because the turnabout is more to what I believe in, I do want to point out yet another thing that made it obvious that the purpose of "IEMMC" could never have been accomplished even if every person involved was properly motivated. That is that huge mailing lists are being sold by CD, including software than never checks any address against a database (which would take far more time than merely sending the mail in bulk to hijacked relays). The economy of scale simply prohibits any sort of OPT OUT look up when an active distribution of mailing lists is taking place, and with read only media being used for the databases, deletions just don't take place. Anyone even thinking that an "IEMMC" could work is fooling themselves. If it wasn't crystal clear before, it sure is now. -- Phil Howard +-------------------------------------------------------------+ KA9WGN | House committee changes freedom bill to privacy invasion !! | phil at | more info: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,14180,00.html | milepost.com +-------------------------------------------------------------+
On Tue, Oct 28, 1997 at 07:53:45PM -0500, Barry Shein wrote:
The whole discussion is cuckoo.
Here's a better idea: If someone wants to advertise why don't they figure out a way to do business so everyone is reasonably happy, rather than starting wars and trying to appeal to some crazy interpretation of "rights" made to absolutely no one (letters to the editor, only there is no editor, as Larry Wall once put it)?
This isn't assisted suicide or abortion or some similar emotional, moralistic issue.
It's spam, it's advertising, it's business (or some bizarre perversion thereof.)
If it doesn't make those who have to pay for its resources a buck (or some equivalent tangible benefit) THEN TO HELL WITH IT.
All these crazy schemes proposing to make spam somehow more "fair" are just that: CRAZY.
Barry, I hate to have to say this, you are my revered elder... but I think you missed the point of this thread. No one's trying to make "spam more fair". We're trying to stomp it out.
Pay money and people will be happy.
Steal resources, annoy people to no possible benefit to them, bombard them 24 hrs/day with come-ons for porn and transparently fraudulent business claims and pyramid schemes and chain letters etc and they won't be happy.
It's not that hard to understand: Pissing people off is not a great way to do business. In fact, it doesn't work.
Anything else is nothing but a pretty good simulation of severe mental illness, very simple really.
Perfectly correct. No one, even Phil Lawlor (surprisingly enough, perhaps) is trying to advocate spam. What was being debated was whether the practice of implementing filtering on a transit site was 1) legal and 2) ethical. The concensus seems to be that it's only even close to unethical if you do it and don't at least inform users, much less let them opt out. No one's suggested it's illegal. And I think even the "unethical people" wouldn't argue with BGP blackholing if the target was engaging in denial of service attacks. How do you configure your router for that? See http://maps.vix.com. :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592
participants (19)
-
Barry Shein -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Dannyman -
David Mercer -
Don Stacy -
Dorn Hetzel -
J.D. Falk -
Jay R. Ashworth -
Jon Lewis -
jvanick＠megsinet.net -
Karl Denninger -
Martin Cox -
Matt Ryan -
NetSurfer -
Paul Flores -
Phil Howard -
Phil Lawlor -
Rik Schneider -
woods＠most.weird.com