In news.admin.net-abuse.email - article <ZT%dd.95806$ay5.43563
@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, on Fri, 22 Oct 2004 04:20:09 GMT, Moris
says...
> "JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote:
> 
>
> Troll, why don't you go and play with your blow doll instead of
> defending the crappiest blocklist ever devised.

The question remains to be answered.  Here is a little logic flow.

If it's a crappy list, ie. too much collateral damage, no-one would
use it.
If no-one is using it why are you spending so much time berating it?

Are the fundamental forces of FMS&D(free marketplace and supply &
demand) forces being ignored in your world?  It would appear from
your statements that they are.

These are two of the conflicting arguments you seem to support.

argument1) Spews causes too much collateral damage.
response1) Given the forces of FMS&D one would expect that if the
level of collateral damage were unacceptable, those implementing it
would have to either give up Spews or give up paying customers (FMS&D
at the consumer level).  You seem to be asserting that business
people are giving up paying clients instead of giving up Spews,
Failure of FMS&D at the vendor level too?

argument2) No-one uses Spews.
response2) If no-one is using Spews, there is no collateral damage so
what's all the hubbub about?


question1) You seem to be saying that FMS&D is failing at the
consumer level, consumers are not leaving the vendors that have
chosen to implement Spews, AND that FMS&D is failing at the vender
level, Email providers are choosing to lose customers by not leaving
Spews and implementing another list or creating their own.  Do you
have an explanation of why in your world, FMS&D is failing all around
Spews, unlike anything that's ever been seen in a FM in the rest of
the world?


You seem to have several other arguments, I'll touch on some of them.

argument3) Blocking Emails of which valid Emails are a subset, is
illegal.
response3) As you presented it, it's patently untrue where I live and
I am not aware of any states in the US where it is true.  You've been
asked to qualify your statement to give it some truth but you have
not done so.

argument4) Spews steals valid Emails by causing third parties to
refuse their delivery.
response4) That's a stretch even for someone who is delusional.

The rest of your arguments seem to be based on who spoke/wrote the
words.  If they are of the wrong group**, they and their dialog is
dismissed as rantings and dialog is reduced to vague ad hominem
attacks.

**If, like you did with me, someone mentioned blocking a spam source
with no mention of Spews, they become a "SPEWS FANATIC", "SPEWS
PUPPET", "kook" and for an unnamed group of the previous, "SPEWS RAT"
It would also appear that in the last week you have used at least one
and more often than not, several of the quoted descriptors at least
once in the majority of articles you have authored.

You are an interesting study, if I were a trained or knowledgeable
person instead of a layman, I might describe you as someone
exhibiting what appear to be classic signs of paranoid schizophrenia
with an antisocial personality disorder.  There could be more but
those are the only ones that this layman recognises.

> You really have nothing useful to say on the subject, jerrymouse.

Now Moris, here is your opportunity to put your best foot forward in
addressing the sum total of your last weeks posts.  This is being
archived so make it good for all those who will read this and believe
you are exactly what your posts make you appear to be.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 05:46:15 -0400, Murray Watson
<JunkDTectr@adelphia.net> wrote:

>If it's a crappy list, ie. too much collateral damage, no-one would
>use it.

Technically, there is no "collateral damage" with SPEWS.  They are not
blocking spammers, they aren't listing spammers, they are listing
companies who harbor spammers. Therefore anything blocked by virtue if
someone using the list that is from such a provider, is not collateral
damage, not "false positive", but intentionally blocked.  Some don't
think it should be, some thing it should (including me), but whether
you consider SPEWS a god or a demon, the blocking is not accidental.

Collateral damage is a common issue with filters which aren't perfect
and block more than intended via "false positives". That ends up
blocking the spam and things close to it which may not blocked
intentionally.  If you filter everthing with "free" in the subject,
and your customers can no longer get their requested free range
chicken futures investment updates, that's collateral damage. On the
other hand, if you block everything from Verio netspace because you no
longer with to peer with a relentless spam host, and the free range
chicken futures investment updates is sent from a verio IP, it's not
collateral damage when it's blocked because you are intentionally
blocking everything from that space whether it's spam of not.

William R. James

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 05:46:15 -0400, Murray Watson
<JunkDTectr@adelphia.net> wrote:

>Now Moris, here is your opportunity to put your best foot forward in
>addressing the sum total of your last weeks posts.  This is being
>archived so make it good for all those who will read this and believe
>you are exactly what your posts make you appear to be.

That *was* his best foot he put forward. Too bad it was that one.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In news.admin.net-abuse.email - article
<poqin01438hit3bbte9j7kiqo07gfgmabd@4ax.com>, on 22 Oct 2004 15:39:45
-0500, Wm James says...
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 05:46:15 -0400, Murray Watson
> <JunkDTectr@adelphia.net> wrote:
> 
>
> Technically, there is no "collateral damage" with SPEWS.  They are not
> blocking spammers, they aren't listing spammers, they are listing
> companies who harbor spammers. Therefore anything blocked by virtue if
> someone using the list that is from such a provider, is not collateral
> damage, not "false positive", but intentionally blocked.  Some don't
> think it should be, some thing it should (including me), but whether
> you consider SPEWS a god or a demon, the blocking is not accidental.

Thank you for the reminder, it's a point that frequently gets lost.

On the other hand, the term "collateral damage" has come to mean non-
spam email that gets blocked.  If we accept that there is a
distinction between collateral damage and false positives, Spews has
few false positives but does have collateral damage.

Irregardless of a low number of false positives, if the collateral
damage is too high, the list will be dropped or not used, which we
all agree occurs, after all, one man's ceiling is another man's
floor, one man's treasure is another man's trash...

What also seems to be lost is the fact that lists are not monopolies
nor are Email providers required to use a list, there are a wide
variety of choices.  Email providers are free to choose to use a list
or not and if they choose to use one, they are free to choose which
one.  The use of Email blocking lists are the epitome of a free
marketplace in action with all the inherent self leveling attributes.
If the marketplace deems a product to have too many defects, the
marketplace has other options and choices or the choice to not
implement any of the products in the marketplace.

Moris seems to be opposed to the concept of free will and individual
rights and the belief that only he has the superior mental prowess to
recognise what effect any given choice a business makes has on it's
charter.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:13:27 -0400, Murray Watson
<JunkDTectr@adelphia.net> wrote:

>In news.admin.net-abuse.email - article
><poqin01438hit3bbte9j7kiqo07gfgmabd@4ax.com>, on 22 Oct 2004 15:39:45
>-0500, Wm James says... 
>
>Thank you for the reminder, it's a point that frequently gets lost.
>
>On the other hand, the term "collateral damage" has come to mean non-
>spam email that gets blocked.  If we accept that there is a
>distinction between collateral damage and false positives, Spews has
>few false positives but does have collateral damage.
>

Is Brightmail any good?

>Irregardless of a low number of false positives, if the collateral
>damage is too high, the list will be dropped or not used, which we
>all agree occurs, after all, one man's ceiling is another man's
>floor, one man's treasure is another man's trash...
>
>What also seems to be lost is the fact that lists are not monopolies
>nor are Email providers required to use a list, there are a wide
>variety of choices.  Email providers are free to choose to use a list
>or not and if they choose to use one, they are free to choose which
>one.  The use of Email blocking lists are the epitome of a free
>marketplace in action with all the inherent self leveling attributes.
>If the marketplace deems a product to have too many defects, the
>marketplace has other options and choices or the choice to not
>implement any of the products in the marketplace.
>
>Moris seems to be opposed to the concept of free will and individual
>rights and the belief that only he has the superior mental prowess to
>recognise what effect any given choice a business makes has on it's
>charter.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <1098545505.TieJ3tv2UvV3rNTJAYTHPg@teranews>,
<helpdesk@mistral.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:13:27 -0400, Murray Watson
><JunkDTectr@adelphia.net> wrote:
 
>
>Is Brightmail any good?

Why did you have to quote his entire message just to ask one simple
question?

Yes, Brightmail is "any" good.  Is it very good?  GIYF.

Seth

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <MPG.1be37a3398e1a18c989ac0@news1.news.adelphia.net>,
Murray Watson  <JunkDTectr@adelphia.net> wrote:

>Moris seems to be opposed to the concept of free will and individual
>rights and the belief that only he has the superior mental prowess to
>recognise what effect any given choice a business makes has on it's
>charter.

And he's completely ignored my suggestion that he run his own list of
"IPs listed by SPEWS that don't emit spam".  If somebody ran such a
list, any admin who wanted to could use it to override SPEWS listings.

I think it's telling that none of SPEWS's enemies has created such a
list.

Seth

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Seth Breidbart wrote:

> I think it's telling that none of SPEWS's enemies has created
> such a list.

Spews has legitimate victims, not enemies. Spammers don't give a
shoot about spews any more.

If you were being attacked on the street by someone for no reason,
you become a victim of that someone. When a legitimate email user
or hosting provider is abused (causing intentional harm) by the
fu*ckhead behind spews, that user or provider becomes a victim. The
victim has the right to defend himself against the abuse. If that
entails the destruction (within legal boundaries) of the abusing
party, that is what must happen.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Moris" <pritanda@REMLINK.yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> Seth Breidbart wrote:
> 
>
> Spews has legitimate victims, not enemies. Spammers don't give a
> shoot about spews any more.

Maybe not but the ISPs that host them do.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"George" <HorseManue@optinrealbig.com> wrote:
 
>
> Maybe not but the ISPs that host them do.

Can you count 20 ISPs that give any sh*it to spews? And even if
you can, the spammers that are kicked out can find new avenues
and even new ISPs to carry on.

If what you said was the case, there would have been no spam
around and the number of blacklisted IPs would have come down.

The reality is different. Spam is on exponential increase, and the
spews list keeps growing by well over 1% per month in average.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]