Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:58:14 -0800

Vernon keeps repeating the lie that I am knowingly misrepresenting spews

Spews has never disputed the assertion in question and keeps no public logs
of its activity. Therefore our observation that the entire uunet network
block our server was in was bloked is currently impossible to prove as a
direct result of spews own behavior.

So unless vernon wants to admit he is a part of the spews cabal - which
would explain a lot, particularly his attitude, I don't see the point in
revisiting this point. Yes spews is completely out of control.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Vernon Schryver
Sent:	Tue Mar 25 18:04:05 2003
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail

> From: [email-masked]

> But ISPs do terminate accounts for sending unsolicited emails in any kind 
> of large number. There is a reason why all spammers have switched to
China.

I wish I thought that was a joke instead of offensive and knowingly
false noise like "SPEWS has listed all of UUNET".

> ISPs that don't terminate spammers make it worth for themselve and can not

> get peering from other isps (i.e. remember AGIS?). And if they are buying 
> transit, then it becomes responsibility of their upstream to enforce AUP.

Who, pray tell, is upstream of UUNET or Sprint?
(yes, Sprint is rumored to have started actually terminating spammers)

> You can not hope to stop spammer who just signed up today at large isp,
> but large spammers rely on pemanent connections and try their best to hide

> who they are and where they are sending emails from, ...

Since email spam first became a problem, I have not seen a single
spammer that was able to hide from anyone with minimal technical clues.
They can hide from computer programs (e.g. SpamAssasin and SpamCop)
for a while or linger, but that's only because computers are too stupid
to know about IP routing and so forth

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:53:41 -0700 (MST)

> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>

> revisiting this point. Yes spews is completely out of control.

Yes, I do not beat my wife.

I am not associated in any way with SPEWS.  I do not use the SPEWS
DNS blacklist.  I do not approve of SPEWS's policies or procedures. 
I would not say that SPEWS is "completely out of control," but I
wouldn't argue that point with someone honestly trying to make it.
I have in public pointed out statements in the SEWS FAQ that I consider
false and misleading.  As far as I know, I do not know the name of
anyone who might be said to be in the SPEWS cabal.  As far as I know
I have not significantly corresponded with anyone in the SPEWS cabal.
I suspect that a year or so ago I received 2 or 3 anonymous messages
from the SPEWS principal.  Those messages used unauthorized relays
and so were objectionable.

Phillip Hallam-Baker might not know that, but he does know:

  - SPEWS does not answer anyone outside the SPEWS cabal.  Saying that
   SPEWS has not denied Phillip Hallam-Baker's claims proves them true
   is an amazingly clumsy charade.  Even if SPEWS did not have a policy
   consistent silence, a refusal to answer Phillip Hallam-Baker's
   obvious knowingly false claims would not make those false claims true.

  - there is no evidence that SPEWS has ever done as Phillip Hallam-Baker
   has repeatedly claimed and listed all of UUNET.  On the contrary,
   other UUNET customers have said in public that their UUNet IP
   addresses have not been listed by SPEWS.

  - SPEWS might have blocked his employer's SMTP servers, but that could
   have been for any of several reasons, including his employer's long
   and significant history of sending unsolicited bulk email advertising.
   That blocking would not imply that the rest of UUNet's vast blocks
   of IP addresses were blacklisted.
   
As far as I can tell, no statement I have made about Phillip Hallam-Baker
and his statements is false.  On the other hand, it is clear that he
does know that SPEWS has not listed all of UUNET and so forth.

---

From: Brad Templeton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:04:25 -0800

I have to say one of the things I have found positive about this mailing
list is the lack of ad hominem flamewars.   Unfortunately this is an
exception.

It doesn't matter who starts these things.  It always takes two to tango.
If somebody makes an attack on you directly, rather than addressing your
arguments with facts and reason, do what I do -- don't reply.

We're seasoned folks here.  When we see a post sink down to personal insults,
trust me, we think less of the insulter than of the insulted.  At least until
the insulted joins the fray.   I know it's hard not to reply some times
but it works _amazingly_ well.  If you really feel the need to vent, send
a private email reply and be done with it.  But frankly, when I have given
into the temptation to do that, I have rarely gotten satisfaction.

If you find yourself ever referring to another member of the group by name
person because you want to talk about them rather than refer to their arguments,
just walk away.  It really works, and no, people don't think you're a wimp
for not responding to the bald faced accusations.  I at least will think
you are strong.

Don't answer the ad-hominem attack even with reason, and definitely not in
anger.  About the only working exception I have seen to this is if you can
answer it with comedy to defuse the situation.  But comedy is a serious
business, best left to professionals, so don't try it at home.