Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces

From: Troy Rollo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:09:20 +1100

At 18:07 28/03/03 -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>More clueless bounces going on, tried to tell Troy that the only
>latin phrase understood in the US these days is 'oderint dum metuant'
>and I got bounced (see bellow)

It's not a "clueless bounce". It's a black listing. It's there because 
Verisign (your employer), is a spammer. Perhaps you are the clueless one 
for not realising this.

--
Troy Rollo				Chairman, CAUBE.AU
[email-masked]			Executive Director, iCAUCE

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

---

From: Chuq Von Rospach <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:24:05 -0800

On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 08:09  PM, Troy Rollo wrote:

> Verisign (your employer), is a spammer. Perhaps you are the clueless 
> one for not realising this.
>

Imminent death of this list predicted. I'm selling tickets. Anyone want 
popcorn?

---

From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:13:57 -0500

At 3:09 PM +1100 3/29/03, Troy Rollo wrote:
>It's not a "clueless bounce". It's a black listing. It's there 
>because Verisign (your employer), is a spammer. Perhaps you are the 
>clueless one for not realising this.

You know.  It's responses like this that really make me understand 
why most of the ISPs I talk to hate the anti-spam organizations more 
than the spammers.

Let's try two basic principals and work from there.

1. It is extremely rude to bounce email from people on this list. 
*Especially* people whom you have sent email to.  If you have filters 
that might block email from people on this list, then whitelist the 
list.  If you can't do that, then use a different address.  (Can we 
put something like this on the list's web page?)

2. If you can't say something nice.  Don't say anything at all.

Sheesh.
-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.puremessaging.com/        Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: wayne <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Mar 2003 23:26:55 -0600

In <[email-masked]> Chuq Von Rospach <[email-masked]> writes:

> 
> Imminent death of this list predicted. I'm selling tickets. Anyone
> want popcorn?

*munch* *munch*

The IP address that Phillip was using (verisign.com [65.205.251.57])
is listed in block.blars.org as 127.1.0.33.  I guess Phillip now has a
chance to test his legal theories.

-wayne

---

From: Troy Rollo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:40:26 +1100

At 00:13 29/03/03 -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote:
>>>More clueless bounces going on..
>>
>>... Perhaps you are the clueless one for not realising this.
>
>You know.  It's responses like this that really make me understand why 
>most of the ISPs I talk to hate the anti-spam organizations more than the 
>spammers.

Actually, it was rather restrained given that the quoted provocation.

>*Especially* people whom you have sent email to.  If you have filters that 
>might block email from people on this list, then whitelist the list.

The filter doesn't block email from the list. It blocks on other criteria 
that would not affect list traffic.

>2. If you can't say something nice.  Don't say anything at all.

All things considered, that *was* the nice version.
--
Troy Rollo				Chairman, CAUBE.AU
[email-masked]			Executive Director, iCAUCE

---

From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:20:40 -0500

At 4:40 PM +1100 3/29/03, Troy Rollo wrote:
>>*Especially* people whom you have sent email to.  If you have 
>>filters that might block email from people on this list, then 
>>whitelist the list.
>
>The filter doesn't block email from the list. It blocks on other 
>criteria that would not affect list traffic.

Sorry.  I don't buy it.  When you sign up for the list, you sign up 
for conversations with people on the list.  Those conversations may 
be on the list, off the list or (more likely) both.  We are here 
having this discussion because we want to *preserve* this aspect of 
email--not destroy it. Everyone else whose anti-spam solutions have 
interfered with the operation of this list has managed to fix the 
problem or leave.  If you're truly looking for solutions, please have 
the courtesy of doing the same.

At 4:48 PM +1100 3/29/03, Troy Rollo wrote:
>I know the consequences of my choice, and that's the way I want it 
>to operate. And it doesn't affect anybody except people who are 
>willing to work for spammers.

I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that some people on this list 
might be here because they want to ensure that their companies 
*don't* spam?

Chuq.  Where's that damn popcorn?
-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.puremessaging.com/        Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

---

From: Troy Rollo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:47:03 +1100

At 04:20 29/03/03 -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote:
>Sorry.  I don't buy it.  When you sign up for the list, you sign up for 
>conversations with people on the list.

This is manifestly false. You sign up for list traffic. There is nothing 
whatever to require you to accept mail from any particular individual on 
the list.

>Everyone else whose anti-spam solutions have interfered with the operation 
>of this list has managed to fix the problem or leave.

My block has nothing whatsoever to do with the list. On-list traffic is 
entirely unaffected.

>>I know the consequences of my choice, and that's the way I want it to 
>>operate. And it doesn't affect anybody except people who are willing to 
>>work for spammers.
>
>might be here because they want to ensure that their companies *don't* spam?

I consider employment with Verisign fundamentally incompatible with 
honestly seeking a solution to spam in any event, since Verisign's spam 
problem, like their other major privacy and ethics violations, is a problem 
going all the way to the top. The company itself is by nature morally bankrupt.

In any event, having reviewed other messages from Mr Hallam-Baker to the 
list, it is clear that he is in major denial on this point. He has 
repeatedly tried to blame the blocks of Verisign on others, claiming 
Verisign was blocked because UUNET was (without apparently providing 
evidence of this and then insisting others provide evidence that this was 
never the case), when in fact it would be more likely for UUNET to be 
blocked because of Verisign.

Furthermore, he consistently pushes as "the only solution", something that 
would (if it were even a desirable approach or possible to implement) 
generate more revenue for his employer. How is this relevant? You suggested 
his motive for being here, but a motive-based analysis would suggest that 
his interest is not in stopping spam, but in generating revenue.
--
Troy Rollo				Chairman, CAUBE.AU
[email-masked]			Executive Director, iCAUCE

---

From: "Derek J. Balling" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:37:57 -0500

> Imminent death of this list predicted. I'm selling tickets. Anyone 

*plops down next to Chuq*

Cheezy Poofs, anyone?

Seriously, the goals of this list are noble and all, but I think NANAE 
has a higher S:N ratio.

D

---

From: wayne <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Mar 2003 07:23:08 -0600

In <p06000d36baab133c53bc@[192.168.1.104]> Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]> writes:

> for conversations with people on the list.  Those conversations may be
> on the list, off the list or (more likely) both.

No way!

Many popular mailing lists, and it wouldn't surprise me if that
includes this list, have spammers who sign up to collect email
addresses.  My consent to receive list traffic *DOES NOT* transfer to
consent to receiving email from anyone who happens to be on the list.
I certainly do not want to hear the kinds of "conversations" that
spammers would send my way.

>                        Everyone else whose anti-spam solutions have

I agree that signing up on the list commits you to making sure you
don't interfere with the list (via spam filters or whatever).

I have spam filters that I run also.  Due to the discussions on this
mailing list, I have recently switch back to using DNSBLs at the MTA
level instead of the MUA level.  If someone sends me email that
originates from an open relay used by spammers, they will now likely
receive a bounce.  Before, they would likely have just received a high
score from SpamAssassin and been placed in a mail folder that I don't
check very carefully (or often).  I think generating a bounce on a
false positive is better than silently having the false positive be
overlooked.

If it really is the consensus of this list that I must turn off my
spam filtering or leave the list, please let me know.  I will
certainly be willing to leave the list.

-wayne

---

From: Chuq Von Rospach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:40:38 -0800

> Seriously, the goals of this list are noble and all, but I think NANAE 

Here. I just opened a bag. I'm putting on the video to Monty Python and 
the Holy Grail.

"What do we burn apart from witches?"

"More Witches!"

---

From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:49:57 -0500

At 9:47 PM +1100 3/29/03, Troy Rollo wrote:
>>for conversations with people on the list.
>
>This is manifestly false. You sign up for list traffic. There is 
>nothing whatever to require you to accept mail from any particular 
>individual on the list.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the social assumptions implicit 
in human conversation. However that does not excuse your anti-social 
behavior. I assume that if we were at a meeting, you would only talk 
to him while sitting at the table, but spit in his face if he tried 
to talk with you in the hallway?

>>I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that some people on this 
>>list might be here because they want to ensure that their companies 
>>*don't* spam?
>
>honestly seeking a solution to spam in any event, since Verisign's 
>spam problem, like

Thank you for clarifying what I already believed.  You aren't 
interested in solving spam.  You're interested in retribution.

Of all the companies currently involved in this, and the related 
JamSpam discussions, Verisign is by no means the worst.  JamSpam is 
*hosted* by Topica.  Take a lesson from South Africa, Northern 
Ireland, Nicaragua and a few other political hot spots.  If you want 
to find a solution, you've got to put the past behind you.

Verisign is by no means my favorite company--even before they bought 
Network Solutions.  Ask Phillip what the first message I sent him 
off-list said.  (On second thought, don't ask him.  Sorry, I forgot, 
you can't.)  I wouldn't even say that Phillip is my favorite person 
on this list.  But I'm not going to let either of those things get in 
the way of our finding solutions to spam.  If you are, then I'd say 
you're betraying the trust of your organization.

>Furthermore, he consistently pushes as "the only solution", 
>something that would (if it were even a desirable approach or 
>possible to implement) generate more revenue for his employer. How 
>is this relevant? You suggested his motive for being here, but a 
>motive-based analysis would suggest that his interest is not in 
>stopping spam, but in generating revenue.

It would appear that your motive is "getting even."  I'd consider the 
motive of earning money for Verisign--even if true--potentially far 
more compatible with the goals of this list than yours.

Since you obviously don't give a damn as to whether Phillip has 
anything worthwhile to say--being blinded by the twelve letters to 
the left of his at-sign.  I suggest that in the future you restrict 
your messages to this list to ones that do *not* reply (directly or 
indirectly) to anything he posts to this list.  I see that you have 
continued to send him email throughout this discussion (see the To: 
and Cc: headers).  If nothing else, that's just plain rude.  If 
there's one thing I despise more than spammers, it's spam fighters 
who lash out at people while hiding behind barriers so that they 
don't have to read the response.  I know why the spammers do it, but 
you don't have an excuse.  S fighters should know better; and they 
certainly should be held to higher standards.  I'm sorry that you are 
so blind to the damage that you are doing to our cause.

And to anyone else still listening.  I will attempt to make this my 
last on-list posting on this subject.
-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.puremessaging.com/        Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

---

From: wayne <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Mar 2003 12:31:28 -0600

In <p06000d39baab6a96ccba@[192.168.1.104]> Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]> writes:

> I'm sorry that you don't understand the social assumptions implicit in
> human conversation. However that does not excuse your anti-social
> to him while sitting at the table, but spit in his face if he tried to
> talk with you in the hallway?

You can check the archive, but Phillip was the first to call someone
"clueless".  I think you analogy would be closer to "I assume that if
we were at a meeting, you would only talk to him while sitting at the
table, but spit in his face if he first spit in your face in the
hallway?"  Spitting in people's faces isn't very nice, even when "he
started it".  However, you (Ken) might want to try and be more even
handed in your lectures.

> *hosted* by Topica. 

A funny story about the JamSpam folks.  I looked into signing up on
their mailing lists, but I refuse to have to disclose things like my
birth date to be use for advertising purposes just to subscribe to a
mailing list.  I sent email to [email-masked] asking if there was
another way to follow the discussions.  Unfortunately, the
[email-masked] email address apparently ends up eventually going to
[email-masked] which *bounces* with a "Unable to chdir to
maildir. (#4.2.1)" error.

*sigh*

And JamSpam are the folks that think they can make internet email more
reliable?

-wayne

---

From: Brad Templeton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:43:10 -0800

> whatever to require you to accept mail from any particular individual on 

While I would agree that there is nothing that inherently bounds a list
to this policy, I believe that the default policy for most lists is that
people can reply privately to postings to the list, and I certainly only
want to particpate in lists which use such a policy.

If you place impediments in replying directly to a list posting, you push
people into sending their messages to the entire audience, even when they
are not meant for the entire audience.  This pointlessly increases the
volume of mail on the list to the detriment of all, increases flamewars,
and is generally a terrible idea.

USENET was actually revolutionary in the days of BBSs in that you could reply
to a poster by E-mail and were in fact encouraged to do so.  In the early
days it was not at all uncommon to get many more e-mail replies to a posting
than followups.  "Reply to the poster and she'll summarize for the net" was
a standard mantra when global posting was expensive and e-mail of course
much cheaper in terms of total traffic to the uucp net.

This is one of the things spam destroyed.  People now are afraid to put their
real e-mail in their postings.  Sometimes there is none, sometimes you can find
it if you dig around in the posting to see it written in a form you must
rewrite.  It sucks, and spam has done this to us.

Let it not do it to this list.  I would hope this list would make a policy that
if you are not willing to quickly and easily take e-mail replies to your
postings on this list, you should not post to the list.  You are free to
read it.

An easy challenge/response to new replyers is fine, but much more than that
seems inappropriate.  (I don't know the particulars as I haven't mailed
Mr. Rollo before.  I am about to find out...)
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:53:33 -0500

>"clueless".  I think you analogy would be closer to "I assume that if

No.  He called the blacklist of his IP address clueless.  Personally 
I don't take it as a insult when someone calls a decision made by my 
software "clueless".  Nor, for that matter, do I consider "clueless" 
much of an insult.  I probably manage to attain that state several 
times a day.

>mailing list.  I sent email to [email-masked] asking if there was

Yes.  This is a bit of Topica sliminess.  I reached the same 
conclusion, and while I was composing my flame to Berlind, I got 
confirmation of being added to the list.  If you read Topica's 
confirmation web page very carefully you'll discover that while they 
very strongly imply that you won't be subscribed until you fill it 
out--in fact that don't come out and say that.

However it does appear that you can't read the archives without 
giving up private information.  Given that I was subscribing to a 
list about privacy and spam, I found that particularly ironic.  I'm 
currently attempting to see if we can have the lists moved to a host 
without these problems (namely, mine).
-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.puremessaging.com/        Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

---

From: Troy Rollo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 07:07:22 +1100

At 14:53 29/03/03 -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote:
>No.  He called the blacklist of his IP address clueless.

The blacklist is on what is obviously my private domain. It can therefore 
be fairly assumed that *I* put it there. An inanimate thing cannot be 
"clueless", because a label of cluelessness is a comment about knowledge. 
It is necessarily directed at the person who has done the action to put 
that thing in place. This is logic 101 - in fact in a logic course it would 
usually be given as an example of an ad hominem.

---

From: Chuq Von Rospach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:40:27 -0800

On Saturday, March 29, 2003, at 11:53  AM, Kee Hinckley wrote:

> Yes.  This is a bit of Topica sliminess.

My topica amusement came when I signed up for the high volume jamspam 
and posted to it, only to get three (count them) three vacation/OOF 
messages in reply. I was in the middle of a good rant when I stopped to 
check, and sure enough, the topica mail list was missing any precedence 
header at all. So I changed the rant...

(eyes rolling. It's not brain surgery. at least, I don't think so)

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:17:55 -0700 (MST)

> From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>

> ...
> ...

NO!

Your reasoning would require removal of blocks against Cyberpromo and Alan
Ralsky's many domains should Spamford or Ralsky subscribe to this list.

When I sign up to any source of bulk mail, I only sign up for that
particular stream of mail from that particular source.  I do not sign
up for anything else, no matter what any third party might think, even
if that third party provides content that is published in the list.

When I give a comemrcial outfit permission to send me mail, I don't
give permission to all of their suppliers to contact me.

Subscribing to a newsletter does not give all advertisers and contributors
to the newsletter the right to contact you "privately."

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

---

From: J C Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:43:19 -0800

On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:17:55 -0700 (MST) 

> if that third party provides content that is published in the list.

While that may be what you intend to do, that is not apparent from your
actions, and even more so, that is not implied by the information you
reveal should you post to that list.  This is simple information theory
stuff.

In the general case when you post to the forum you reveal yourself,
willy nilly, to all the members of that forum at that time, and (very
likely) everybody who may every find or discover that forum for the rest
of time (archives and associative bleed being what they are).  Those are
the explicit audiences to whom you've provided your contact data.  If
that doesn't describe what you want to do, then DON'T DO THAT.
Attempting to retroactively assign riders or etiquette contracts
regarding your provided data is unlikely to work.

If that's really what you want to do, then participate via a contract
address that is limited to the sender of that forum (eg a TMDA sender
address).  Then the data you reveal matches the contract you wish that
data used under.
  
  Note: Such an approach makes it difficult to fork a thread off-list.

-- 
J C Lawrence                
---------(*)                Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. 
[email-masked]               He lived as a devil, eh?		  
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:57:08 -0500

At 1:40 PM -0800 3/29/03, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>My topica amusement came when I signed up for the high volume 
>jamspam and posted to it, only to get three (count them) three 
>vacation/OOF messages in reply. I was in the middle of a good rant 
>when I stopped to check, and sure

You aborted the rant?  Then maybe I should finish the one I was about to send.

>enough, the topica mail list was missing any precedence header at all. So I

I don't see that the Precedence header is required for the rant.  A 
vacation notice is a notice of non-delivery.  It should go to the 
envelope from.  (Never mind that it shouldn't go to any message that 
doesn't list you in the headers--but that part doesn't have an RFC to 
back it up.)
-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.puremessaging.com/        Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

---

From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:07:29 -0500

>Ralsky's many domains should Spamford or Ralsky subscribe to this list.

Should they engage in the conversation of this list (as opposed to 
sending spam), then I would say "yes".

But if you would like an escape hatch--I have no problem with not 
replying to messages from people.  And the sender can't tell the 
difference between not replying and dropping on the floor.  So 
there's your out.  Rude, yes.  But not a slap in the face.

-----

In a desperate attempt to bring this conversation somewhat on topic. 
I will point out that this conversation is so emotional for precisely 
the same reason that discussions of spam are emotional.  We are 
discussing social contracts.  We have certain expectations about 
communication.  These are based on our real life experiences, and our 
virtual life experiences.  There are cultural differences as well.  I 
seriously doubt that it's a coincidence that the people I've seen 
supporting my case are people whom I've seen on the net for the past 
twenty years. Our expectations are different.

Normally you only run into these types of social disagreements when 
you literally have cultural conflicts.  We are in the unusual 
position of trying to patch a virtual culture.  Think how you would 
feel if someone came in and gave you a new set of rules for when you 
should and shouldn't say hello to people on the street.  Told you 
whether or not you were allowed to say thank you.  Or put 
communications restrictions on people in the real world similar to 
the ones we are creating the virtual world.  "Hello Mr. Smith.  How 
are you..."  "Sorry, if you want to talk to me, first you have to pay 
me ten cents."

Is it any wonder that this is an emotional process?
-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.puremessaging.com/        Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

---

From: Chuq Von Rospach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:55:37 -0800

I disagree. But I agree it's open to discussion. I think this is a 
rabbit hole like whether lists should carry a coerced reply-to, so I 
won't go there, since I don't think there is a right answer the way 
things are implemented these days.

On Saturday, March 29, 2003, at 07:57  PM, Kee Hinckley wrote:

> envelope from.

---

From: J C Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:46:10 -0800

On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:07:29 -0500 
Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]> wrote:

> you literally have cultural conflicts.  We are in the unusual position
> of trying to patch a virtual culture.  

Umm, that was true before September.  Its definitely not true any more.
We now have several quite different virtual cultures.  That's been part
of the problem.  Not only is it an impedance mismatch between cultures,
but the definition of the cultures involved, as well as their number has
been changing under our feet.