On 10/7/03 2:59 PM, "" <> wrote:

> This is the reason why we also have the 554 series of Mailer Daemon
> error messages, which explain that the server is generating high
> volumes
> of member complaints from AOL.  If you have receive such error
> messages,
> you or your e-mail provider may need to review our Unsolicited Bulk
> E-mail policy at http://www.aol.com/info/bulke-mail.html and until
> such
> issues are resolved, AOL may not accept further e-mail transactions
> from
> the given server or domain.

Still sounds like you're getting a generic answer from AOL, rather than one
that shows they've read your message, especially when they ask you for
information that was clearly indicated in your original complaint.

Essentially, they're saying that they block mail from servers or domains
which have been shown to send out significant amounts of unsolicited e-mail.
However, the domain in this case is yahoogroups.com, and they are very
serious about making sure their lists are opt-in only. AOL would know this
if they did any research at all into your actual problem, instead of giving
you boilerplate messages that don't answer the question.

It's not fair that you are caught in between these companies. It's also not
fair that AOL is demanding that Yahoo do something to solve the problem. AOL
created the problem in a misguided attempt to foil spammers. They took this
action, not Yahoo, and it shouldn't be incumbent on Yahoo to prove they are
innocent. It should be up to AOL to prove they are guilty before putting
them on some kind of blacklist.

Sounds like you really need to dump AOL and get a real ISP. Their customer
service has gone in the dumper in recent years. They seem more and more to
be catering to clueless newbies, and less and less to everybody else.
They're cute and fun and easy to set up, but continually increase the
roadblocks for more advanced users.
--
We will not forget!
www.remember-9-11.com
www.ciarancummings.com

Here's an amusing correspondence I am having with AOL & Yahoo Groups
regarding AOL's screening of so-called "Spam.".....


Subject: Issues Regarding Yahoo Groups, AOL and MCHS 77 Yahoo
Group...blocking of legitimate e-mails
Date: 9/27/2003, 1:02 PM
From: George Carden <Cardboard1@...>
To: webmaster@..., egroups-feedback@...,
Jai.Singh@...
cc: MCHS77 Group <MCHS77@yahoogroups.com>
Organization: George Carden

URGENT

To: AOL TechMail Department; Yahoo! Groups Customer Care

CC To: MCHS 77 Yahoo Group Members; Jai Singh, vice president &
editor-in-chief, News.com

From: George Carden (MCHS 77 Yahoo Group Moderator)

Date: 9/27/03


I am moderator of the Yahoo Group called "MCHS77".  For several months
now, e-mail that is sent to our group has been blocked by AOL's mail
servers from being delivered to members in our group who are AOL
customers (including myself).  The problem is not with all of our
e-mails, but with...I would estimate...about 30-40% of it.  And it's
getting worse.  This is quite frustrating, especially to our AOL
members
in the group.  I have complained to Yahoo.  Yahoo blames AOL and says
to
contact AOL about it.  I have complained to AOL and AOL says to
contact
Yahoo and have Yahoo contact AOL.  Meanwhile, we innocent customers of
both of your companies continue to be frustrated by your inaction in
actually solving this problem.

Here are examples of the latest correspondence between the three of
us...

------

Original Message Follows: [To Yahoo Groups]
-------------------------

Group Name:  MCHS77

Are you a... Owner/Moderator

Subject: Other

Email client:  AOL Mail

Type your feedback here:
It appears AOL is blocking about 10-20%
of the messages from the AOL users in my
group. I complained to them, and here's
what they sent back... (PLEASE HELP!)

Dear George,

A pleasant day to you, I am Salie, your
AOL assistant. I greatly appreciate your
time and effort for bringing your
concern to our attention.

I understand from your recent e-mail you
are not being able to receive emails
from "@yahoogroups.com" while on America
Online.

Please accept my sincerest apology for
the inconveniece this issue had caused you.

I know how you feel about the situation.
I want to assure you that I am here to
help you as quickly as possible.

With regard to your concern, it is
possible that AOL is blocking the
sender's e-mail server domain due to
spam e-mail issues. To verify and
resolve this issue, please have the
sender's system administrator visit the
website below:

http://postmaster.info.aol.com/ors.html

Or to call our Postmaster Team at
703-265-4670

Once again, I want to thank you for
taking the time and effort to bring this
issue to our attention. I do hope that
the information that I have prepared for
you helped you in any way.

If you have any other inquiries,
suggestions or comments, I would like to
extend my assistance, please feel free
to write back to us and we will be more
than happy to assist you.

It is my wish for you to have the best
possible online experience.

Sincerely,


Salie T.
Customer Care Consultant
TechMail Department
America Online, Inc.

---------------

Then, correspondence back from Yahoo Groups....

Hello,

Thank you for writing to Yahoo! Groups.

We're sorry to hear that you are experiencing difficulty with
receiving
your Yahoo! Groups messages. Please know that there have been numerous
reports recently, of AOL members not receiving messages. We have found
that AOL receives email from Yahoo! Groups, however it seems to have a
tendency to "lose" those messages before they are delivered to their
intended recipients. AOL does not return a bounced (error) message to
Yahoo! Groups, so we have no way of knowing which members or messages
are effected. We recommend that you contact AOL for further answers or
assistance in this matter.

You can contact AOL by visiting their "Contact Us" form at:

     http://www.corp.aol.com/contact.html?

Thank you again for contacting Yahoo! Customer Care.

1706653

----------------

Now, it is apparent that there is a never-ending cycle here of
"passing
the buck" of blame to each of your companies.  Yes, again I contacted
AOL, as Yahoo suggested.  Here is my message to AOL...

----------original message----------
From:  Cardboard1@...
To:  temp-tech@...

25/09/2003; 15:26:31

Name:    George Carden
Email:   Cardboard1@...
Subject: Blocked e-mails that are LEGIT

How would you categorize your message?
Technical question about America Online

Message:
PLEASE STOP BLOCKING MY E-MAILS FROM THE ADDRESS:
MCHS77@YAHOOGROUPS.COM
!!!!

This is an Internet Group I'm a member of and I want all these
e-mails.

I AM TIRED OF BEING IGNORED BY YOU FOLKS ON THIS PROBLEM !!!  I've
been
an AOL member since 1995, and for the first time I'm considering
dropping my AOL account because you are blocking e-mails to me that I
DO
want to get !!!!!!

-George Carden, Cardboard1@...

---------

Yes, I am getting very frustrated.  And AOL's response to that did NOT
help:


Dear George,

Thanks for writing to America Online and for making us aware of your
concern. I am Meia and I will be working with you regarding your
email.

I understand that you are having problems receiving e-mail from your
subscribed newsletter or from a particular ISP/domain.

Thank you for bringing this problem to our attention and I apologize
for
the inconvenience this has caused.

AOL has developed Solicited Bulk Mailing Guidelines to both aid
'netizens' with their online marketing campaigns and to protect our
member base from e-mail abuse.

AOL may have received large amounts of "junk" or "spam" e-mail from
someone on this domain name. The addresses of domains that send this
type of e-mail to AOL members are added to the Preferred Mail, Blocked
List. Because the Preferred Mail, Blocked Sites list is not updated
daily to remove domains from the list, it does not immediately display
these sites when added.

This is the reason why we also have the 554 series of Mailer Daemon
error messages, which explain that the server is generating high
volumes
of member complaints from AOL.  If you have receive such error
messages,
you or your e-mail provider may need to review our Unsolicited Bulk
E-mail policy at http://www.aol.com/info/bulke-mail.html and until
such
issues are resolved, AOL may not accept further e-mail transactions
from
the given server or domain.

America Online has a process that goes through our database of open
proxies and tests them every 24 hours. If we find that our attempts to
use your open ports are unsuccessful, we will change the status of
your
server from open to closed. We will then remove your IP from our block
list and push the changes into production. These processes are
automated, and "unblocks" generally occur in about 24 hours.

If you believe your organization's e-mail provider can adhere to AOL
guidelines provided at this site:
http://postmaster.info.aol.com/index.html, please ask your e-mail
provider to call our Postmaster Hotline at 703-265-4670 or
1-888-212-5537 and the Postmaster group will evaluate your mailing
patterns and resolve any outstanding issues with your server or
domain.

If you would like to test your e-mail server against our database,
enter
the IP address on the site below:

http://postmaster.info.aol.com/opse.html

Also, please take time to answer the following questions below and
send
your reply back to us. In that way we can investigate this issue and
file a report on your behalf.

1. Webmaster's Name:
2. ISP's Domain Name:
3. When Problem Started:

4. E-mail Address:
5. Problem Is:
6. Daytime Phone:

7. Getting Bounce from AOL's mailer-daemon?:
8. Host name of mail server used to relay mail to AOL:
9. IP Address of mail server used to relay mail to AOL:

Should you wish to speak with someone in person to walk you through,
you
may contact our America Online technical representative at
1-888-346-3704 (1-800-759-3323 for TTY) or contact through AOL
KEYWORD:
LIVE HELP.

George, please let me know immediately if you have further inquiries
or
comments.  I will always be ready and happy to assist you. Thank you
very much for your time and continued support.


Meia M.
Customer Care Consultant
The TechMail Department
America Online, Inc.

-------

Today I telephoned AOL's technical representative, and he told me that
Yahoo MUST contact AOL about this problem. He said the issue is not
solved on the customer level, but on the server level.  He said there
is
no record of Yahoo EVER contacting AOL about this issue.

Now, to AOL and Yahoo: It is NOT fair that members in our group who
have
AOL are not getting legitimate e-mails from this group.  It is also
not
fair that I/we are stuck between your two big corporations in this.
So,
I now leave it to the two of you to straighten this out within the
next
week.  If it is evident that nothing will be done, I plan to take our
group off of Yahoo Groups and move it to another similar site, and I
plan to seriously consider dropping my AOL account.

THANK YOU for your attention on this matter!

By the way to AOL, the link mentioned above to your "Unsolicited Bulk
E-mail policy" at http://www.aol.com/info/bulke-mail.html does not
work.
   You folks need to get it together!

Sincerely,
George Carden

--
George Carden
Cardboard1@...

If you didn't receive email you requested, ask your provider why not.
Be prepared to provide some detail of course, so they can look it up in
their systems.  I've never had a customer ask for an explanation, and not
been able to provide one.  Mind you, the explanation has occasionally been
"They tripped an automated filter" or "oops", but still, the best way to
find out is to ask your ISP.  Merely stating on a list serve that you didn't
receive your email doesn't really help the situation.
     Here's another way to think about it.  ISPs (like california.com for
example) filter either because they see a profit opportunity in doing so,
(providing a premium "spam filtered" service) or else, because they see a
liability in not doing so. (Customer loss due to annoyance with the constant
spam)  Most ISPs filter for the latter reason, and do so on a monetary
basis.  Until the loss of legitimate email causes as much ire (and monetary
damage) as the spam does among their customers, the filters are only prone
to get more agressive.
     Add to the mix that the spammers, who for profit motives of their own,
want to get around the ISPs filters, so the filters are constantly becoming
more agressive to counter the spammer's activities, etc.  Things aren't
going to get better anytime soon without some serious and concerted effort.
     Now look at this from the ISP's point of view.  Loosing customers costs
money, as does maintaining the filters.  In a vaccum, one would say do
whatever is the least expensive.  But the additional factor to consider is
that the loss of legitimate email can cause damage to customers of the ISP,
whether the loss is due to deletion from spam overload, bouced emails
because of a full mailbox, or from the automated filters.

     The way to think about this is an economic concept called External
Costs.  The spammer in flooding your inbox, has created an external cost on
the ISP.  Now that cost gets passed along to you the end user of the ISP in
the form of lost email. (in any form stated previously)  Is it really
reasonable to blame the ISP for this loss when they're doing their best to
mitigate costs associated with the same spam which is now costing you money?
Blaming the ISP because of the filters is certainly the obvious answer, but
that's merely a symptom of the burgoning spam problem which needs to be
addressed.

     The problem is that noone really knows how to address it effectively.
Spam is essentially a rehashing of a social problem known as greed, and
merely a symptom itself of that societal issue.  If you really want to know
how to make a difference, you might want to start with the CAUCE web site at
http://www.cauce.org/ which is pushing for a legal solution to the spam
problem internationally.  Otherwise, educate yourself about the various
anti-spam bills currently in congress, as well as reading about the
difference between industry speak and market speak reguarding "opt-in",
"out-out", and "double opt-in." (which itself is market speak meant to imply
that the industry standard "confirmed opt-in" is really too difficult... ie,
you have to get someone to opt in twice)  The SpamHaus project at
http://www.spamhaus.org/ has some good resources reguarding the difference
between industry speak and market speak.  (Whenever I say "industry," I'm
referring to the IT pros, administrators and associated management that
actually keep the internet running smoothly)

----- Original Message -----
From: "clamend24" <clamend24@...>
To: <i_did_not_get_my_email@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 9:58 AM
Subject: [i_did_not_get_my_email] I did not get my email


> I did not receive my email from customerservice@... which was
> sent through Constant Contact.  I requested this email.  It was sent
> by CTA, Inc. and others received the email, but I did not.  They use
> a double opt in list so my email should be delivered.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> i_did_not_get_my_email-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

I did not receive my email from customerservice@... which was
sent through Constant Contact.  I requested this email.  It was sent
by CTA, Inc. and others received the email, but I did not.  They use
a double opt in list so my email should be delivered.

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/0804spam-email04-ON.html

[Excerpt]
Didn't Get E-Mail? That Could Be Spam's Fault, Too
Vigilant Blockers Toss Out The Good With the Bad
Artist Misses Own Show

By Mylene Mangalindan

The Wall Street Journal via Dow Jones, August 4, 2003

This spring, Lynn Sonfield discovered she was out of the loop. Despite signing
up to receive e-mail announcements from Berkeley High School in Berkeley,Calif.,
she never got its online newsletter. Or the e-mail to parents about
school-planning meetings. She also missed the community-service notice for her
16-year-old daughter, a student there.

When Ms. Sonfield, 55 years old, found out from another parent that she wasn't
getting the e-mails, she irately called the teacher in charge. He suggested the
problem lay with her Internet service, AOL TimeWarnerInc.'s America Online unit.
AOL had probably labeled the school's mailings as "spam," or unsolicited bulk
mail, he said.

Ms. Sonfield had become collateral damage in the war against spam...

> Um, actually, what Jodie Gastel did sounds like spam to me.

The article wasn't completely accurate. I know Jodie. She sent the email to
subscribers of her "He Shoots" newsletter. See the bottom of
http://www.scorebrowniepoints.com/

-Derek


Escalan, LLC
Smart marketing. Measurable results.
http://www.escalan.com
303-543-1186 phone
303-808-6614 cell
425-920-6124 fax

Marketers who rely on e-mail are getting zapped by aggressive new
spam filters. To circumvent them, some companies are going retro,
others super techno

By: Ellen Neuborne
Inc. Magazine, Augusr 2003

Complete Article:

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20030801/marketing.html

[Excerpt]

"As the war on spam heats up, innocent bystanders are being caught
in the crossfire -- namely the tens of thousands of entrepreneurs
who have embraced e-mail marketing as a cheap, effective way to
maintain strong customer relationships without shelling out big
bucks for a traditional media campaign.

"Now, after finally figuring out how to make e-mail work for them,
marketers have found that the rules have changed. Their legitimate
messages are being blocked by a new breed of super-aggressive spam
filters..."




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Free shipping on all inkjet cartridge & refill kit orders to US & Canada. Low prices up to 80% off. We have your brand: HP, Epson, Lexmark & more.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5510
http://us.click.yahoo.com/GHXcIA/n.WGAA/ySSFAA/8vOslB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
i_did_not_get_my_email-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Marketers who rely on e-mail are getting zapped by aggressive new
spam filters. To circumvent them, some companies are going retro,
others super techno

By: Ellen Neuborne
Inc. Magazine, Augusr 2003

Complete Article:

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20030801/marketing.html

[Excerpt]

"As the war on spam heats up, innocent bystanders are being caught
in the crossfire -- namely the tens of thousands of entrepreneurs
who have embraced e-mail marketing as a cheap, effective way to
maintain strong customer relationships without shelling out big
bucks for a traditional media campaign.

"Now, after finally figuring out how to make e-mail work for them,
marketers have found that the rules have changed. Their legitimate
messages are being blocked by a new breed of super-aggressive spam
filters..."

Could a 'do not spam' list really stop spammers?

http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid14_gci915849,00\
.html?Exclusive=True
 

By Edward Hurley, SearchSecurity.com News Writer

23 Jul 2003, SearchSecurity.com

[Excerpt, plesae see above URL for teh complete article]

The other week, Bill Blundon, co-founder and chief marketing officer
of Extraprise, a Boston-based customer relationship management (CRM) service
provider,found that his spam filter had intercepted an important e-mail from
Register.com.

Blundon was in the middle of moving his personal Web site to a new Web hosting
company, and he needed a confirmation e-mail from Register.com to move forward.
His spam filter blocked the message because it was machine generated.

"I waited a whole day for it, but it never came," he said.

The war on spam is becoming so severe that legitimate e-mail is getting caught
in the crossfire. Thanks to today's spam-filtering technology, legitimate bulk
e-mailers find it hard to get their messages through. Even if their e-mails do
pass, some recipients may brand them as spam because inboxes are inundated with
so much mail.

 

Joe Halbrook wrote:
> Backlist-based solutions are a pathetic answer to the spam problem.
> Why?  Because they are not maintained in a timely manner, are extremely
> dynamic in nature, and for the reason Justin mentions below.
>
> It's like shooting at moving targets with a muzzle loader.
> It's a losing proposition.
>
> Whitelist-based solutions are the only way to go.  "Everything
> is unwanted email - unless I say it isn't by whitelisting it."  It costs
> you a little in time, up-front, but well worth the investment over time.
>
> Might as well bite the bullet now.  You'll be ahead of the game in
> just a few weeks.
>
> Joe Halbrook
> http://CleanMyMailbox.com
>

Whitelists aren't a workable solution for business.  Pretty much by
definition most of the email you want the most (from new/potential
customers) comes from email addresses you don't yet know.

In my experience content filters simply don't work.  They rarely stop
spam (spammers run their messages through the common ones before sending
and tune them to have the best possible chance of getting through) but
have a very high false positive rate.  At work I get about 150 mails a
day.  When the content filter stops a message believing it to be spam it
sends the recipient a message saying it has been stopped, stating who
the sender was and the subject line, so they can ask to have it released
if it's a mail they want/need.  Based on that it has *never* stopped a
spam message but frequently stops legitimate messages.

Blocklists may be an imperfect solution but they are a lot less
imperfect than the alternatives.  Some blocklists are maintained well
and in a timely manner, they are reactive but they can react fairly
quickly.  For now they're the best we've got.

Stephen

Joe,

JH> Whitelist-based solutions are the only way to go.
JH> "Everything is unwanted email - unless I say it isn't by
JH> whitelisting it."  It costs you a little in time, up-front,
JH> but well worth the investment over time.

Unless of course you rely on advertising (in any form) your email
address to bring in business.

Seldom are absolute black and white approaches the real 'best
solution' to a problem. What might work for a simple end user who
just wants to get emails from their family will not work for
someone that uses email as a critical, but fast becoming less
useful because of spam, business tool.

Making every prospective customer jump through hoops just to do
business with you, or leaving their email sitting in limbo just
because it hasn't been whitelisted is NOT the right answer
either.

And NO, I don't have the perfect solution either - there isn't
one unfortunately <sigh>.

--
Regards,

Tim Jones

Suppliers of Quality Productivity & Utility Software
         In Australia: http://www.aquatee.com

I tried to email this person to point out that whitelisting didn't
work, along with some specific examples of why.

And he bounced it with a challenge response. Guess he didn't really
want any responses.

laura

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 05:27:28PM -0500, Joe Halbrook wrote:

> Whitelist-based solutions are the only way to go.  "Everything
> is unwanted email - unless I say it isn't by whitelisting it."  It costs
> you a little in time, up-front, but well worth the investment over time.
>
> Might as well bite the bullet now.  You'll be ahead of the game in
> just a few weeks.
>
> Joe Halbrook
> http://CleanMyMailbox.com

--
Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise, LLC
http://word-to-the-wise.com/
650 678-3454

Backlist-based solutions are a pathetic answer to the spam problem.
Why?  Because they are not maintained in a timely manner, are extremely
dynamic in nature, and for the reason Justin mentions below.

It's like shooting at moving targets with a muzzle loader.
It's a losing proposition.

Whitelist-based solutions are the only way to go.  "Everything
is unwanted email - unless I say it isn't by whitelisting it."  It costs
you a little in time, up-front, but well worth the investment over time.

Might as well bite the bullet now.  You'll be ahead of the game in
just a few weeks.

Joe Halbrook
http://CleanMyMailbox.com



>    Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:28:18 -0000
>    From: "Justin Hitt" <hittpansophism@...>
> Subject: Newsletter author loses valuable subscribers
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm a newsletter publisher and manager of the @iunctura.com domain.
> My IP address was included in a block of addresses listed in
> spews.org.  While my address isn't specifically listed, this
> blacklisting knocks out 5% of my double opt-in subscription list.
>
> Not only has it limited my ability to support individuals who request
> information from my company, but I can't email people I've known
> since 1996.  I can't email my Dad, or other relatives.
>
> This is my second internet provider, it seems they are helpless to do
> anything about the situation.  Any advice?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Justin Hitt
> http://iunctura.com/
>
> Ps. I often wonder if 5% of the people trying to contact me get
> bounced messages because their ISP is blacklisted.  Who knows, this
> all is very frustrating.
>

Hello,

I'm a newsletter publisher and manager of the @iunctura.com domain.
My IP address was included in a block of addresses listed in
spews.org.  While my address isn't specifically listed, this
blacklisting knocks out 5% of my double opt-in subscription list.

Not only has it limited my ability to support individuals who request
information from my company, but I can't email people I've known
since 1996.  I can't email my Dad, or other relatives.

This is my second internet provider, it seems they are helpless to do
anything about the situation.  Any advice?

Sincerely,

Justin Hitt
http://iunctura.com/

Ps. I often wonder if 5% of the people trying to contact me get
bounced messages because their ISP is blacklisted.  Who knows, this
all is very frustrating.

Which proves the point that blacklists are a bit more peculiar about what gets
filtered.

I honestly believe that you can't use AI to filter out spam to the point where
it's going to become affected in any way.  Blocking networks and teaching
these guys that run them how to administer them is the only way.  Enforcing
no-spam policies and levying fines against violators will help curb the
problem a lot more as well.

> List-News.com
>
> WASHINGTON -- Consumers who signed up online for the U.S. Federal  Trade
> Commission's do-not-call registry using Yahoo! Mail accounts  found the
> email service filtered the FTC's emailed confirmations, a  network-security
> firm claimed Friday.
>
> For the complete article:
>
> http://emailuniverse.com/list-news/2003/06/30.html
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> i_did_not_get_my_email-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

List-News.com

WASHINGTON -- Consumers who signed up online for the U.S. Federal
Trade Commission's do-not-call registry using Yahoo! Mail accounts
found the email service filtered the FTC's emailed confirmations, a
network-security firm claimed Friday.

For the complete article:

http://emailuniverse.com/list-news/2003/06/30.html

>But what we want to know is are ANY
messages addressed to us blocked even before they
reach bulk mail?


hey lee-

good question.  i personally don't use hotmail or yahoo for anything
*but* junkmail.  My guess is that if you enable their filtering systems,
bulk or spam will get sent to your junk/bulk folders. the new smart
filtering is based on building itself based on previous input
(artificial unintelligence?) i really don't know though, anyone else
have thoughts on this?

what you're talking about is more like when an isp who is someone's mail
server (think cox.net, charter.net, etc.) installs a filter, or
subscribes to some demonic (which is the kindest adjective i can think
of) service like spews.org.  when this happens, YES, email will get
ditched before it ever gets to a bulk folder on your local machine.
nice, eh?

hth,
lisa
lisa@...

Hello Group,

   I am affiliated with the University of Oregon.  I have several long
on-going e-mail relationships with people met online.   For
several of these, I have  no phone number or street address.
For about ten days recently,  I received no message from
a friend who has an MSN account.  I was getting very worried,
maybe she was sick or ill.   Then I finally heard from her.
She said her messages to me were all coming back to her labeled
as undeliverable.   She tried to contact UO staff, and those
messages came back.   She contacted her own service
provider, and they didn't know what was going on.  Then she used her
Hotmail Web account to contact me, and that went through.  I
then contacted UO Computing staff.  They said they had blocked
certain MSN machines in a spam control effort.  I was very angry,
and said I had no idea they were doing this and users should have
been warned.  I might have lost a long term friend over this.
Now I give all friends  I send e-mail from my UO mainframe
accounts my yahoo address as a backup.

     My domain at UO is @oregon.uoregon.edu.  The friend's
domain is @msn.com.

                                                          Lee

                                                                          Lee

I wanted to pass this on because I was not getting my mail on AOL and my
mother was not getting all of her mail on MSN.

I have an opt in online newsletter, and it would get caught in their filters
many times.

My mom would try to flag some senders as safe and still some emails would go
into her "junk" box.

I am upset that an ISP that I pay to send and receive mail blocks mail that
I want but the porn and junk still gets to me.

I would have some sympathy to the problem if it was not so obvious that they
were selling my email address.

My mother figured out MSN was doing this when she was getting s*pam on her
accounts with all MSN addresses, and I too was getting junk mail on AOL with
all AOL addresses.

I guess some people who buy the list do not know how to use the BCC feature,
but they do know to only send around 10 addresses at a time so the filter
thinks they are sending to friends and family.

I have switched to another ISP that states on their website that they will
not sell my address.

Even though I have been with them a short time
and do know it takes time to get junk mail, at this time I hardly know what
s*pam is, and I would never go back to an ISP that sells my info.


My new ISP safenetaccess.com allows me to choose
different filters and I have none on at this time.


I question why other ISP's do not do this, and let
the consumer choose to use a filter as well, and if they do, which ones they
want. I.E. porn, business scams etc.

I really do not understand how a major ISP has the nerve to complain about
the s*pam problem and contribute to it at the same time, then decides what
to block for me, as if I were a child in front of the t.v. with parental
controls.

Kim Ward

  -----------------------------
Here is the link on the article I wanted to pass on:

http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/2210551

and a quick summary:

Well known spammer Ronnie Scelson appeared before
the Senate Commerce Committee today, Wednesday,
May 21.

What's most interesting about this appearance is
that Scelson claimed, as part of his testimony, the following:

"... that AOL gladly sold him the company's entire
customer directory. Given the opportunity to deny
that, Leonsis, vice chairman of AOL, did not."

....

Failing to deny a claim is not the same as admitting that it's true, of
course. The rep couldn't possibly be expected to know every detail of every
transaction made by a company the size of AOL.

Still, while it's hardly an open and shut case,
there seems to be some reason to suspect that this one may well be true.

First, Scelson could be courting a fairly serious
libel suit if the claim could not be proven.

Secondly, I have a hard time picturing anyone
setting themselves up for the kind of problems
you can get by lying to a Senate committee just
to take a poke at AOL.

....

It will be interesting to see AOL's official
response to this.

Did AOL sell their user directory to a spammer? If so, when? And for what
price?

If not, what will their response to Scelson's claims be?

Something to keep an eye on.

Feel free to pass this around. This isn't the sort
of thing that should be discussed only in Senate Committee hearings.


Paul Myers

When spam filters go bad

By Laura Miller
June 19, 2003

Salon.com

Trying to block junk mail, my cable modem company installed a system
that prevented me from getting my REAL mail -- and when I
complained, insisted it was all for the good of the System.

"The equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation": That's what
Frank Zappa, testifying before a Senate committee in 1985, called
the censorship plans of the Parents Music Resource Center. In the
annals of overreaction, draconian measures tend to spring from mind-
muddling passions -- in the case of the PMRC, parental desire to
protect the young from nastiness. But when it comes to passion, even
our darkest, most primal instincts can hardly compare to the raw
fury that people have come to feel toward spam. So e-mail users,
beware: It's time to watch your head. I can testify from personal
experience that the cure has finally become worse than the disease.

In June, the company that provides my cable modem service, Road
Runner, installed a superaggressive new set of spam blockers on its
e-mail servers. Late in the first day of the blockers' activation, I
suddenly noticed that I hadn't gotten any e-mail at all in nearly
three hours. No e-mail from Salon colleagues or from friends and,
most puzzling of all, no e-mail from the editor at the New York
Times with whom I'd been corresponding all morning about a freelance
piece I was writing for her. I gave her a call.

Turns out I'd never received several e-mails that she and other
Times staffers had sent me. A few tests proved that I was still
receiving e-mail from Salon addresses and a trickle of other
messages, but not getting Times e-mail wasn't going to fly. So I
poked around a bit more and found the e-mail address for Road
Runner's security department. And that's when I fell down a rabbit
hole into spam-blocker hell.

My e-mail of complaint to Road Runner security elicited an autoreply
that could have been composed by the Queen of Hearts from "Alice in
Wonderland":

"ATTENTION

PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE AUTORESPONSE IF YOU HAVE NEVER SENT MAIL
HERE BEFORE, OR EVEN IF YOU HAVE. THIS MESSAGE DETAILS INFORMATION
REQUIRED FOR US TO PROCESS YOUR REQUEST. IF YOU DID NOT INCLUDE THE
INFORMATION THAT WE REQUIRE, YOUR MESSAGE WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT
FURTHER REVIEW. YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE FURTHER COMMUNICATION FROM US
ASKING FOR INFORMATION."

The message went on to explain in somewhat confusing terms exactly
what this imperious personage demanded to see in order to deem my
existence worthy of notice. The upshot, though, was that anyone
whose e-mail to my Road Runner address was being blocked had to
contact Road Runner Security directly, sending a copy of the error
message they'd received when their e-mails to me bounced back.

I wasn't about to ask a busy newspaper editor to hassle with the
technical staff at my service provider, and I had a copy of
the "bounce" message from the spam blocker that she'd sent to my
Salon address. So I sent that off to Security with a note, hoping to
correct the situation without having to involve the Times.

But that's all I could do: hope. Suppose Security found the bounce
message I had sent insufficiently informative? What if the message
was adequate but the fact that it had been forwarded by me and not
by the original sender met with the disapproval of these faceless,
nameless, ALL-CAPS-spouting authorities? Off with its head! And I'd
never know that my message had been summarily executed. I would "NOT
RECEIVE FURTHER COMMUNICATION." My e-mail had gone to Camp X-Ray.

(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_x-
ray.htm)

I began to fret. Were there other people who'd sent me legitimate e-
mail that couldn't get through Road Runner's fascistic new spam
blockers? If they didn't have my phone number or one of my alternate
e-mail addresses, how could they let me know about it? What if
someone sent me an e-mail, got the bounce message in response, and
then decided that tracking me down was too much trouble? What if
that message was really, really important -- to me at least?

A couple of persistent souls managed to get word to me that their e-
mails had bounced back. Those e-mails were sent by 1) a venerable
publisher of trade magazines and 2) an even more venerable publisher
of books. Along with the New York Times, neither struck me as likely
culprits of spam abuse, but Salon's own tech staff explained that
they might seem to be, on account of something called relays used by
crafty spam perps looking to cover their tracks. So that meant that
anybody -- anybody -- might have their domain name hijacked by
spammers, then blocked by my service provider. And this could happen
at any time. Geez.

Several pleasant but not very effective Road Runner customer service
people explained to me that my only recourse was to ask these
senders to petition Road Runner for the removal of the scarlet S.
That meant asking the various senders for the names of their in-
house network administrators (providing they actually knew who this
was, not a given in large organizations), making sure each sender
forwarded a copy of Road Runner's bounce message to the
administrator, then contacting the administrator to ask that s/he
ask Road Runner to be taken off the spammer list.

Needless to say, this was a massive time suck. As the week drew to a
close, it seemed I'd frittered away almost half my work hours trying
to correct the mess and taking phone calls from Road Runner's
customer service people, who kept ringing up to ask if my concern
had been addressed, listen to my nth rant about the situation, and
then politely explain that they couldn't address my concern. This
was taking a whole lot more time than the simple act of deleting
unwanted spam -- and believe me, I get a lot of spam. And I still
couldn't be sure that I was getting all my legitimate mail.

No matter whom I managed to contact, I received robotically
identical responses explaining the necessity of spam filters and
reiterating that only Security could lift a block and only the
sender's network administrator could negotiate the unblocking. One
rep did slip me a special customer service address where I sent a
complaint about the inconvenience of the whole thing and suggested
that Road Runner's spam blockers might be a tad excessive. Someone
wrote back: "Our system has spam filters in place to protect our
network from being overloaded by bulk unsolicited e-mail. The end
result benefits our subscribers, who can expect less downtime and
higher service levels." When I suggested that the willy-nilly
blocking of perfectly legitimate e-mail necessary to one's
livelihood didn't really seem like a "higher service level" to me,
he replied that I shouldn't be using my e-mail account
for "commercial, or revenue generating purposes."

Somehow, my cheerful, speedy, efficient cable modem service had
morphed into evasive, officious martinets; Road Runner had turned
into Ari Fleischer. I was trying to speak up on behalf of the
unjustly stigmatized, but I was treated as if I were some kind of
soft-headed liberal spam lover. Didn't I understand how important it
was to protect the network? What were a few abused messages when the
greater good was at stake? And what was I doing getting that kind of
message, anyway? Broken, I reverted to using my Salon.com address as
my main account.

I have to admit that the policy of eradicating spam by blocking
nearly every message has a breathtaking ambition to it, even if it
pretty much eliminates the usefulness of e-mail altogether. Even so,
it doesn't work. There's still a handful of messages coming through
on my Road Runner address every day. And they're almost all spam.

nternet
  Congress Likely to Pass Industry-Favored                                  =

  Anti-Spam Legislation This Year, Experts Say                              =





Driven by worries that a spam epedemic threatens to impair
the Internet, legislation is expected to move quickly
through both the House and Senate that would curb the worst
forms of spam, while allowing legitimate e-mail marketing
companies to stay in business, according to congressional
and industry sources interviewed by BNA.


The RID Spam Act (H.R. 2214), an industry favorite, is being
pushed by two key House committee chairmen who would like to
see the bill approved this summer. A similar bill, the
CAN-SPAM Act (S. 877), has broad support in the Senate,
staffers told BNA.


"There is broad consensus that CAN-SPAM and RID Spam are two
proposals that appear to be moving," said J. Trevor Hughes,
executive director of the Network Advertising Initiative, a
group of e-mail marketing companies.


But the bills are opposed by consumer advocates, who prefer
legislation that would ban unsolicited e-mail altogether and
give individuals the right to sue spammers.


Both CAN-SPAM and RID Spam would allow marketers to send
unsolicited e-mail, as long as they follow certain rules,
such as giving recipients an opportunity to opt-out of
receiving future messages.


The bills would also prohibit deceptive practices, such as
the use of false header information, which have been
employed by Internet scammers, pornographers, and other bad
actors. In addition, the government and Internet service
providers (ISPs) would be given enforcement authority to go
after violators.

                  DMA, AOL Among Supporters



A spokesman from the Direct Marketing Association told BNA
that CAN-SPAM and RID Spam are the best anti-spam proposals
to come before Congress so far. America Online Inc. has also
backed the measures.


When RID Spam was introduced, an AOL spokesman said the bill
would provide a good framework for ISPs and law enforcement
to pursue the most egregious spammers, while setting
"appropriate and practical rules of the road for senders of
legitimate e-mail."


RID Spam, introduced by Rep. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), is
co-sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman
W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.) and House Judiciary Committee
Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.).


The chairmen are hoping to get the bill passed this summer,
according to Tauzin spokesman Ken Johnson.


CAN-SPAM, introduced by Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) and
co-sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), is expected to move
just as quickly. The bill is currently before the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and is
scheduled for markup on June 19, a staffer said.


Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.), while not
expressing support for any particular bill, has said he
would like to get spam legislation to the Senate floor
before the summer recess.


Last year, the committee approved CAN-SPAM by voice vote,
but it never came before the full Senate. Commentators
expect a very different result this year, now that there
appears to be a huge public outcry for a national law to
stop spam.


While industry groups and consumer advocates may disagree
over what kind of legislative solution would be most
effective, both sides have called on Congress to pass strong
anti-spam legislation this year.


"There is substantial momentum behind this," said DMA
spokesman Louis Mastria.


AOL estimates that spam now accounts for 60 to 80 percent of
all mail coming to its members, and is costing U.S.
businesses in excess of $10 billion annually.

             Industry Pushing for New Protections



While industry groups are generally pleased with CAN-SPAM
and RID Spam, they are seeking changes that would protect
legitimate marketers from abusive lawsuits and make it
easier for them to be distinguished from bad actors.


The Senate bill contains an affirmative defense for
marketers that are taken to court, but the House legislation
does not have a comparable provision, according to Hughes.
Otherwise, he saw only "technical" differences at this point
between CAN-SPAM and RID Spam.


"We're working right now with other industry groups to try
and reconcile those," Hughes said.


An affirmative defense would help to ensure that a new
federal anti-spam law is not used to go after legitimate
companies that are caught in a "gotcha" situation, Hughes
added.


"The concept there is that companies that create robust
programs and do what they can in good faith to comply with
the law would not be targets of abusive enforcement," he
said. "We should be targeting enforcement against the worst
actors."


Hughes said marketers are pushing to have an affirmative
defense added to the House bill. They would also like a
"safe harbor" provision, similar to one proposed by
Microsoft Corp., added to both bills. Under that proposal,
companies could be certified to send marketing messages by
agreeing to adopt best practices. The FTC would approve the
list of certified companies, but would have no oversight
authority, Hughes said.


One congressional source told BNA that a safe harbor
provision would make CAN-SPAM and RID Spam even more
unpopular with consumer advocates, who are already strongly
opposed to the bills.


Microsoft policy analyst Bill Ashworth said his company's
safe harbor proposal has not been included in any draft
bills he has seen, "but we're still trying to convince
people that it's a good way to differentiate between the
good guys and bad guys."


"I think people support the idea in principle," Ashworth
said. "The challenge is: how do we translate it into
effective legislation?"


Microsoft is pushing for legislation containing, among other
things, strong enforcement provisions, best practices, and
strong prohibitions against fraud and deception, Ashworth
said. However, the technology giant has not yet endorsed any
particular bills.

                FTC Weighs in With Suggestions



The Federal Trade Commission has also avoided backing
specific anti-spam bills, but the agency has asked Congress
for new powers to fight spam, including the ability to write
rules under a revised Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and
Abuse Prevention Act.


During June 11 testimony before a House Energy and Commerce
subcommittee, FTC officials said that new rulemaking
authority "would set out bright lines between acceptable and
unacceptable practices for the business community." Similar
comments were made the same day before a subcommittee of the
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.


While the commission has some authority to fight spam under
the FTC Act, the agency told lawmakers that additional law
enforcement tools "would make more explicit the boundaries
of legal and illegal conduct, and they could enhance the
sanctions that the agency can impose on violators."


According to the commission, examples of deceptive or
abusive practices under the amended TCFAPA might include:

Following the hearings, Tauzin said in a statement that he
looked forward to working with the FTC to "refine and
improve" RID Spam.


"Since H.R. 2214 does not supersede the FTC's authority to
enforce against spam under its unfair and deceptive trade
practices authority, it should be a nice supplement to the
commission's existing authority," Tauzin said. "In fact,
H.R. 2214 may go even further than the FTC proposal as it
allows consumers the opportunity to opt out of all
commercial e-mail, not just unsolicited commercial e-mail."

                 State Preemption a Problem?



So far, consumer advocates and state attorneys general have
been the most outspoken opponents of CAN-SPAM and RID Spam.
States say the bills would preempt their own anti-spam laws,
which in some cases provide stronger protections for
consumers.


"Both bills prohibit the sending of spam to people who have
opted out, but contain no private right of action [for
individuals]," said Paula Selis, senior counsel, Washington
State Attorney General's Office, in an interview with BNA.
"The consumer who is hurt has no remedy."


According to the National Council of State Legislatures,
there are 33 anti-spam laws at the state level with varying
requirements and penalties.


Marketers say this has created a crazy quilt of anti-spam
legislation. "It's almost impossible to advise a client on
how to comply with these laws," said Steve Richter, general
counsel for the Email Marketing Association.


Marketers say they are also opposed to a private right of
action for individuals, because it would result in a flood
of litigation. "Consumers and plaintiffs' attorneys have
limited resources," Hughes said. "As they're looking for
targets, they're not going to spend resources to go after
spammers. They're going to go after legitimate businesses
that are trying to do the right thing."


As an example, Hughes pointed to a two-year-old anti-spam
statute in Utah, which has been used by a single law firm to
file about 1,000 cases on behalf of private citizen.


"The law is simply creating litigation that is lining the
pockets of plaintiffs attorneys in Utah," Hughes said.


Selis told BNA the state of Washington would be open to a
federal statute that preempts state laws, as long as it has
strong consumer provisions.

                  'Opt-In' Versus 'Opt-Out.'



Consumer advocacy groups are not only calling for a private
right of action for individuals, but also for an "opt-in"
provision, which would effectively ban unsolicited e-mail.


In a May 22 letter to leading congressional committees, a
coalition of privacy, anti-spam, and consumer groups said
that opt-in was vital to curbing spam. "Any law that defines
acceptable criteria for sending unsolicited bulk commercial
e-mail will amount to little more than establishing the
conditions for a federal license to spam," the letter said.


But marketing companies argue that opt-in would be
impractical. "Opt-in assumes that every consumer knows every
conceivable new product that exists," said Mastria.
"Advertising provides a vital role in terms of educating
consumers. How can you do that in an opt-in environment? You
can't."


Selis said that opt-in would be ideal, but she doubted that
it would be included in federal legislation.


"I think there's enough industry concern that that would be
a tough sell," she said.

             Schumer Bill Offers Tougher Approach



John Mozena, co-founder and vice president of the Coalition
Against Unsolicited Commercial Email, told BNA his
organization has been pushing for several years for a
federal anti-spam law with both opt-in and a private right
of action for individuals. However, he doubted that such
legislation will be passed any time soon.


So far, a bill introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
comes closest to the kind of legislation that CAUCE is
seeking, according to Mozena.


That bill (S.1231) would create a national "do-not-spam"
registry, tough criminal and civil penalties, and a private
right of action for individuals.


"This certainly isn't a perfect bill, but it shows more
concern for the plight of consumers when it comes to spam
than most of the bills out there right now," Mozena said.


The "do-not-spam" registry would be modeled after the
"do-not-call" list that is being implemented by the FTC.
Commercial e-mailers would have to consult the "do-not-spam"
list before sending mass e-mail messages.


Mozena said Schumer has agreed to honor a CAUCE request to
make it clear that entire domains can be included in the
registry. For example, General Motors would be able to tell
the FTC that it does not want any of its employees to
receive spam, Mozena said. Schumer also plans to get as much
of the bill's provisions added to the CAN-SPAM Act during
mark-up, he said.

                       Privacy Concerns



Privacy groups have raised concerns about security issues
associated with implementing the "do-not-spam" list, and at
least one FTC commissioner has said that the agency does not
have the resources to take on such a project.


Schumer's office did not return calls for comment.


Other anti-spam bills have been introduced by Sen. Bill
Nelson (D-Fl.) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) .


Nelson's bill (S. 1052) would make spamming illegal under
existing federal racketeering legislation. Lofgren's bill
(H.R. 1933) would provide a bounty to individuals who help
law enforcement agencies to catch spammers.


Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) plans to introduce legislation
that would modify the definition of commercial e-mail and
enforcement standards contained in RID Spam, a spokesman
said. The bill is expected to be introduced during the week
of June 16, he said.


For the full text of the RID SPAM Act, go to:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.2214:. For
the full text of the CAN-SPAM Act, go to:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:4:./temp/~c108hJ7UdU::
.


For a list of states that have passed anti-spam laws, go to:
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/legislation/spamlaws02.htm


For testimony submitted to Congress by the FTC, go to:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/06/reauthorization.htm. For more
on the FTC's three-day spam forum, go to:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/spam/index.html.


For more on Microsoft's legislative proposal, go to:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/misc/billgspam05-21-03.asp
.


For comments by consumer advocates on anti-spam legislation,
go to: http://www.cauce.org/pressreleases/20030522.shtml.
(Embedded image moved to file: pic19069.gif)



By Alexei Alexis

Copyright © 2003 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.,
Washington D.C.

BBC News

Monday J9 June, 2003

BT tackles spam blacklist
BTopenworld has responded to being put on a spam blacklist by
tweaking its servers in a move it hopes will pacify angry users and
the people behind the blacklist.
Blacklist services are becoming more common as a way of avoiding or
significantly reducing spam.

Internet Service Providers, (ISPs), that have signed up to the
Distributed Server Boycott List do not receive mail from servers
that the group deems to be misconfigured, insecure or abuseable.

Embarrassingly for BT it is included on the list meaning that a
small proportion of its business customers find that e-mails sent to
certain ISPs bounce back.

Exaggerating glitches

Now BT has put a fix in place that should resolve the problem
uncovered by the DSBL, although it is not convinced that it will be
removed from the blacklist.

A BTopenworld spokesman said that the company was having problems
communicating with the blacklist authors.

"Such groups have good intentions but can create problems for ISPs
and customers that are exaggerated well beyond the nature of the
glitch they have uncovered," he added.

Nick Truman is Head of Customer Security for BTopenworld.

He said BT had been unfairly targeted by DSBL and that the group
would have had to "seriously reconfigure their e-mail service" in
order to find the spam vulnerability.

In common with other ISPs, around 40% of e-mail passing through
BTopenworld's system is thought to be spam.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/2970028.stm

BT blocked by spam blacklist
"Dangerously misconfigured, insecure or abuseable servers" the cause
of the
problem...

Despite maintaining a strong anti-spam stance BT has been rocked by
allegations
that its own servers are "dangerously misconfigured, insecure or
abuseable" and are
exposing email users to the threat of increased levels of unsolicited
mail.

A number of BT customers attempting to email friends and colleagues
have been
perplexed by their emails bouncing back with a delivery error message
but a note on
one spam blacklisting site, the Distributed Server Boycott List
(DSBL.org), explains
why this is happening.

"The person who runs the mail server at that address has chosen to
refuse email from
dangerously misconfigured, insecure, or abuseable servers based on a
list that we
publish. They most likely did this because blocking mail that
originates from servers
in our list can significantly reduce the amount of spam that users of
their mail server
receive."

The problem occurs whenever somebody attempts to email a server which
references
the DSBL blacklist in its anti-spam configuration.

Kevin Fiske, one BT customer who experienced the annoyance of the
blacklisting
first-hand, found he was unable to email a variety of servers from
any address within
his company.

Fiske said: "This has been going on for about a year now and it is an
extreme irritant.
It has caused us great embarrassment, particularly with one major
client who saw the
error notification and assumed we must be blacklisted because we have
been
spamming people, which obviously isn't the case."

"Email is vital to our business," he added. "We would be completely
lost without it as
the number of times we go on site to visit people has fallen. People
now expect to do
business electronically but while we continue to see several mails
bounce back each
week, we are basically stuffed until BT sorts out the problem and
gets itself removed
from the blacklist."

A spokesman for BT Openworld today confirmed the problem.

"We understand that we have been blacklisted by the Distributed
Server Boycott List
(DSBL) due to their concerns about a perceived configuration error of
BT Connect's
mail servers," he said.

"This has resulted in BT Connect's servers currently being blocked by
the DSBL
blacklists. We do not believe there are any problems with the
configuration of the BT
Connect mail servers as shown by the fact that they have not been
included on any
other blacklists. This seems to be a unilateral stance taken by DSBL
and we are
liaising with DSBL and the ISPs that utilise their blacklist in an
attempt to resolve the
issue to minimise inconvenience to customers."

A particularly ironic twist in the tale means that Fiske is even
unable to report
genuine spammers because of this problem.

"In the richest of rich ironies, BT's failure leaves us unable to
even report spam that
we receive to spamabuse.org because it too uses DSBL as a reference,"
he said.

Fiske has also been angered by announcements from within BT about its
stance on
the problem of spam.

"For Duncan Ingram [MD of BT Openworld] to express 'astonishment' at
the level of
spam is cant of the highest order," he said.

"Ingram's company actually contributes to spamming because it
consistently fails to
operate its mail servers in a way that prevents relaying."

Another BT customer, Stephen Fleming, told silicon.com the biggest
concern with this
blacklisting is that contacts or business associates may assume the
blacklisting is
evidence the BT customers are the ones guilty of spamming.
"Fortunately I've not had
that kind of response yet but it is definitely a real fear," he said.
"We never spam."

Fleming added: "I was underwhelmed by BT's response and I'm now
looking for
alternatives. I'm not a very happy customer."

Will Sturgeon

The filtering and permissions are done at the work station level, not at
the server level, but I agree that there's still work to be done.

Still, blackhole lists just aren't hacking it (no pun intended). They do
a pretty credible job of blocking spam, but an abominable job by
blocking legitimate email.

Take a service like Microsoft's bCentral which is on several blackhole
lists. Thousands of people use this service legitimately for newsletters
and other opt-in lists, but even Microsoft will admit that the service
is occasionally used for spam, mainly by nonprofessional "spammers"
who've bought some mailing lists. Well over 99% of accounts using this
service are legitimate, but it remains blacklisted.

When 100% of emails from a service are blocked and 99% of them are
legitimate, that's a pretty inefficient system.



-----Original Message-----
From: Armando WarpKat Ortiz [mailto:warpkat@...]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 8:04 PM
To: iiaavu@...
Cc: warpkat@...; coach@...;
i_did_not_get_my_email@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [i_did_not_get_my_email] Critics set up anti-SPEWS Web site

> The Bayesian filtering theory is good for short term, but as email
upon
> email is received and the Bayesian, as I understand it, does its work,
word
> statistics go up and will be a very big problem as legitimate email
gets
> blocked out because words matched what IT "thinks" is "spam" when the
email
> itself could be a very long newsletter containing the very same words
at the
> top of the Bayesian "spam identifier list."
>
> =============================
>
> When an email from a legitimate sender does inadvertently get blocked,
then
> you add that address to the "permitted" list. Unless you routinely get
> emails from thousands of people, that's not much work.

Then this approach would only work for individuals who run their own
mail
servers and not any decently sized company.  Administering mail alone is
a
tough job as it is without having to sift through everybody's email to
figure
out what is and what isn't spam.  That's unsettling in terms of privacy
to the
employee despite what any company has pertaining to such policy.

As per our policies, I won't look at our employee's emails without their
knowledge and only when there are problems with communication between
our mail
server and another mail server where an SBL has absolutely no
intervention at
all.

You can only automate so much where the automation will just simply
cease to
do anything it was intended for.

Bayesian methods need to grow up more and more testing needs to be done
before
it can be widely implemented.

Personally, I see challenge response doing a much better job than
Bayesian
implementations.

Please don't take my comments as an aversion on admins...God knows, you
guys have a tough enough job. Our IT department fights this battle
daily. The filters currently being used have three levels. We recently
went to the most stringent, Level 3, and it squished 99%+ of our spam.
It was wonderful!

However, we found that it blocked quite a few legitimate emails. And,
when your very top customers can't get through to you, boy do you hear
about it! So, we went back to Level 2 and we're constantly straining
spam on an organization wide basis. If you multiply the time per person
annually, it's a tremendous drain on resources.

But I don't think anyone in our organization blames our IT folks for
this (we have better stuff to blame them for :-)...we know they're
fighting an uphill battle.

I guess our best hope is that, within another year or so, everyone will
own a p*n*s enlargement device, which will cut spam by at least 20% when
no more sales are made.  :-)



-----Original Message-----
From: chales@... [mailto:chales@...]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 11:47 PM
To: Bill Wilson; i_did_not_get_my_email@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [i_did_not_get_my_email] Critics set up anti-SPEWS Web site

     I'm going to take a purist standpoint... something I rarely do, but
hear
me out, as I do justify my position.
     Spam has been compared to a disease many times before, being called
an
epidemic for example is not uncommon.  Well, what if we treated real
diseases like we're treating the spam problem?  Blacklists and filters
are
medications, not to treat the disease, (spammers themselves) but rather
to
treat the symptoms. (spam appearing in inboxes)  So we're treating a
disease
that's getting progressively worse by applying stronger medications to
mask
the symptoms.  That's all.  Filters and blacklists just hide the problem
from you by trying to make sure you don't receive the junk.
     Doctors don't treat patients this way (or shouldn't, but they have)
because it's counter productive.  If your body (the internet) cannot
fight
the disease, you have to give it help.  Spam isn't really a technical
issue,
because the protocols are there to allow easy mail delivery... it's a
social
one of people using those trusting mechanisms for their own personal
gains.
The internet itself has no facility to combat social problems... we're
techies, not social scientists.
     You're saying we should all use bayesian filters, (the next best
medication) because they work better than content filters, spam
databases
and blacklists. (the previous medications)  Guess what, the new
medication
has side effects... it makes mail incredibly slow, or even bounces mail
(because of the processing required) if done on the server side, or
sometimes your mail will bounce because you didn't use the filter often
enough (from the client side) to keep your mailbox from filling up with
spam.  It is stronger medicine, with everything that goes along with
that,
and the side effects are too alarming for most admins, so they stick
with
what works reasonably well, but doesn't cause the horrible side effects.
     Spews is strong medicine compared with the SBL, relay and proxy
lists
have virtually no side effects, but block a relatively small % of spam.
When are the side effects worth the stronger medicine?  When the problem
gets bad enough... but wouldn't it be better just to go after the bug
causing the disease and stop taking all those medications?  That way you
wouldn't have the side effects anymore.
     This is my basic philosophy for why attacking the methods admins use
is
misguided.  You're getting mad because of the side effects of a medicine
being used to control the symptoms of a problem while admins everywhere
are
waiting for a cure.  It's like blaming the pharmacutical companies
making
the HIV cocktail which keeps the virus under control, because the
cocktail
has side effects, and isn't preventing the spread of HIV.
     Do you understand why I'm confused as to people's hostile attitudes
toward admins?  Sysadmins are (generally)experts in the field of
internet
connected systems.  We do everything in our powers to keep your internet
experience operating... and get told daily by people who don't really
understand the scope of the problem that we're not doing enough, and why
don't you do this instead...  It's been tried... if it worked and was
feisable, it would already be implemented very widely.  For now, if you
think bayesian filters work great, use them, but don't expect that
everyone
will, and especially not server admins, because it's just too costly for
most companies (even AOL!) to use them on the server side.
     I'd love a miracle cure for SPAM, but I'd also love one for HIV,
Cancer,
Telemarketers, Parkinsons disease, etc... the cures are NEVER immediate
in
coming, so please don't blame those who are basically just doing there
best
to hold the fort until the answer arrives.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Wilson" <iiaavu@...>
To: "'Armando WarpKat Ortiz'" <warpkat@...>
Cc: <coach@...>; <i_did_not_get_my_email@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 7:27 PM
Subject: RE: [i_did_not_get_my_email] Critics set up anti-SPEWS Web site


> I'm not suggesting that at all AND I'm not "whining." There are much
> more effective ways to block spam than server filtering and blackhole
> lists. Check out this article, particularly the Bayesian filters
> advocated by Paul Graham...they work right now and they "learn" how to
> be more and more effective:
>
>           http://vu.iiaa.net/Lib/Tec/TI/Email/WilsonSpamCure.htm
>
> At least that's my opinion and I could be wrong.
>
> - Bill
>
> P.S.  But we all know that the glut of spam won't subside until people
> stop patronizing the products and services being hawked by these
folks.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Armando WarpKat Ortiz [mailto:warpkat@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 11:20 AM
> To: iiaavu@...
> Cc: coach@...; i_did_not_get_my_email@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [i_did_not_get_my_email] Critics set up anti-SPEWS Web
site
>
> Then what do you suggest?  That we ignore the problem?  I applaud the
> efforts of SBL lists only because the people that operate them
actually
> TRY to address the problem rather than whine about it.
>
> If marketers had any clue about HOW to market to begin with without
> resorting to guerilla marketing and bulk email that clogs inboxes,
we'd
> be in a better position to say that they weren't needed, however,
since
> marketers only think of $$$, well, then this blows the whole arguement
> away that email is going to hell because of the SBL, now doesn't it?
>
> > Blackhole lists are a barbaric, biased, mistake-prone, and
inefficient
> way
> > to control spam. Worse.they too often hurt the innocent.
> >
> > Bill Wilson, CPCU, ARM, AIM, AAM
> > Director
> > IIABA's Virtual University
> >  <http://vu.iiaa.net> http://vu.iiaa.net
> >
> > Be sure to subscribe to our FREE bi-weekly email newsletter. Over
> 12,000
> > subscribers can't be wrong!
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lisa Micklin [mailto:coach@...]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 6:10 PM
> > To: i_did_not_get_my_email@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [i_did_not_get_my_email] Critics set up anti-SPEWS Web
> site
> >
> > thanks justin for posting this....
> > i just had my ip blacklisted by spews.org, cuz of a spammer on the
> same ip
> > block.  i now have to move my entire server, assign new ips, change
> name
> > servers, and inform my thousands of users of potential down time
while
> all
> > of this is happening.
> >
> > lovely, eh?
> >
> > lisa micklin
> > www.ezezine.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
> >
> >
>
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.4537139.1512248/D=egroupweb/S=1706
> >
>
093564:HM/A=1564416/R=0/*http:/www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60164797&par
> > tid=3170658>
> >
> >
> >
>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=251812.3170658.4537139.1512248/D=egrou
> > pmail/S=:HM/A=1564416/rand=906457647>
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > i_did_not_get_my_email-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> i_did_not_get_my_email-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

> The Bayesian filtering theory is good for short term, but as email upon
> email is received and the Bayesian, as I understand it, does its work, word
> statistics go up and will be a very big problem as legitimate email gets
> blocked out because words matched what IT "thinks" is "spam" when the email
> itself could be a very long newsletter containing the very same words at the
> top of the Bayesian "spam identifier list."
>
> =============================
>
> When an email from a legitimate sender does inadvertently get blocked, then
> you add that address to the "permitted" list. Unless you routinely get
> emails from thousands of people, that's not much work.

Then this approach would only work for individuals who run their own mail
servers and not any decently sized company.  Administering mail alone is a
tough job as it is without having to sift through everybody's email to figure
out what is and what isn't spam.  That's unsettling in terms of privacy to the
employee despite what any company has pertaining to such policy.

As per our policies, I won't look at our employee's emails without their
knowledge and only when there are problems with communication between our mail
server and another mail server where an SBL has absolutely no intervention at
all.

You can only automate so much where the automation will just simply cease to
do anything it was intended for.

Bayesian methods need to grow up more and more testing needs to be done before
it can be widely implemented.

Personally, I see challenge response doing a much better job than Bayesian
implementations.

I'm going to take a purist standpoint... something I rarely do, but hear
me out, as I do justify my position.
     Spam has been compared to a disease many times before, being called an
epidemic for example is not uncommon.  Well, what if we treated real
diseases like we're treating the spam problem?  Blacklists and filters are
medications, not to treat the disease, (spammers themselves) but rather to
treat the symptoms. (spam appearing in inboxes)  So we're treating a disease
that's getting progressively worse by applying stronger medications to mask
the symptoms.  That's all.  Filters and blacklists just hide the problem
from you by trying to make sure you don't receive the junk.
     Doctors don't treat patients this way (or shouldn't, but they have)
because it's counter productive.  If your body (the internet) cannot fight
the disease, you have to give it help.  Spam isn't really a technical issue,
because the protocols are there to allow easy mail delivery... it's a social
one of people using those trusting mechanisms for their own personal gains.
The internet itself has no facility to combat social problems... we're
techies, not social scientists.
     You're saying we should all use bayesian filters, (the next best
medication) because they work better than content filters, spam databases
and blacklists. (the previous medications)  Guess what, the new medication
has side effects... it makes mail incredibly slow, or even bounces mail
(because of the processing required) if done on the server side, or
sometimes your mail will bounce because you didn't use the filter often
enough (from the client side) to keep your mailbox from filling up with
spam.  It is stronger medicine, with everything that goes along with that,
and the side effects are too alarming for most admins, so they stick with
what works reasonably well, but doesn't cause the horrible side effects.
     Spews is strong medicine compared with the SBL, relay and proxy lists
have virtually no side effects, but block a relatively small % of spam.
When are the side effects worth the stronger medicine?  When the problem
gets bad enough... but wouldn't it be better just to go after the bug
causing the disease and stop taking all those medications?  That way you
wouldn't have the side effects anymore.
     This is my basic philosophy for why attacking the methods admins use is
misguided.  You're getting mad because of the side effects of a medicine
being used to control the symptoms of a problem while admins everywhere are
waiting for a cure.  It's like blaming the pharmacutical companies making
the HIV cocktail which keeps the virus under control, because the cocktail
has side effects, and isn't preventing the spread of HIV.
     Do you understand why I'm confused as to people's hostile attitudes
toward admins?  Sysadmins are (generally)experts in the field of internet
connected systems.  We do everything in our powers to keep your internet
experience operating... and get told daily by people who don't really
understand the scope of the problem that we're not doing enough, and why
don't you do this instead...  It's been tried... if it worked and was
feisable, it would already be implemented very widely.  For now, if you
think bayesian filters work great, use them, but don't expect that everyone
will, and especially not server admins, because it's just too costly for
most companies (even AOL!) to use them on the server side.
     I'd love a miracle cure for SPAM, but I'd also love one for HIV, Cancer,
Telemarketers, Parkinsons disease, etc... the cures are NEVER immediate in
coming, so please don't blame those who are basically just doing there best
to hold the fort until the answer arrives.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Wilson" <iiaavu@...>
To: "'Armando WarpKat Ortiz'" <warpkat@...>
Cc: <coach@...>; <i_did_not_get_my_email@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 7:27 PM
Subject: RE: [i_did_not_get_my_email] Critics set up anti-SPEWS Web site


> I'm not suggesting that at all AND I'm not "whining." There are much
> more effective ways to block spam than server filtering and blackhole
> lists. Check out this article, particularly the Bayesian filters
> advocated by Paul Graham...they work right now and they "learn" how to
> be more and more effective:
>
>           http://vu.iiaa.net/Lib/Tec/TI/Email/WilsonSpamCure.htm
>
> At least that's my opinion and I could be wrong.
>
> - Bill
>
> P.S.  But we all know that the glut of spam won't subside until people
> stop patronizing the products and services being hawked by these folks.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Armando WarpKat Ortiz [mailto:warpkat@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 11:20 AM
> To: iiaavu@...
> Cc: coach@...; i_did_not_get_my_email@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [i_did_not_get_my_email] Critics set up anti-SPEWS Web site
>
> Then what do you suggest?  That we ignore the problem?  I applaud the
> efforts of SBL lists only because the people that operate them actually
> TRY to address the problem rather than whine about it.
>
> If marketers had any clue about HOW to market to begin with without
> resorting to guerilla marketing and bulk email that clogs inboxes, we'd
> be in a better position to say that they weren't needed, however, since
> marketers only think of $$$, well, then this blows the whole arguement
> away that email is going to hell because of the SBL, now doesn't it?
>
> > Blackhole lists are a barbaric, biased, mistake-prone, and inefficient
> way
> > to control spam. Worse.they too often hurt the innocent.
> >
> > Bill Wilson, CPCU, ARM, AIM, AAM
> > Director
> > IIABA's Virtual University
> >  <http://vu.iiaa.net> http://vu.iiaa.net
> >
> > Be sure to subscribe to our FREE bi-weekly email newsletter. Over
> 12,000
> > subscribers can't be wrong!
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lisa Micklin [mailto:coach@...]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 6:10 PM
> > To: i_did_not_get_my_email@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [i_did_not_get_my_email] Critics set up anti-SPEWS Web
> site
> >
> > thanks justin for posting this....
> > i just had my ip blacklisted by spews.org, cuz of a spammer on the
> same ip
> > block.  i now have to move my entire server, assign new ips, change
> name
> > servers, and inform my thousands of users of potential down time while
> all
> > of this is happening.
> >
> > lovely, eh?
> >
> > lisa micklin
> > www.ezezine.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
> >
> >
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.4537139.1512248/D=egroupweb/S=1706
> >
> 093564:HM/A=1564416/R=0/*http:/www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60164797&par
> > tid=3170658>
> >
> >
> >
> <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=251812.3170658.4537139.1512248/D=egrou
> > pmail/S=:HM/A=1564416/rand=906457647>
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > i_did_not_get_my_email-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> i_did_not_get_my_email-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

I'm not suggesting that at all AND I'm not "whining." There are much
more effective ways to block spam than server filtering and blackhole
lists. Check out this article, particularly the Bayesian filters
advocated by Paul Graham...they work right now and they "learn" how to
be more and more effective:

           http://vu.iiaa.net/Lib/Tec/TI/Email/WilsonSpamCure.htm

At least that's my opinion and I could be wrong.

- Bill

P.S.  But we all know that the glut of spam won't subside until people
stop patronizing the products and services being hawked by these folks.



-----Original Message-----
From: Armando WarpKat Ortiz [mailto:warpkat@...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 11:20 AM
To: iiaavu@...
Cc: coach@...; i_did_not_get_my_email@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [i_did_not_get_my_email] Critics set up anti-SPEWS Web site

Then what do you suggest?  That we ignore the problem?  I applaud the
efforts of SBL lists only because the people that operate them actually
TRY to address the problem rather than whine about it.

If marketers had any clue about HOW to market to begin with without
resorting to guerilla marketing and bulk email that clogs inboxes, we'd
be in a better position to say that they weren't needed, however, since
marketers only think of $$$, well, then this blows the whole arguement
away that email is going to hell because of the SBL, now doesn't it?

> Blackhole lists are a barbaric, biased, mistake-prone, and inefficient
way
> to control spam. Worse.they too often hurt the innocent.
>
> Bill Wilson, CPCU, ARM, AIM, AAM
> Director
> IIABA's Virtual University
>  <http://vu.iiaa.net> http://vu.iiaa.net
>
> Be sure to subscribe to our FREE bi-weekly email newsletter. Over
12,000
> subscribers can't be wrong!
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lisa Micklin [mailto:coach@...]
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 6:10 PM
> To: i_did_not_get_my_email@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [i_did_not_get_my_email] Critics set up anti-SPEWS Web
site
>
> thanks justin for posting this....
> i just had my ip blacklisted by spews.org, cuz of a spammer on the
same ip
> block.  i now have to move my entire server, assign new ips, change
name
> servers, and inform my thousands of users of potential down time while
all
> of this is happening.
>
> lovely, eh?
>
> lisa micklin
> www.ezezine.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.4537139.1512248/D=egroupweb/S=1706
>
093564:HM/A=1564416/R=0/*http:/www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60164797&par
> tid=3170658>
>
>
>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=251812.3170658.4537139.1512248/D=egrou
> pmail/S=:HM/A=1564416/rand=906457647>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> i_did_not_get_my_email-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.