🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3A4997AD.B58ACAD5@spamcop.net>, Mike Blackford <mblackford@spamcop.net> writes:
>After about 6 months using a new centralized mail server configuration,
>Excite@Home has been blacklisted by ORBS on 9 of the 10.  (Typical SN@FU,
>IMHO.)

FWIW, There was a thread here about folks on @home receiving SPAM a short
while back.  I don't know about on-the-inside but on-the-outside, I have
had to add <*@*home.com> to the rejection filter of my anti-SPAM software.
I was getting upwards of a dozen, sometimes more, SPAM coming in with the
@home.com in the header as origin.  I checked out several @home servers
and they all had SMTP relay holes which allowed them to be exploited by
SPAMmers. 

I'm not a fan of ORBS; however, @home does need to address their vulner-
abilities in their servers.

--
VAXman- OpenVMS APE certification number: AAA-0001     VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
           
city, n., 1. a place where trees are cut down and streets are named after them.

[POSTED TO ba.internet; PLEASE REPLY THERE]

In <3A4997AD.B58ACAD5@spamcop.net>, Mike Blackford
<mblackford@spamcop.net> wrote:

>After about 6 months using a new centralized mail server configuration,
>Excite@Home has been blacklisted by ORBS on 9 of the 10.  (Typical SN@FU,
>IMHO.)

Typical ORBS nonsense, IMHO.

-- 
Best regards,
John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
ORBS   n.  Internet vigilantes that try to coerce ISP's into complying
with the ORBS agenda by intentionally punishing innocent victims.
Over 90% of ORBS-listed hosts haven't been shown to be sources of spam.

In article <009F5366.08826FEA@sendspamhere.org>,
	system@SendSpamHere.ORG (Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-) writes:
> In article <3A4997AD.B58ACAD5@spamcop.net>, Mike Blackford <mblackford@spamcop.net> writes:
>>After about 6 months using a new centralized mail server configuration,
>>Excite@Home has been blacklisted by ORBS on 9 of the 10.  (Typical SN@FU,
>>IMHO.)
> 
> FWIW, There was a thread here about folks on @home receiving SPAM a short
> while back.  I don't know about on-the-inside but on-the-outside, I have
> had to add <*@*home.com> to the rejection filter of my anti-SPAM software.
> I was getting upwards of a dozen, sometimes more, SPAM coming in with the
> @home.com in the header as origin.  I checked out several @home servers
> and they all had SMTP relay holes which allowed them to be exploited by
> SPAMmers. 
> 
> I'm not a fan of ORBS; however, @home does need to address their vulner-
> abilities in their servers.

90% (maybe more) of the mail I get form the @home servers is spam.  
I rarely get any from my DSL connected ISP.

Paul
-- 
The lotto must be rigged, I should have won by now.
Modular furniture is cruel and unusual.

In article <31q26.6597$W76.112666@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas  <spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
>Typical ORBS nonsense, IMHO.


John,

What is nonsense about this?  Should people who use @home email servers be
concerned?

Thanks,
-Giles

In article <K0s26.6731$Sl.349652@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
Harney <gharney@clark.net> wrote:
>In article <31q26.6597$W76.112666@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>John Navas  <spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
>>Typical ORBS nonsense, IMHO.
>
>What is nonsense about this?  Should people who use @home email servers be
>concerned?

Alright John, please pick an X, where X is the size of this next flame
war.  8000?  1000?  3?  :-)

To the original poster, please see .*ORBS.* on ba.internet on
www.deja.com, surely you can find a 8000+ message thread that explains
this in more detail that you can stand.

I'll resist the temptation.

On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 01:20:59 GMT, Mike Stump <mrs@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <K0s26.6731$Sl.349652@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
>Harney <gharney@clark.net> wrote:
>>In article <31q26.6597$W76.112666@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>>John Navas  <spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
>>>Typical ORBS nonsense, IMHO.
>>
>>What is nonsense about this?  Should people who use @home email servers be
>>concerned?

Absolutely...see www.orbs.org...orbs claims that blocking legitimate email
is ok if a site is on their shit-list.  Also claims that people who hate
spam will not be upset about lost legitimate email and implies it also
will apply to important or "unportmant" email.

ORBS claims lost email is not their problem but the problem of sites on
the orbs shit-list.  The gun dealers are not guilty of anything so stop
harrassing them.

>
>Alright John, please pick an X, where X is the size of this next flame
>war.  8000?  1000?  3?  :-)
>
>To the original poster, please see .*ORBS.* on ba.internet on
>www.deja.com, surely you can find a 8000+ message thread that explains
>this in more detail that you can stand.
>
>I'll resist the temptation.

All one need to do is to look at the www.orbs.org for their claims and
faq; the ORBS claims of being "innocent" regarding people's lost email
is the same type of claim as gun dealers, liquor dealers, bars, and
even tobacco companies have used.  If ORBS is really "innocent", then
narcotic suppliers are also innocent since the narcotics is just supplied
and it is up to the purchaser etc....

123 wrote:
> 
> According to AT&T @Home tech support, the alias of the San
> Francisco Bay Area @Home mail server is mail.rdc1.sfba.home.com
> and the IP address is 24.0.0.70; that server is listed  by ORBS
> as having been checked and found to be OK.

 12/27/00 22:36:56 dns mail               <<<----------"mail"
 Canonical name: femail.sdc1.sfba.home.com
 Aliases:
   mail.stcla1.sfba.home.com
 Addresses:
   24.0.95.82
   24.0.95.83
   24.0.95.84
   24.0.95.85
   24.0.95.86
   24.0.95.87
   24.0.95.88
   24.0.95.89
   24.0.95.106
   24.0.95.81

 12/27/00 22:38:59 dns mail.rdc1.sfba.home.com
 Canonical name: lh1.rdc1.sfba.home.com
 Aliases:
   mail.rdc1.sfba.home.com
 Addresses:
   24.0.0.70

-- 
 "There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and
narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of
the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion."  - (Lord Acton)
Zvxr Oynpxsbeq       Fvyvpba Inyyrl, Pnyvsbeavn      zvxr@oynpxsbeq.pbz

123 wrote:
> 
> According to AT&T @Home tech support, the alias of the San
> Francisco Bay Area @Home mail server is mail.rdc1.sfba.home.com
> and the IP address is 24.0.0.70; that server is listed  by ORBS
> as having been checked and found to be OK.

 12/27/00 22:36:56 dns mail               <<<----------"mail"
 Canonical name: femail.sdc1.sfba.home.com
 Aliases:
   mail.stcla1.sfba.home.com
 Addresses:
   24.0.95.82
   24.0.95.83
   24.0.95.84
   24.0.95.85
   24.0.95.86
   24.0.95.87
   24.0.95.88
   24.0.95.89
   24.0.95.106
   24.0.95.81

 12/27/00 22:38:59 dns mail.rdc1.sfba.home.com
 Canonical name: lh1.rdc1.sfba.home.com
 Aliases:
   mail.rdc1.sfba.home.com
 Addresses:
   24.0.0.70

24.0.0.70 is also the DHCP server in this region.  It's no longer the mail
server. @Home has been switching most subscribers over to their
centralized "mail farm".

-- 
 "There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and
narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of
the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion."  - (Lord Acton)
Zvxr Oynpxsbeq       Fvyvpba Inyyrl, Pnyvsbeavn      zvxr@oynpxsbeq.pbz

[POSTED TO ba.internet; PLEASE REPLY THERE]

In <K0s26.6731$Sl.349652@iad-read.news.verio.net>, gharney@clark.net
(Harney) wrote:

>In article <31q26.6597$W76.112666@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>John Navas  <spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:

>>Typical ORBS nonsense, IMHO.

>What is nonsense about this?

ORBS blacklists mailhosts that have never been shown to be sources of
actual spam as a way to coerce ISP's into adopting the ORBS agenda,
effectively a form of terrorism.  There are a number of very large ISP's
on the ORBS list.  Fortunately the impact is usually small, because few
receiving mailhosts use ORBS.

>Should people who use @home email servers be
>concerned?

Only if they need to send mail to those unfortunate enough to be
"served" by the few ISP's that use ORBS to block mail.

-- 
Best regards,
John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
ORBS   n.  Internet vigilantes that try to coerce ISP's into complying
with the ORBS agenda by intentionally punishing innocent victims.
Over 90% of ORBS-listed hosts haven't been shown to be sources of spam.

In article <slrn94le7k.rp.plew@crane.li-po.edu>,
Paul Lew <plew@csus.edu> wrote:
>All one need to do is to look at the www.orbs.org for their claims
>and faq; the ORBS claims of being "innocent" regarding people's lost
>email is the same type of claim as gun dealers, liquor dealers, bars,
>and even tobacco companies have used.  If ORBS is really "innocent",
>then narcotic suppliers are also innocent since the narcotics is just
>supplied and it is up to the purchaser etc....

Congratulations, you seem to have figured out that MAPS and ORBS work
by the threat of blocking legitimate email.  Wow, did you figure that
out all by yourself, or did someone help you?

Most of the people that care to know, already knew this.

It is kinda like not dealing with Cuba.  You may not like it, or
support it personally, and I am sure we can agree that many people
(most people) in Cuba are innocent, but the fact remains, the US has
certain rules and laws for dealing with Cuba.  We have them to try and
change Cuba.  ORBS and MAPS are similar, we throw the baby out with
the bathwater, and exclude them.  The lists attempt to excommunicate,
if I may use that word, people that don't conform to our societies
norms.  People that offer no distinction between themselves and people
so exiled are also exiled.  We could go to extensive lengths to try
and segregate people, so that innocents are not harmed, but that goes
against what it is that is trying to be achieved.  You can argue this
is wrong, and all, but in the end, you're just out of luck.

Gun dealers try and make a society full of guns, MAPS/ORBS try and
make a society free of spam, they are each guilty of the end result of
their existence.

On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 01:49:43 GMT, Mike Stump <mrs@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn94le7k.rp.plew@crane.li-po.edu>,
>Paul Lew <plew@csus.edu> wrote:
>>All one need to do is to look at the www.orbs.org for their claims
>>and faq; the ORBS claims of being "innocent" regarding people's lost
>>email is the same type of claim as gun dealers, liquor dealers, bars,
>>and even tobacco companies have used.  If ORBS is really "innocent",
>>then narcotic suppliers are also innocent since the narcotics is just
>>supplied and it is up to the purchaser etc....
>
>Congratulations, you seem to have figured out that MAPS and ORBS work
>by the threat of blocking legitimate email.  Wow, did you figure that
>out all by yourself, or did someone help you?

That is not true as even ORBS clearly state that it is not a "threat"
but actual blocking of legitimate email occurs; the pretense that it is
a only a threat is a lie.

>
>Most of the people that care to know, already knew this.

That is a generality.  I care and only found out about ORBS recently
and feel that blocking my legitimate email means ORBS is just hacking
the Internet to make transactions unreliable.  ORBS has not publicised
their intent and purpose widely thru the news media.

>
>It is kinda like not dealing with Cuba.  You may not like it, or
>support it personally, and I am sure we can agree that many people
>(most people) in Cuba are innocent, but the fact remains, the US has
>certain rules and laws for dealing with Cuba.  We have them to try and
>change Cuba.  ORBS and MAPS are similar, we throw the baby out with
>the bathwater, and exclude them.  The lists attempt to excommunicate,
>if I may use that word, people that don't conform to our societies
>norms.  People that offer no distinction between themselves and people
>so exiled are also exiled.  We could go to extensive lengths to try
>and segregate people, so that innocents are not harmed, but that goes
>against what it is that is trying to be achieved.  You can argue this
>is wrong, and all, but in the end, you're just out of luck.

Thank you.  A reasoning for mass destruction as in letting loose a
computer virus as a "revenge" on microsoft even if many others will 
be affected since the "ends justify the means".

>
>Gun dealers try and make a society full of guns, MAPS/ORBS try and
>make a society free of spam, they are each guilty of the end result of
>their existence.

Paul Lew <plew@csus.edu> writes:
> That is a generality.  I care and only found out about ORBS recently
> and feel that blocking my legitimate email means ORBS is just hacking
> the Internet to make transactions unreliable.

You're misinformed.  ORBS doesn't block any email.  ORBS just publishes
a list.

Your complaint is with the ISPs who choose to filter out legitimate mail
from hosts that happen to be on the ORBS list.  If you don't think
that's reasonable behavior, then you should take it up with them.  And,
if their response is unsatisfactory to you, then you and your
correspondents should stop using their services.

                                        David desJardins

On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 19:47:26 -0800, 123 wrote
(in message <g42o4to09t6m24d3h83lu81cleup2155in@4ax.com>):

> On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:18:10 GMT, plew@csus.edu (Paul Lew) wrote:
> 
>> I care and only found out about ORBS recently
>> and feel that blocking my legitimate email means ORBS is just hacking
>> the Internet to make transactions unreliable.  
> 
> I care too. And I don't appreciate an organization such as ORBS
> deciding for me whether mail addressed to me should or shouldn't
> be blocked depending upon from which mail server it emanates.

For mail addressed TO you, they have no control over that. You do. As the 
receiving system you can opt or not opt to use ORBS to filter your mail.

>> ORBS has not publicised
>> their intent and purpose widely thru the news media.
> 
> That's for sure. I have been around computers and the Internet
> for a very long time, I read many different computer
> publications, and I had never heard of ORBS prior to this thread.

There is a cave, and therein reside the last eight people in all of the world 
who haven't seen this flamewar rage time and time again. ORBS exists, it 
isn't going away, many will use it, many will not. Some will agree with ORBS, 
some will disagree, many will not give a shit one way or the other. Nobody's 
opinions on this topic are really subject to change, let's all just scan the 
deja.com archives, and feel free to re-read the whole war there, where you 
can relive it in gory and graphic detail over and over to your heart's 
content, but please let's NOT fill this group with the whole sordid saga -- 
Again.

D

in article slrn94o0h6.ct.plew@crane.li-po.edu, Paul Lew  wrote:

> That is a generality.  I care and only found out about ORBS recently
> and feel that blocking my legitimate email means ORBS is just hacking
> the Internet to make transactions unreliable.

ORBS does not "hack the Internet". ORBS does not block anyone. Only ISPs
block email. If an ISP blocks your email, your complaint is with them.

> ORBS has not publicised
> their intent and purpose widely thru the news media.

The news media covers what it thinks is news. If ORBS is not covered, it is
because those in the media do not consider it worthy of coverage. No entity
is obligated to publicize "their intent and purpose widely", but ORBS'
website covers the issue rather thoroughly for those who might be
interested. 

> Thank you.  A reasoning for mass destruction as in letting loose a
> computer virus as a "revenge" on microsoft even if many others will
> be affected since the "ends justify the means".

RBLs are not viruses and they will probably not cause the end of
civilization as we know it.

Find other windmills.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
         From the Bay Area, call: 415 428-COWS

Mike Stump wrote:
> 
> ORBS and MAPS are similar, we throw the baby out with
> the bathwater, and exclude them.  The lists attempt to excommunicate,
> if I may use that word, people that don't conform to our societies
> norms.

ORBS and MAPS are _not_ similar. MAPS folks really make sure that they
list spamming networks, while ORBS blocks networks left and right simply
because those networks' maintainers object to ORBS probing. Arm twisting
a la ORBS doesn't conform to _my_ society's norms, that's for certain.
(Hi, Mike!)


Dima

On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 21:55:15 -0800, Derek Balling <dredd@megacity.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 19:47:26 -0800, 123 wrote
>(in message <g42o4to09t6m24d3h83lu81cleup2155in@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:18:10 GMT, plew@csus.edu (Paul Lew) wrote:
>> 
>>> I care and only found out about ORBS recently
>>> and feel that blocking my legitimate email means ORBS is just hacking
>>> the Internet to make transactions unreliable.  
>> 
>> I care too. And I don't appreciate an organization such as ORBS
>> deciding for me whether mail addressed to me should or shouldn't
>> be blocked depending upon from which mail server it emanates.
>
>For mail addressed TO you, they have no control over that. You do. As the 
>receiving system you can opt or not opt to use ORBS to filter your mail.
>
>>> ORBS has not publicised
>>> their intent and purpose widely thru the news media.
>> 
>> That's for sure. I have been around computers and the Internet
>> for a very long time, I read many different computer
>> publications, and I had never heard of ORBS prior to this thread.
>
>There is a cave, and therein reside the last eight people in all of the world 
>who haven't seen this flamewar rage time and time again. ORBS exists, it 
>isn't going away, many will use it, many will not. Some will agree with ORBS, 
>some will disagree, many will not give a shit one way or the other. Nobody's 
>opinions on this topic are really subject to change, let's all just scan the 
>deja.com archives, and feel free to re-read the whole war there, where you 
>can relive it in gory and graphic detail over and over to your heart's 
>content, but please let's NOT fill this group with the whole sordid saga -- 
>Again.
>
The fallacy is that not everyone who use email follow any newsgroup are
even aware of deja.com; you seem to think everyone who use computers or
email know about deja.com and that deja.com stores every msg since "day 1".

On 28 Dec 2000 20:33:12 -0800, David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Paul Lew <plew@csus.edu> writes:
>> That is a generality.  I care and only found out about ORBS recently
>> and feel that blocking my legitimate email means ORBS is just hacking
>> the Internet to make transactions unreliable.
>
>You're misinformed.  ORBS doesn't block any email.  ORBS just publishes
>a list.

ORBS supplies the "guns and ammo".  I have "lost" email as the receiver
never got them and they are with different ISPs.  ORBS just supply the
list and tells others to act.

>
>Your complaint is with the ISPs who choose to filter out legitimate mail
>from hosts that happen to be on the ORBS list.  If you don't think
>that's reasonable behavior, then you should take it up with them.  And,
>if their response is unsatisfactory to you, then you and your
>correspondents should stop using their services.
>
ORBS would need to provide me absolute proof that they didn't destroy
my email before I would believe their claims of "only supplying a list".

In article <slrn94o0h6.ct.plew@crane.li-po.edu>,
Paul Lew <plew@csus.edu> wrote:
>I care and only found out about ORBS recently
>and feel that blocking my legitimate email means ORBS is just hacking
>the Internet to make transactions unreliable.  ORBS has not publicised
>their intent and purpose widely thru the news media.

	I am certainly no fan of ORBS, but really, they're not
worth much of your attention. Few ISPs use 'em, and most of
those that do, would probably be willing to whitelist your
email address for any customer who complains about legit email
getting blocked. Worst case, you can get a free email account
somewhere for writing to people whose ISPs use ORBS. In fact,
that's probably a good idea. While ORBS is (to be kind) careless
about who they list, the odds are still that the mailer is not
well-run, if it's listed in ORBS.

	And the ORBS defenders are definitely right about one thing:
ORBS isn't blocking your email, the recipient's ISP is. Tell the
recipient to complain to their ISP. With enough complaints they
may stop using the ORBS list, and that is a Good Thing.

						Kayembee

in article slrn94pj6v.gk.plew@crane.li-po.edu, Paul Lew  wrote:

> ORBS supplies the "guns and ammo".  I have "lost" email as the receiver
> never got them and they are with different ISPs.  ORBS just supply the
> list and tells others to act.

ORBS does not tell anyone to do anything. I run mail servers. ORBS has never
told me to do anything, ever, at any time.

> ORBS would need to provide me absolute proof that they didn't destroy
> my email before I would believe their claims of "only supplying a list".

Do you have a clue? ORBS does not handle email. They cannot and do not
"destroy" email. How RBLs work is not in question. You need to come up to
speed technically before thrashing around making a fool of yourself.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
         From the Bay Area, call: 415 428-COWS

In article <slrn94piu2.gk.plew@crane.li-po.edu>, plew@csus.edu (Paul Lew) writes:
>On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 21:55:15 -0800, Derek Balling <dredd@megacity.org> wrote:
>>On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 19:47:26 -0800, 123 wrote
>>(in message <g42o4to09t6m24d3h83lu81cleup2155in@4ax.com>):
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:18:10 GMT, plew@csus.edu (Paul Lew) wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I care and only found out about ORBS recently
>>>> and feel that blocking my legitimate email means ORBS is just hacking
>>>> the Internet to make transactions unreliable.  
>>> 
>>> I care too. And I don't appreciate an organization such as ORBS
>>> deciding for me whether mail addressed to me should or shouldn't
>>> be blocked depending upon from which mail server it emanates.
>>
>>For mail addressed TO you, they have no control over that. You do. As the 
>>receiving system you can opt or not opt to use ORBS to filter your mail.
>>
>>>> ORBS has not publicised
>>>> their intent and purpose widely thru the news media.
>>> 
>>> That's for sure. I have been around computers and the Internet
>>> for a very long time, I read many different computer
>>> publications, and I had never heard of ORBS prior to this thread.
>>
>>There is a cave, and therein reside the last eight people in all of the world 
>>who haven't seen this flamewar rage time and time again. ORBS exists, it 
>>isn't going away, many will use it, many will not. Some will agree with ORBS, 
>>some will disagree, many will not give a shit one way or the other. Nobody's 
>>opinions on this topic are really subject to change, let's all just scan the 
>>deja.com archives, and feel free to re-read the whole war there, where you 
>>can relive it in gory and graphic detail over and over to your heart's 
>>content, but please let's NOT fill this group with the whole sordid saga -- 
>>Again.
>>
>The fallacy is that not everyone who use email follow any newsgroup are
>even aware of deja.com; you seem to think everyone who use computers or
>email know about deja.com and that deja.com stores every msg since "day 1".
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I suppose that all depends upon what you've designated as "day 1".  Usenet 
has been about far longer than deja.com so I'd have to conclude that day 1
is the first day deja.com was placed on line and not the genesis of usenet.

--
VAXman- OpenVMS APE certification number: AAA-0001     VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
           
city, n., 1. a place where trees are cut down and streets are named after them.

Paul Lew <plew@csus.edu> writes:
>> You're misinformed.  ORBS doesn't block any email.  ORBS just
>> publishes a list.
> 
> ORBS supplies the "guns and ammo".

You'll find a whole lot of people in this country who disagree with the
notion that selling guns is the moral equivalent of shooting people!

> ORBS would need to provide me absolute proof that they didn't destroy
> my email before I would believe their claims of "only supplying a list".

It's impossible for ORBS to affect your email, just as it's impossible
for me to affect your email.  Your email isn't sent to servers
controlled by ORBS, nor to servers controlled by me, so neither of us
can affect whether it's delivered, or not.

                                        David desJardins

On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Brian Schenkenberger, <system@SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote:
>In article  (Paul Lew) writes:
>>The fallacy is that not everyone who use email follow any newsgroup are
>>even aware of deja.com; you seem to think everyone who use computers or
>>email know about deja.com and that deja.com stores every msg since "day 1".
>                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I suppose that all depends upon what you've designated as "day 1".  Usenet 
>has been about far longer than deja.com so I'd have to conclude that day 1
>is the first day deja.com was placed on line and not the genesis of usenet.

It would be nice to know that deja.com keeps all newsgroups messages since
they came online and that no messages are deleted when more space is needed.
A curious question would be does deja.com go thru their data to delete a
msg that is canceled/deleted by the original poster..

Still, the point is that many people only get email via their places of
employment and do not have internet connection at home and it is unlikely
that the employers would grant employees a "newsgroup reading time" on
company time.

On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, John Higdon <no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com> wrote:
>in article slrn94pj6v.gk.plew@crane.li-po.edu, Paul Lew  wrote:
>
>> ORBS supplies the "guns and ammo".  I have "lost" email as the receiver
>> never got them and they are with different ISPs.  ORBS just supply the
>> list and tells others to act.
>
>ORBS does not tell anyone to do anything. I run mail servers. ORBS has never
>told me to do anything, ever, at any time.
>
>> ORBS would need to provide me absolute proof that they didn't destroy
>> my email before I would believe their claims of "only supplying a list".
>
>Do you have a clue? ORBS does not handle email. They cannot and do not
>"destroy" email. How RBLs work is not in question. You need to come up to
>speed technically before thrashing around making a fool of yourself.
>

ORBS is still part of the conspiracy.  The driver of a getaway car did not
rob the bank, he just drove the car.  The "lookout" did not burgle a place,
he was just was watching if anyone was around.  A person checks to see
which house is most likely to be worth while robbing and supplies the list
to another person to use; in this case, I guess that the list supplier is
not as guilty as he didn't do the burglary since someone else did.

What is so technical about that??

in article slrn94pv33.dj.plew@crane.li-po.edu, Paul Lew  wrote:

> ORBS is still part of the conspiracy.  The driver of a getaway car did not
> rob the bank, he just drove the car.  The "lookout" did not burgle a place,
> he was just was watching if anyone was around.  A person checks to see
> which house is most likely to be worth while robbing and supplies the list
> to another person to use; in this case, I guess that the list supplier is
> not as guilty as he didn't do the burglary since someone else did.
> 
> What is so technical about that??

There is an unfathomable gulf between conspiracy to commit a crime and
people running email servers choosing from the many methods various to
manage their resources.

Would it interest you to know that I have a personal list of IPs that are
denied access to my email servers for the purpose of sending mail? Is that a
crime? Does the fact that the list is "on-line" in the same manner as ORBS'
list constitute a "conspiracy"? I have my own reasons for putting IPs on
that list. Anyone who wants to use that list is free to do so. What is the
difference between that and ORBS? I compel no one to use it; people are free
to use it as they choose. I know that a number of sites ARE using it, but I
am not actively involved. How is this different from ORBS?

Blocking email is not robbing a bank. While a "lookout" operates in concert
with the persons actually doing the robbing, ORBS operates in concert with
no one. You cannot legitimately morph a robbery lookout with a list supplier
who is not in any way affiliated with people in the conduct of lawful
activity. People engaged in lawful activity are not "guilty" of unlawful
acts.

Does that sufficiently blast your uninformed analogy out of the water?

A footnote: I don't use ORBS. I don't like ORBS. I think those who run it
act like spoiled children. But ridiculous, uninformed commentary is hardly
useful, either. Until you make such activity illegal (requiring a slight
trampling of the First Amendment) and can enforce the laws internationally
(ORBS is in New Zealand), lathering about it constantly in newsgroups is
rather pointless.

If you have a specific complaint against an ISP for using ORBS and, further,
causing you concomitant inconvenience, take your tale of woe there.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
         From the Bay Area, call: 415 428-COWS

> >The fallacy is that not everyone who use email follow any newsgroup are
> >even aware of deja.com; you seem to think everyone who use computers or
> >email know about deja.com and that deja.com stores every msg since "day 1".
>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I suppose that all depends upon what you've designated as "day 1".  Usenet 
> has been about far longer than deja.com so I'd have to conclude that day 1
> is the first day deja.com was placed on line and not the genesis of usenet.

	And it looks like they dropped a few years worth. Searching for
my work address during 1995 yields zero hits, for example.

-jav

On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 9:43:07 -0800, Paul Lew wrote
(in message <slrn94pj6v.gk.plew@crane.li-po.edu>):

> ORBS supplies the "guns and ammo".  I have "lost" email as the receiver
> never got them and they are with different ISPs.  ORBS just supply the
> list and tells others to act.

Does this mean I get to sue Chevrolet because they supply the 
high-performance Corvettes and just tell others to drive fast? 

> ORBS would need to provide me absolute proof that they didn't destroy
> my email before I would believe their claims of "only supplying a list".

This is a simple matter of common knowledge. Only parties to the mail can 
actually "destroy" it, those parties being:

1.) You
2.) Your ISP (transporting it to #4)
3.) Backbone ISP's
4.) Recipient ISP
5.) Recipient

As a matter of practice, #3 is completely agnostic and doesn't touch 
anything. #1 is the sender and has a vested interest in NOT destroying it. #2 
likewise is not going to destroy its own mail, and presumably #5 wants to 
actually receive it.

That leaves #4, the Recipient ISP. 

The recipient ISP consults a list, provided by ORBS and says "Hey, is #2 on 
this list?" and if they ARE, then #4 decides, based on their own policies, 
how to handle the message -- bounce it, drop it, accept it with added 
headers, accept it and drop it in a special "spambox" for the user to sift 
over, whatever their policy is, but in the end, ORBS itself is completely 
incapable of "destroying" your e-mail.

in article 6a9q4tgqbrpml7futqmgt60brs5ct0340v@4ax.com, 123  wrote:

> Not exactly. I could send you e-mail; I could send you an e-mail
> bomb; I could send you a succession of spams and if your mail
> provider had adopted ORBS policies, my server might be blocked by
> your provider. All of these actions would "affect" your e-mail.

How does a mail provider "adopt ORBS policies"? Do you mean "check the list"
when receiving email?

I use four RBLs. I have adopted no one's policies.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
         From the Bay Area, call: 415 428-COWS

John Higdon wrote:
> 
> in article 6a9q4tgqbrpml7futqmgt60brs5ct0340v@4ax.com, 123  wrote:
> 
> > Not exactly. I could send you e-mail; I could send you an e-mail
> > bomb; I could send you a succession of spams and if your mail
> > provider had adopted ORBS policies, my server might be blocked by
> > your provider. All of these actions would "affect" your e-mail.
> 
> How does a mail provider "adopt ORBS policies"? Do you mean "check the list"
> when receiving email?
> 
> I use four RBLs. I have adopted no one's policies.

"Adopting ORBS policies" means (amongst other things) that you don't
block TCP port 25 traffic from ORBS hosts to your hosts _and_ you assume
that hosts that MX e-mail from your hosts don't do that either.

> John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/

Dima

in article 3A4D7517.DE3709D5@dvv.org, Dima Volodin  wrote:

> "Adopting ORBS policies" means (amongst other things) that you don't
> block TCP port 25 traffic from ORBS hosts to your hosts _and_ you assume
> that hosts that MX e-mail from your hosts don't do that either.

I didn't realize that was some official rule that had to be obeyed. It would
seem counterproductive on its face to block port 25 traffic into an SMTP
server. As a result, I don't do it...but not because it is anyone's policy
other than my own.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
         From the Bay Area, call: 415 428-COWS

John Higdon wrote:
> 
> in article 3A4D7517.DE3709D5@dvv.org, Dima Volodin  wrote:
> 
> > "Adopting ORBS policies" means (amongst other things) that you don't
> > block TCP port 25 traffic from ORBS hosts to your hosts _and_ you assume
> > that hosts that MX e-mail from your hosts don't do that either.
> 
> I didn't realize that was some official rule that had to be obeyed.

Well, if you consider ORBS to be an office of any kind, than its
policies are official.

> It would
> seem counterproductive on its face to block port 25 traffic into an SMTP
> server. As a result, I don't do it...

You might really want to do that if you are an ISP doing a lot of
dial-up/cable/whatever retail ISP business - on some of your servers,
you might want to accept SMTP connections from your direct customers
only. Doing that at the MTA level might not be your preferred approach,
but blocking it at the TCP level might serve you very well. Unless, of
course, you want to dance to the ORBS tune.

> but not because it is anyone's policy
> other than my own.

Sure. After all, it's your system. And whatever you gain or lose from
your policies is up to you and you only. Unless, of course, you're a
monopoly, in which case we hate you with all our
government-regulated-free-market-loving guts.

> John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/

Dima

in article 3A4D80FC.B7F82A5@dvv.org, Dima Volodin  wrote:

> Well, if you consider ORBS to be an office of any kind, than its
> policies are official.

But not binding on anyone.

> You might really want to do that if you are an ISP doing a lot of
> dial-up/cable/whatever retail ISP business - on some of your servers,
> you might want to accept SMTP connections from your direct customers
> only. Doing that at the MTA level might not be your preferred approach,
> but blocking it at the TCP level might serve you very well. Unless, of
> course, you want to dance to the ORBS tune.

My whole point in using email is communications. I don't see the point in
shutting off all connections except to those whom I think I might want to
hear from. That's what RBLs are for: to attempt to filter out those
relatively few sites that are known to be associated with junk, or those
which are simply open conduits to launder junk.

I accept "postmaster" mail from anyone to all domains here. That's kind of
hard to do if you turn off TCP port 25.

> Sure. After all, it's your system. And whatever you gain or lose from
> your policies is up to you and you only. Unless, of course, you're a
> monopoly, in which case we hate you with all our
> government-regulated-free-market-loving guts.

Fortunately, there is no monopoly when it comes to ISPs.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
         From the Bay Area, call: 415 428-COWS

John Higdon <no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com> wrote:
> in article 3A4D7517.DE3709D5@dvv.org, Dima Volodin  wrote:

> > "Adopting ORBS policies" means (amongst other things) that you don't
> > block TCP port 25 traffic from ORBS hosts to your hosts _and_ you assume
> > that hosts that MX e-mail from your hosts don't do that either.

> I didn't realize that was some official rule that had to be obeyed. It would
> seem counterproductive on its face to block port 25 traffic into an SMTP
> server. As a result, I don't do it...but not because it is anyone's policy
> other than my own.

You use the 4 DNSBLs you mentioned to tag, but not block, mail coming
into your server?

-- 
Bill "just trying to keep up" Maloy (brm4)

John Higdon wrote:
> 
> in article 3A4D80FC.B7F82A5@dvv.org, Dima Volodin  wrote:
> 
> > Well, if you consider ORBS to be an office of any kind, than its
> > policies are official.
> 
> But not binding on anyone.

Yep, I was writing about _your_ considering ORBS to be an office of any
kind.

> > You might really want to do that if you are an ISP doing a lot of
> > dial-up/cable/whatever retail ISP business - on some of your servers,
> > you might want to accept SMTP connections from your direct customers
> > only. Doing that at the MTA level might not be your preferred approach,
> > but blocking it at the TCP level might serve you very well. Unless, of
> > course, you want to dance to the ORBS tune.
> 
> My whole point in using email is communications. I don't see the point in
> shutting off all connections except to those whom I think I might want to
> hear from.

The current state of affairs is that there are basically two kind of
servers that use SMTP as their basic protocol - there are servers that
accept e-mail via SMTP from the whole wide world for a very well defined
set of addresses (I like to call these servers "MX" servers for a very
obvious reason); and there are servers that accept e-mail via SMTP from
a very well defined set of hosts to be forwarded to the whole wide world
out there. In the former case, you don't really want to limit the set of
hosts that are allowed to connect to your servers to send e-mail
(except, of course, some hosts listed by RBLs of your choice); in the
latter case, you really want to limit the set of hosts allowed to use
your servers to a very specific set defined by your criteria of what
your clientele is.

> That's what RBLs are for: to attempt to filter out those
> relatively few sites that are known to be associated with junk, or those
> which are simply open conduits to launder junk.

Sure. Except that ORBS doesn't necessarily filters "relatively few sites
that _are known_ to be associated with junk".

> I accept "postmaster" mail from anyone to all domains here. That's kind of
> hard to do if you turn off TCP port 25.

_Big_ mistake. "postmaster" addresses are known to be used by spammers
to fool exactly this kind of "screening".

> > Sure. After all, it's your system. And whatever you gain or lose from
> > your policies is up to you and you only. Unless, of course, you're a
> > monopoly, in which case we hate you with all our
> > government-regulated-free-market-loving guts.
> 
> Fortunately, there is no monopoly when it comes to ISPs.

Hey. Do you really read this thread in the comp.dcom.modems.cable group?

> John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/

Dima

>>
>The fallacy is that not everyone who use email follow any newsgroup are
>even aware of deja.com; you seem to think everyone who use computers or
>email know about deja.com and that deja.com stores every msg since "day 1".

only, deja seems to have never bothered to restore anything prior to
may 1999 ('deja classic') when they moved and 'upgraded' their
systems.  Supposedly the previous 5 years or whatever is on tape
somewheres, but the longer it goes without being restored, somehow the
less likely it ever will be.

in article 92k15k01s2p@enews3.newsguy.com, Bill Maloy  wrote:

> You use the 4 DNSBLs you mentioned to tag, but not block, mail coming
> into your server?

Absolutely not. They are for blocking. What I don't do is block port 25
against anyone. Any other server in the universe can connect; what happens
after that depends on a number of things, including but not limited to
information that may be contained in the RBLs.

If ORBS (which I don't use) wants to masturbate on my servers, I don't care.
I don't understand why people get all huffy when ORBS probes their servers.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
         From the Bay Area, call: 415 428-COWS

in article 3A4F5C7A.5A1613A6@dvv.org, Dima Volodin  wrote:

> Perhaps because they don't like the idea of somebody's masturbating on
> their servers?

Uh huh. Let's see...I get thirty to fifty attempts per day from spammers
trying to relay through my hosts. Every six months or so, ORBS makes fifteen
attempts.

I would say that ORBS is sufficiently down in the noise as to be not worth a
complaint. It would be nice if they would honor requests to not do it, but
it is hardly a matter for great angst.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
         From the Bay Area, call: 415 428-COWS

John Higdon wrote:
> 
> in article 3A4F5C7A.5A1613A6@dvv.org, Dima Volodin  wrote:
> 
> > Perhaps because they don't like the idea of somebody's masturbating on
> > their servers?
> 
> Uh huh. Let's see...I get thirty to fifty attempts per day from spammers
> trying to relay through my hosts. Every six months or so, ORBS makes fifteen
> attempts.
> 
> I would say that ORBS is sufficiently down in the noise as to be not worth a
> complaint. It would be nice if they would honor requests to not do it, but
> it is hardly a matter for great angst.

May be it's not for _you_ - you may or may not have any problem with
anybody's masturbating on whatever part of your property, but other
people may as well don't like it in any quantities.

> John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/

Dima

in article 3A4FF992.D271F936@dvv.org, Dima Volodin  wrote:

> May be it's not for _you_ - you may or may not have any problem with
> anybody's masturbating on whatever part of your property, but other
> people may as well don't like it in any quantities.

Then they probably shouldn't be on the net. It is a nasty, unfriendly world
out there with spammers, hackers, and outright crooks. ORBS' relay tests are
the least of anyone's problems. At least in my experience.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
         From the Bay Area, call: 415 428-COWS