Date: 28 Dec 2002 17:00:54 -0500 From: Shawn Duffy <pakkit@codepiranha.org> To: Duncan Patton a Campbell <campbell@neotext.ca> Cc: Chris Orr <chris@manual-override.net>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter. Message-ID: <1041112853.3577.56.camel@pitbull> In-Reply-To: <20021228145101.19f61ce1.campbell@neotext.ca> References: <20021228134931.373541d9.campbell@neotext.ca> <20021228164035.J58458-100000@manual-override.net> <20021228145101.19f61ce1.campbell@neotext.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-odv/WE5JVLX8qqUs8D6/ Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So we should let the govt open all unopened mail to make sure nothing is illegal in it? and then leave it up to them to determine if it was intentional? =20 please... On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 16:51, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: > The law would have to consider intention of the sender: >=20 > Virii are (generally) not intended by the sender, except > for the original author. If I didn't intend to send the > virus, there is no constraint on you scanning and chopping > it. As for porn, if you are a minor, then by sending it > to you I have probably committed a criminal offense, regardless > of the vehicle employed. >=20 > Dhu >=20 >=20 > On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:41:46 -0500 (EST) > Chris Orr <chris@manual-override.net> wrote: >=20 > > So theoretically scanning email attatchments for viruses is illeagal to= o? > > and the same goes for filtering out porn? > > -chris > >=20 > > On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: > >=20 > > > Seems to me that this is an invitation to government > > > regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal > > > offense for good reason. > > > > > > Dhu > > > > > > On 28 Dec 2002 15:46:10 -0500 > > > Shawn Duffy <pakkit@codepiranha.org> wrote: > > > > > > > The lists are usually kept on the websites of whatever particular > > > > organizations are doing it... they are quite a few... > > > > As far as suing them, I would venture to say no... If you dont want > > > > someone to be able to connect to your mail server that is certainly > > > > within your right to do... and if other people want to agree with y= ou, > > > > well then, what can you do... although I am sure someone somewhere = will > > > > probably sue over it and win... > > > > > > > > shawn > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 15:32, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: > > > > > How do you find if you are on the list? And who has the list? > > > > > > > > > > Can they be sued? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Duncan (Dhu) Campbell > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:45:23 -0500 > > > > > Harry Tabak <htabak@quadtelecom.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > [This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeB= SD's spam > > > > > > filter, I've had to send this from another account] > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the cro= ss > > > > > > posting. I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security is= sues -- > > > > > > the 'Availability' part of C-I-A. I apologize if I am wrong. A= FreeBSD > > > > > > ported package is contributing to an internet service availabil= ity > > > > > > problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quan= tity of > > > > > > other internet denizens are also affected. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail se= rver and > > > > > > I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD o= nce. I > > > > > > write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lo= t of > > > > > > strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Sof= tware > > > > > > that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! A= nd not to > > > > > > my face, but to business associate. And then took action. > > > > > > > > > > > > I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD p= orted > > > > > > package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail= from me > > > > > > to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the inter= net. I'll > > > > > > probably never have to correspond with most of these people, bu= t I'm a > > > > > > freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader= , don't > > > > > > be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongl= y suggest > > > > > > that you check it out.] > > > > > > > > > > > > Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsen= al. But, > > > > > > IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and= rules > > > > > > that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and b= ad > > > > > > anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spa= mbnc's > > > > > > bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of F= reeBSD, > > > > > > and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Unti= l it is > > > > > > fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing th= is product. > > > > > > > > > > > > Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail are= n't fully > > > > > > described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the > > > > > > inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who insta= ll this > > > > > > product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong = mail. I > > > > > > am sure that the software was developed with the very best inte= ntions, > > > > > > but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting g= ood people. > > > > > > > > > > > > The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. E= ven > > > > > > though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard code= s its > > > > > > rules for filtering bad domains by name and by IP address. My n= emisis is > > > > > > buried in a 1476 line file, sb-blockdomains.rc, which installs = by > > > > > > default, and is not documented outside the code. Along with oth= ers, it > > > > > > blocks the entire 66.45.0.0/17 space because spammers might liv= e there. > > > > > > This is sort of like a corporate mail room throwing away all NJ > > > > > > postmarked mail because of the bulk mail distribution centers i= n Secaucus. > > > > > > > > > > > > My mail host address gets a clean bill of health from every an= ti-spam > > > > > > site that I can find, such as SPEWS. I've checked at least 30 o= f them. > > > > > > > > > > > > My tiny x/29 block is sub-allocated from my DSL provider's x/2= 3 block. > > > > > > The DSL provider's block is a sub-allocation from Inflow.co= m's > > > > > > 66.45.0.0/17 block. Spambouncer doesn't like Inflow. While the= y have a > > > > > > right to their opinions, they don't have a right to publicly ta= r me > > > > > > because of my neighbors. > > > > > > > > > > > > If I read sb-blockdomains # comments correctly, it is policy t= o not > > > > > > only block known spammers, but to ALSO block entire networks ba= sed on > > > > > > their handling of spam complaints. This is like as a business > > > > > > receptionist checking callerID and then ignoring incoming calls= from > > > > > > Verizon subscribers because Verizon tolerates (and probably inv= ented) > > > > > > telemarketing. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have written to both the Spambouncer contact address > > > > > > <ariel@spambouncer.org> and the FreeBSD maintainer, but without= a > > > > > > response. Possibly they are on holiday, or spambouncer is eati= ng my > > > > > > mail. Perhaps I'm just too impatient. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have also contacted my ISP's support. They don't know how t= o help > > > > > > me. They vouch for Inflow. They don't recommend it, but for a f= ee, my > > > > > > service could be switched to a different PVC, and I'd get an ad= dress > > > > > > from a different carrier. But of course, the new address could = be > > > > > > black-listed on a whim. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regardless, I assume that these are reasonable people, and tha= t they > > > > > > will oil the squeaky wheel as soon as it is convenient. But ho= w will I > > > > > > ever know that EVERY copy of spambouncer has been fixed? What a= bout > > > > > > other innocent ISP subscribers who are also black-listed? > > > > > > > > > > > > Harry Tabak > > > > > > QUAD TELECOM, INC. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > > > > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message > > > > -- > > > > email: pakkit at codepiranha dot org > > > > web: http://codepiranha.org/~pakkit > > > > pgp: 8988 6FB6 3CFE FE6D 548E 98FB CCE9 6CA9 98FC 665A > > > > having problems reading email from me? http://codepiranha.org/~pakk= it/pgp-trouble.html > > > > > > > > >=20 --=20 email: pakkit at codepiranha dot org web: http://codepiranha.org/~pakkit pgp: 8988 6FB6 3CFE FE6D 548E 98FB CCE9 6CA9 98FC 665A having problems reading email from me? http://codepiranha.org/~pakkit/pgp-t= rouble.html --=-odv/WE5JVLX8qqUs8D6/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQA+Dh8VzOlsqZj8ZloRAgBhAJ0S5aZVNgtyid7Y+gmWYDVK2kHTpwCfUgVw XcUZo9Evltyye0TwPv0BkgU= =NHC3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-odv/WE5JVLX8qqUs8D6/-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1041112853.3577.56.camel>