[anti-abuse-wg] Why SPAM exists in 2017

On Monday 13 February 2017 16.27, HRH Prince Sven Olaf von CyberBunker wrote:
> The above is , of course wrong. spam is illegal, and delivered by 
> illegal means,
> 
> well. i hate to break it to you, but filtering it at an isp level, and 
> all activities of so-called self-declared 'blacklists' are illegal under 
> dutch law. it violates net-neutrality, and yes, there is a dutch law 
> against 'spam' but it does not 'protect' business entities, solely 
> natural persons.

Net neutrality is a wholly different animal.  Learn the difference.
As regards to blocklist it's an opinion about trust, to act
according to this is noones business. As mailservers are private property 
the owner has every right to whatever rules one wants. Reufusing
to accept mail from untrusted sources is one such rule. Refusing
to accept malware another rule.

As for the sentence "blacklists' are illegal under dutch law"  please
quote the law mantioned.

As for "indirect opt-ins" it's a fraud in it's entety, noone at it's sane mind will
give carte blance to let enyone send spam. It's enterely a hidden
clausure in micropic pront hidden under some banner.

spam is theft and criminal, deliver of spam is done in a criminal fashion. 

Peter h / fighting spam since 1987, unfortently unsuccessful.

( i'll leave the comments below as reference for future standup comedians)
> 
> > usually by breking into someones computer and using a bystanders Internet resources.
> >
> > As regards to opt-in, there is no thing as "indirect opt-ins"
> yes there is. "hereby i request/agree to receive offers from <$party> OR 
> it's partners".
> (which are left undefined)
> > The rest of the confusing message is left out to save electrons ;.)
> as for your vague "it is spread by illegal means"... well, if they 
> commit wire-fraud (or other hacks) to
> distribute the spam, that seems to be a clear case... in such cases i 
> would not even bother with the 'spamming' aspect but just file charges 
> for hacking ay... doh.
> 
> eventhough you lot of 'anti spam' idiots basically CAUSED them to take 
> that step, by constantly scaring email advertisers away from owning 
> their own infrastructure or using rented infrastructure at normal isps.
> 
> either way to me the entire discussions seems pretty much irrelevant, as 
> none of you seem to have taken any steps to harden your protocol against 
> undesired communications, whatsoever... just 'bla bla ip reputation 
> rating' bla bla kinda dysfunctional crap, that never stopped any single 
> spam whatsoever, and at most, just generated income for competing isps, 
> in terms of 'setup fees' every time they changed isps. lolol. GET A 
> FUCKING FRIENDS LIST... d0h. and find some way in which the From: cannot 
> be set to random values as well, while you're at it.
> 
> > zsnip>
> 
> 

-- 
        Peter Håkanson   

        There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it
        again ... and again ... and again ... and again.
        ( Det är billigare att göra rätt. Det är dyrt att laga fel. )