[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

"Gustavo Franco" <gustavorfranco@gmail.com>
> On 3/13/06, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > "Gustavo Franco" <gustavorfranco@gmail.com>
> > > Why every uol.com.br address was unsubscribed and not only
> > > petsupermarket, AFAIK there's no  general problem with that domain,
> > > right? [...]
> >
> > The Challenge-Response system appears to be a uol.com.br service
> > and there seems no way to detect externally which users are using
> > it.  I don't know what proportion of @uol.com.br use it. Do you?
> Yes, it's their service and the C-R thing sucks. I'm not using
> @uol.com.br but that's not the point, see below.
> Good research really, but do you see that petsupermarket@uol.com.br
> isn't subscribed in our MLs ? It's other address that is forwarding to
> petsupermarket@uol.com.br. The mass-unsubscribe side effect here is
> that we're hurting users when petsupermarket@uol.com.br is still free
> to mail our lists. What's the rationale ? Force uol users after
> unsubcribe them to ask their ISP send a reply for Debian ?

I can't see whether or not petsupermarket@uol.com.br is
subscribed - I am not a listmaster. I just correct your
statement: this spamming of Debian contributors *is* UOL's
fault and a general problem with the domain uol.com.br. It is
hosting a spamming anti-spam system without due care.

It sucks that listmasters get to play detective because UOL
deploy spamware and apparently won't do simple traces on their
incoming mail to help close down the spam sources.

I can see a rationale for an ever-increasing boycott of UOL,
although I don't know if these are the listmasters' reasons:

1. I assume UOL is paid for its services and has paid staff.
2. Debian is run by volunteer effort and resources.
3. UOL's inadequate tech support is making Debian contributors
waste effort and resources.
4. Effectively, some Debian resources are being used instead
of UOL paying the full cost of its anti-spam spamware.
5. This is unethical, effectively using the public-interest
Debian project's resources to make the private-interest UOL
company more profitable. It is taking away from the commons.
6. To compensate, we need to cost UOL money.
7. One way is to start making UOL users complain or transfer
their business away from UOL.

As you can see from the bug log, I have mixed feelings about
the ban, but for now I ask: Debian-supporting customers of
UOL, Folhapar and Portugal Telecom, please complain to them
instead of/as well as listmasters and consider taking your
business to better-behaved firms. Personal boycotts can help.
Every little hurts: http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/boycotts

My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: