Re: BlueSecurity/Blue Frog

pasted from nanae news:[email protected]

Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email
Subject: Re: Blue Security & Hyperbole

Vernon Schryver wrote:
> Mike Easter
>> <Steve Baker's cite>

>>>  I don't have a problem with the basic concept. It's
>>> similar to Spamcop's concept.
>>
>> Which BS concepts are similar to which SC concepts?
>>
>> SC is a free and paid parsing and reporting service and the
>> maintainer of the SCbl blocklist, besides being a mail/spam
>> filtertagging reporting service for its mail clients.
>>
>> I don't see the similarity.
>
> That is at best disingenous.  Irrelevant characteristics such as
> details of pricing do not obscure or outweigh the similarities.  As
> far as I
> can tell:
>
>  - SpamCop and BlueSecurity offer free services or free versions of
>      their services.
>
>  - SpamCop and BlueSecurity sell some other services, or perhaps
>      the same services in other situations.
>
>  - SpamCop and BlueSecurity have some unsavory connections or
>     connotations, but SpamCop has at least as many:
>
>       -- SpamCop has sent me unsolicited bulk email but BlueSecurity
> has not, unless the spam touting "The Skybox Solution" that
> talks about "Commercial DDOS emulation based on Bluesecurity
> solution" is BlueSecurity's
>
>       -- SpamCop is owned by Ironport, which has a long, well
> established history of empowering Internet commerce with push email
> advertisersing
>
>  - advocates for both SpamCop and BlueSecurity make knowingly false
> claims:
>        -- SpamCop advocates claim SpamCop does not ever send spam,
>          and never mind the public records.
>        -- SpamCop at least used to claim to be able to parse Received:
> headers to find the source of spam, and never mind that without
> external information it is impossible to detect forged Received:
> headers.
>        -- BlueSecurity claims their "registry" is secure, and never
> mind the unavoidable effectiveness and high speed of dictionary
> attacks on it after it has been given to spammers.
>
>   - both SpamCop and Bluesecurity appeal to what can be described
>       pejoratively as the mob or positively as the desire of people
>       to work together to stop spam.
>
> There are other claims from what seem to be third parties that seem
> to be false.  The most obvious is that Bluesecurity uses denial of
> service attacks on spammer web sites.  Assuming the accuracy of the
> statements on http://www.bluesecurity.com including the statement by
> Marcus J. Ranum that Bluesecurity never does more than one interaction
> with a spammer web site per spam received by Bluesecurity protected
> mailboxes, that DoS claim is false.
>
> I wonder why Mike Easter is so outraged by Blueseurity.  The only
> thing
> I imagine is that he fears Bluesecurity's competition for the outfit
> he shills for, Ironport/SpamCop.  I wouldn't trust Bluesecurity more
> or even as much as Scott Richter.  I dislike SpamCop and Scott Richter
> because of the SpamCop and Richer's spam I have received.  Scott
> Richter is a known quantity, but I have no first hand evidence of the
> claimed evils of Bluesecurity.


-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin