Friday, February 10, 2017

Trigger Warning Debate


A person sits on a bench holding a cup of coffee, looking worried.
A person sits on a bench holding a cup of coffee, looking worried.

Two college students return to campus after both were present for an act of violence.

One of them was physically injured in the incident. In order to return to class, he asks to have space around his desk to allow him to stretch, because sitting still for too long would aggravate his injury.

How would you feel about his request? Would you understand why such an accommodation would help him heal? Expect his professors to oblige?

Now, the other student's pain isn't visible – it's emotional. 

He wasn't physically hurt, but he lost a loved one, and he's traumatized. Certain reminders have resulted in panic attacks, and he'd rather not experience that again – especially not when he's trying to move on with his life and get an education.

So he also makes a request, asking his professors if they can give him a warning before covering material that relates to the type of violence that took away his loved one.

How would you feel about this student's request? 

What he's asking for is a content warning, also commonly called a trigger warning. And it's a huge source of debate.

You may have come across some of this debate recently after the University of Chicago dean of students sent out a letter to tell incoming freshman not to expect trigger warnings.

People actually dismiss the needs of people with chronic illnesses and physical and visible disabilities quite often, so I don't want to take away from that.

But it is noticeable that when it comes to an able-bodied person experiencing a temporary injury and needing support to heal, there's usually not much debate about whether or not they should be allowed in class with crutches, a cast, or extra space around their desk.

The sharp contrast between this acceptance and common attitudes towards trigger warnings reveals something disturbing about our society's approach to trauma and mental illness. 

Just like it's normal for the body to need healing after physical violence, it's perfectly normal for someone's mind to need healing after a traumatic event. 

That's why a diagnosis like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) exists – not because something's "wrong" with someone who's struggling after trauma, but because it's natural for trauma to have an impact on one's mental health. 

But we don't seem to understand that as a society. People like that dean and all of his supporters think that accommodations for traumatized students are unnecessary, and even wrong.

I've been through both sexual violence and intimate partner violence, and my recovery is an ongoing process. 

I don't experience panic attacks from reading about rape or partner abuse, but I do feel the impact when people are disparaging survivors of trauma. And I'm sure as hell not going to criticize other survivors for needing a warning. 

That's because I've also worked with many other survivors, and if there's one thing I've learned about healing, it's that it's different for everyone. There's no one "right" way to feel or respond to trauma. 

But if you're opposed to the use of trigger warnings, clearly you've taken the side that states there is such a thing as a "wrong" way.

So let's not make the mistake of thinking this debate is only about trigger warnings. Let's dig into how people really feel about trauma and mental illness when they decide that trigger warnings are wrong. 

1. We View Mental Illness as a Weakness

On most college campuses, there's a group of people who require protection from injury on a regular basis. 

But we don't call them weaklings – we call them athletes. 

And you can bet that your school administration doesn't complain about having to "coddle" your star football players by giving them helmets and padding before they take a hit. 

But when a survivor wants to protect their mental health by getting a warning before they face a difficult topic, people frequently use the word "coddling" to refer to their needs. 

Just read some of the recent comments on an Everyday Feminism article about trigger warnings: 

"I cannot stand the wussification of American society." 

"If people are too fragile that a mere mention of their symptoms may bring back their trauma, they are certainly not good enough to engage in the academic world."

These are common sentiments among those who oppose trigger warnings. They conflate being affected by trauma with being weak, and decide that those who need trigger warnings aren't "good enough" to be among those who are unfazed. 

This, in spite of the fact that so many survivors on college campuses aren't there to avoid sensitive topics. They're there to learn, just like everyone else, and they're determined to do this in spite of their personal obstacles, just like everyone else.

Some people need to work full-time while they're in college in order to attend school. Some need scholarships. Hell, everyone needs to pay for it somehow, so some rely on that parental trust fund that will get them through debt-free.

I hope you wouldn't judge someone for having different financial needs than you do. Mental health needs are similar – accommodating them simply allows different people with different sets of circumstances to access the same opportunities that you have.

Facing difficult topics sure doesn't make you weak. Facing them after directly experiencing trauma takes strength – even with the help of a warning.

You know what could also help people face difficult topics? A lifetime without ever being personally affected by trauma. 

But I wouldn't call you "weak" if that's the reason you don't need a warning.

2. We Define 'Strength' as Emotional Unavailability

Strength and healing can show up in so many different ways. Nothing has taught me this important lesson more than working with other survivors of violence. 

For instance, while I did peer advocacy counseling with Community United Against Violence (CUAV), the oldest LGTBQIA+ anti-violence organization in the US, I met survivors who needed to face their trauma head-on, survivors who needed more time before they could talk about it, survivors who checked out emotionally at the mention of their trauma, and more.

None of them were wrong. Each was on their own unique path of learning to cope with what they'd been through. 

Consider what it means that many of us are so eager to have engagement with disturbing topics in settings like college classrooms, but don't want to actually acknowledge that these topics might disturb us.

I'm one of those who strongly believes that we should be engaging with issues like sexual violence, abuse, and violent oppression. That's why I write about them so much. 

So my support of trigger warnings doesn't mean avoiding them altogether. I believe we should engage with them in a way that acknowledges their real impact. 

If you think we should all approach traumatic topics with as much emotional engagement as we'd have for a math problem, then what you're really asking is for people to disconnect from the emotions that naturally arise around emotional topics. 

There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that something is painful. But society says that people deserve to be punished for being "delicate" if they do.

I've heard people compare survivors needing trigger warnings to military combat veterans, saying that veterans don't "whine" about society not taking care of their feelings. 

But they say this as if veterans aren't also suffering – as if they don't have high rates of PTSD and suicide. Clearly, something needs to change if we believe that people are only strong if they endure painful feelings without support.

3. We Accept Suffering as Normal – But Healing Is Asking for Too Much

The idea that survivors who need trigger warnings "can't handle the real world" is a common accusation. People say that we've all been through hard things, but the rest of the world is unfazed.

It's pretty sad that we can acknowledge that there's so much suffering in the world, but get angry at people who have the nerve to cope with that suffering in a way that others can see. 

The attitude goes something like this: "The rest of us have unhealed trauma, so why shouldn't you?"

Are you using "edgy" humor to talk about painful issues without acknowledging that they're painful? That's cool, bro.

Are you breaking down only when nobody can see you cry? Fine, as long as you never admit to it. 

But admit to needing support to face something without being re-traumatized? How dare you be so entitled.

One guy in the Everyday Feminism comments said that he used to have night terrors after being bullied – but he got over it without needing trigger warnings, so he didn't see why anyone else should need them, either.

But he had just as much control over his night terrors as someone would over daytime panic attacks – as in, not much control at all. 

Do you know what it feels like to have a panic attack? Find out from Patrick Roche, then ask yourself if trying to avoid such a terrifying experience really amounts to being "entitled."

Nobody should have to suffer through the impact of trauma without support to heal – and the fact that it's the norm for people to feel like they just have to "suck it up and get over it" does not make it okay.

It's okay to ask for what you need. But if you don't personally take that route, don't shame others for doing so. 

4. We Think Trauma Defines Someone or Something

The way some people talk about opposing trigger warnings, you'd think we were talking about something much more significant than a few words in front of a text.

According to them, it's censorship! It's the end of free speech! It's destroying an entire generation! It's the downfall of society! 

Let's cool down for a second and think about what this means. 

Our society seems to think there's something wrong with identifying as a victim. 

If you've been through something hard in the past, but you got over it, that's fine – but acknowledge that it still affects you, and you're said to be doing a bad thing by "victimizing" yourself. 

And some people say they oppose trigger warnings not because they're against survivors, but to protect the integrity of the classroom. They say that warning that a text contains disturbing material could influence students to focus only on that disturbing material, making them think that's all the text is about.

This feeling makes sense if you think trauma is so significant that acknowledging its impact defines all of who someone or something is.

We think that being a victim means you're permanently "broken," and that being a perpetrator of violence means you're not human, but a monster.

And thinking of violence this way means we don't have to face the fact that it's an everyday part of our world – instead, it's such an unusual thing that acknowledging its impact means being unable to acknowledge anything else.

But I promise you that's not the case. 

I can recognize that trauma has an impact on me without having it define the whole of who I am. I can say that one aspect of a text might have an emotional impact on its readers without claiming that that aspect is all there is to it.

A trigger warning is just a few words out of the entire course of a survivor's day, one line to read over the course of their entire lives. 

It doesn't define them. And we don't have to be so averse to victimhood that we can't even talk about it without it taking over everything. 

5. We Think the Way We Handle Things Should Be the Only Way

As a society, we sure do love to judge people who do things differently than we do. 

Find out someone has a different kind of culture, sex life, or relationship style than you do? Judge away!

And this unfortunate habit comes up in trigger warning debates, too. 

It's interesting how our society has such a stigma against going to therapy, but bring up trigger warnings, and suddenly everyone's a tireless advocate for "exposure therapy." 

Exposure therapy involves gradually facing reminders of your trauma in a safe, controlled environment under the supervision of a specialized therapist. It can help retrain your brain to face your triggers without being re-traumatized, but it doesn't force people to face things without their consent – and it uses other coping techniques to avoid re-traumatization.

Having someone with PTSD "toughen up" to just deal with their triggers at any given time is not the same as exposure therapy.

For me, the fact that I'm used to hearing stories of survival is part of the reason I can read reminders of my trauma without being thrown into a panic attack. 

But am I going to tell everyone else that they need to go lead support groups and counseling sessions about the things they've been through in order to heal? Hell no! It's not for everyone, and that's okay. 

The fact is that what works for one person won't work for everyone. And believing that everyone should heal like you do doesn't make you an expert – it kind of just makes you an asshole.

Do you know what happens when people decide their wellness practices are the only valid wellness practices? 

They judge people who take medication for not trying yoga instead, or judge people who go to therapy for not just trying prayer, or judge people who cry in public for not keeping their tears behind closed doors.

See a pattern here?

Every single person has a different set of needs – so there will always be someone who needs something you don't.

If directly facing difficulties has helped you, that's great. But you'll save yourself and others a lot of trouble if you drop the idea that anyone who doesn't heal like you do deserves to be judged. 

Maybe a trigger warning seems silly to you because you don't need it. Luckily for you, that means the presence or the absence of a trigger warning doesn't have an impact on your life.

So you'll be just fine if you step back from this debate and let people ask for what they need without being judged.

***

All of this shows that we as a society really need a shift in how we understand emotional needs, mental health, and responses to violence and trauma. 

The status quo says that we should all suck it up, get over it, keep moving forward without ever acknowledging the impact that trauma can have.

And we can learn a lot about our culture by noticing how "controversial" it is to suggest changing the status quo. 

"Welcome to the real world," you'd say to someone who'd like a warning before they face a sensitive topic.

I'd like to invite you to face reality, too. The reality is that trauma affects many different people in many different ways. 

It's okay to acknowledge painful feelings, to approach sensitive topics not only as sources of new ideas, but also sources of deep emotional reactions, and to accept that traumatic events affect our emotional and mental health. 

A trigger warning won't stop you from facing painful realities – but it'll definitely help some people face them, and continue healing from the impact of them, too.

Maisha Z. Johnson is the Digital Content Associate and Staff Writer of Everyday Feminism. You can find her writing at the intersections and shamelessly indulging in her obsession with pop culture around the web. Maisha's past work includes Community United Against Violence (CUAV), the nation's oldest LGBTQ anti-violence organization, and Fired Up!, a program of California Coalition for Women Prisoners. Through her own project, Inkblot Arts, Maisha taps into the creative arts and digital media to amplify the voices of those often silenced. Like her on Facebook or follow her on Twitter @mzjwords.



^ed 

^ed 

Saturday, November 28, 2015

Career in Crisis

ed phoning home ouch
May 18, 2003

Career in Crisis: Career Confusion.



now would not be the best time to mention my senior thesis-- or my grad school major, or the fact that i spent the better part life as a volunteer and advocate for children at-risk.. working to give them hope and a second chance at life.

systematically invalidating such bogus, barnum-type feedback that one typically gets from a MBTI type of personality test that is given during high school or in college. i won't bother to mention the standardization of SAT scores to help our country feel better-- or the fact that the stanford-binet was created for military issue only.

who gives a shit anymore??? if you told a me a fat bearded lady at the circus could decide my fate and tell me what direction i should choose next-- i'd take it! and throw in a fat tip for being smart enough to know that any answer-- no matter how grim, is far better than just wandering aimlessly through life looking back on what might have been-- at THIRTY! AT THIRTY!!!!

after receiving five letters of rejection from jobs that require nothing more than a GED or a high school diploma, i decided to go to the tennessee career center hoping to find a job that will allow me to afford the most basic necessities of life. toothpaste, toilet paper, cat food... i got hooked up with a counselor that afternoon. he has two masters degrees-- one in educational career counseling, and a second in counseling psychology. could this be the guidance counselor i have been asking for since.. well... since... i was old enough to know was in need of guidance?

surely someone else must have recognized i was in need of guidance, but god knows my parents weren't paying attention, and having good genes just doesn't cut it these days. but now more than ever, i realize that having all the smarts in the world won't get you anywhere if you never learned how to apply them.

i am the exact same five year old who needed to win the spelling bee. in college, i was the one to set the curve, not just make it. the one to break the rules, and, break them i did, but there is no glory in being second best, second smartest, second brightest, or second anything.

i wish i could say that after all this time i developed other ego strengths and finally felt okay with who i am, you know.... "just being me," but i am sad to report that my "condition" (diagnosis) was amazingly accurate and predictable. just like all the doctors said! i wonder if they derive joy out of being right-- if they crack open a bottle of aged liquor in my fathers office and say, "see, we told you so. we told you their was nothing you could do." and so nothing they did.

and by doing nothing, and i do mean nothing-- the illness will just take will its course. and i am now, in fact, nothing. nothing costs nothing (at least to them) and daddy made another fine investment. on the other hand, nothing has drained every hope, fear, security-- every chance-- and every last breath from my body. i might have believed in me. but i know i'm alive because a tear just rolled down the side of my cheek. i am home.

but i still haven't learned. for some reason with all of my failures i am reminded of in so many ways... me, myself, as i watch them play out every time i shut my eyes or open them. yes- blink.

sometimes i ask myself, how did i get here? how did this happen? what happened to all of the plans i made for myself? where did they go? where did I go? constantly replayed over and over and over again in my mind. i must be FUCK1NG CRAZY!

but at this moment, here, even as i say the words, i am not truly insane, i am merely in pain. what a tragedy that those two words rhyme-- they ruin what could have been a very profound misnomer of the human condition and the labels we hold so dear.

i am the exact same 5 year old who needed to ACE the spelling bee, set the curve, not just make it; break the rules, and, break them i did. there is no glory in being second best. second smartest, second brightest, or second anything. being second sucks. it sucks every god-damned second of the day.

and so my search for mediocrity continues and i wait for it each and every day hoping it will find me beaten and worn from the storm. all of the storms, but dammit, its still there. i still have questions those damn elyssa questions that made all my professors so proud, damn ideas, damn thoughts, damn hope.

my mother still calls me everyday to see if i went to get food stamps to feed myself, fuck her, and her fucking things. fuck diamonds and couture and fuck that life. i was here mom, the whole fucking time. just not pretty enough with out any surgery. not pretty at all, with all those damn scars.

i hope someone out there still loves me. i do actually believe that i deserve love and kindness despite the obvious fact that i am a royal pain in the ass. i refuse to work in burger king. for right now, at least.

so goodnight my dear friends. let's all try to have sweet dreams. pepe awaits, as does alanis, and a pack of smokes that i can already taste.

yes, what could have been, what should have been-- what MIGHT have been if you let me be

m.e.


"When written in chinese, the word Crisis is composed of tvo characters: One represents danger and the other represents opportunity." -JFK


^ed

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Check your sanity privilege: writing online can be bad for your mental health

Check your sanity privilege: writing online can be bad for your mental health

Check your sanity privilege: writing online can be bad for your mental health

One morning, several years ago, I woke up with an allergy. On my way to the office I picked up some pills from a little shop on the seafront, near my flat. Several hours later I decided to head home again. For reasons I've never really been able to explain, I stopped at the Spar and bought some more pills.

At home I sat quietly in my room for a while, turning them over, reading the packets. I wasn't upset, I wasn't in the grip of some existential crisis, and although I'd suffered from depression for several years I didn't feel in the grip of an episode. I felt no particular urges or impulses. In fact I felt nothing very much at all. To anyone watching I'd have seemed no different to normal; but some fundamental part of my brain, some vital restraint, had been switched off. The brakes had been cut.

I took the recommended dose. And then I took one more. I remember expecting to feel something, but I didn't, so I took another. Still nothing, so I took another couple. Still nothing. Again. Nothing. I kept going. It wasn't dramatic or emotional; it was as if I were outside of myself, an observer performing a science experiment on my own mind and body. How far could I push the Martin before I triggered some sort of response?

When it finally came, the response was sudden and brutal, like a hard reset of the soul. Realising what I'd done I tried to make myself vomit, but I couldn't. Buckets of cold sweat poured off me, my heart racing, every inch of my body alight. Even then my instinct was to contain the problem: I didn't want to go to hospital and deal with awkward questions, so instead I turned to Google and researched the problem, trying to establish how much danger I was in, and whether my current symptoms were from the overdose or a subsequent panic attack.

With the help of a friend I got through the night, and in the months and years that followed I got better. I never fully "cured" my depression, but I learned how to manage it and how to limit the impact it had on my friends. It would be easy to make up some bollocks about why I did what I did - comforting in fact, since I'd know how to stop it from happening again - but the frightening truth is I've absolutely no idea.

Five years ago I started writing; and if ever there were an activity designed to comprehensively fuck with your mental health, it's writing on the internet. Gradually I've gained more success, writing for my own blog, then the Guardian, then New Statesman. There's a lot of talk about writers with "platforms" having privilege, and that's true to an extent, but few people talk about the downside – having a platform is also a major challenge to my sanity.

Being able to talk to 20,000 people at once sounds brilliant until you realise they can all talk back to you. Of course, only a tiny fraction of readers do, and those are typically either the loud or the inane, in no way representative of your 'audience'. The praise and insults are routine and meaningless noise, while conversations become increasingly fraught. A reasonable point stated by one person can feel almost abusive when repeated ad infinitum by a circle of 100 people standing around you and pointing.  Then of course there are the very real cases of abuse and threatening behavior, something that all writers just seem to be expected to accept as "the price", as if simply having a platform makes you a legitimate target for abuse – fair game.

In the face of this bizarre feedback, a lot of writers and tweeters seem to end up with a profoundly distorted world-view, measuring their self-worth by hit counts and Facebook likes and meaningless prizes. It's an incredibly easy trap to fall into; it took years for me to stop caring how many hits a post got, and since then I've been a lot happier as a writer. Meanwhile, I've watched people become obsessed with who has more Twitter followers, and become profoundly ugly as a result. 

When combined with mental health issues, this can become something altogether darker and more sinister. I've lost count of the number of debates on Twitter in which I've seen vulnerable people, egged on by their peers into aggressive online confrontations. At it's most extreme, whole communities of people online seem to be wrapped up in their own fantasy words, the heroes of their own mass delusion. A couple of years ago I visited a forum for people suffering from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, but within hours, members were conducting a thorough investigation into my entire life – a bizarre group paranoia had taken hold, feeding on itself, rejecting any interference from the outside world.

When you become the target of this kind of behaviour it can be incredibly disconcerting. Since late 2010 I've been cyber-stalked by a series of people – or possibly the same person – who have become obsessed with me, creating endless parody accounts and meticulously Storifying hundreds of my online conversations. On the one hand, this is not brilliant for my sanity: I do talks around the country, and each time I wonder I'll be confronted by an obsessive with a knife in his hand – in fact one stalker turned up to a panel I spoke at in 2011, lurking anonymously in the audience. On the other hand, it's impossible to escape the fact that these people are seriously damaged themselves. As irritating as it can be, their obsession hurts them far for than it does me, and I can't help but feel a little sad about that.

That said, nothing is more irritating than the idea that because I've suffered from depression, because I've taken an overdose, I'm somehow unable to cope with the real world. I may be mildly fucked in the head, but I'm not remotely fragile. I'm quite happy to be a dick to people who deserve it, and if you don't like me being a dick then, well, it's probably because you're not as good at it as I am.

Mental health is a complicated thing, problems arise for complicated reasons, and the idea that it's simply a question of being unable to cope with bad things is deeply unhelpful. One of the most irritating manifestations of this sort of unwanted concern is the idea of "triggers", a concept that seems to have little or no basis in solid research, but has been adopted across sections of the internet in an incredibly tedious and patronising way. I didn't really give a crap about Hyundai's exhaust fume ad, and like Unity  I suspect the reaction to it may have been overblown.

But then the reaction to most things on the internet is overblown. As bad as my mental health has been, I've always looked sane compared to Twitter.  I'm not sure what that means for our mental health in the long term, but it's going to be interesting to find out. In the meantime, be a dick or don't be a dick, but remember that not all forms of privilege are immediately obvious.

If any of the content of this story affects you, the Samaritans are available to talk 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Martin Robbins is a Berkshire-based researcher and science writer. He writes about science, pseudoscience and evidence-based politics. Follow him on Twitter as @mjrobbins.

Sunday, June 7, 2015

What is a DNS Blacklist? Mail Server?

What is a Mail Server?

Trust me. 

What is a Mail Server?

With the click of a mouse button, you can send an email from one point of the globe to another in a matter of seconds. Most of us take this process for granted, giving little thought to how it actually works. It's easy to understand how standard snail-mail gets from point A to point B - but how does an email message make its way from a sender to a recipient? The answer to that question revolves around something called a mail server. You can learn more about the role that mail serves play in email delivery by reading on below.

What is a Mail Server?

A mail server is the computerized equivalent of your friendly neighborhood mailman. Every email that is sent passes through a series of mail servers along its way to its intended recipient. Although it may seem like a message is sent instantly - zipping from one PC to another in the blink of an eye - the reality is that a complex series of transfers takes place. Without this series of mail servers, you would only be able to send emails to people whose email address domains matched your own - i.e., you could only send messages from one example.com account to another example.com account.

Types of Mail Servers

Mail servers can be broken down into two main categories: outgoing mail servers and incoming mail servers. Outgoing mail servers are known as SMTP, or Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, servers. Incoming mail servers come in two main varieties. POP3, or Post Office Protocol, version 3, servers are best known for storing sent and received messages on PCs' local hard drives. IMAP, or Internet Message Access Protocol, servers always store copies of messages on servers. Most POP3 servers can store messages on servers, too, which is a lot more convenient.

The Process of Sending an Email

Now that you know the basics about incoming and outgoing mail servers, it will be easier to understand the role that they play in the emailing process. The basic steps of this process are outlined below for your convenience.

Step #1: After composing a message and hitting send, your email client - whether it's Outlook Express or Gmail - connects to your domain's SMTP server. This server can be named many things; a standard example would be smtp.example.com.

Step #2: Your email client communicates with the SMTP server, giving it your email address, the recipient's email address, the message body and any attachments.

Step #3: The SMTP server processes the recipient's email address - especially its domain. If the domain name is the same as the sender's, the message is routed directly over to the domain's POP3 or IMAP server - no routing between servers is needed. If the domain is different, though, the SMTP server will have to communicate with the other domain's server.

Step #4: In order to find the recipient's server, the sender's SMTP server has to communicate with the DNS, or Domain Name Server. The DNS takes the recipient's email domain name and translates it into an IP address. The sender's SMTP server cannot route an email properly with a domain name alone; an IP address is a unique number that is assigned to every computer that is connected to the Internet. By knowing this information, an outgoing mail server can perform its work more efficiently.

Step #5: Now that the SMTP server has the recipient's IP address, it can connect to its SMTP server. This isn't usually done directly, though; instead, the message is routed along a series of unrelated SMTP servers until it arrives at its destination.

Step #6: The recipient's SMTP server scans the incoming message. If it recognizes the domain and the user name, it forwards the message along to the domain's POP3 or IMAP server. From there, it is placed in a sendmail queue until the recipient's email client allows it to be downloaded. At that point, the message can be read by the recipient.

How Email Clients are Handled

Many people use web-based email clients, like Yahoo Mail and Gmail. Those who require a lot more space - especially businesses - often have to invest in their own servers. That means that they also have to have a way of receiving and transmitting emails, which means that they need to set up their own mail servers. To that end, programs like Postfix and Microsoft Exchange are two of the most popular options. Such programs facilitate the preceding process behind the scenes. Those who send and receive messages across those mail servers, of course, generally only see the "send" and "receive" parts of the process.

At the end of the day, a mail server is a computer that helps move files along to their intended destinations. In this case, of course, those files are email messages. As easy as they are to take for granted, it's smart to have a basic grasp of how mail servers work.

Related Articles

What is a DNSBL?

Domain Name System Blacklists, also known as DNSBL's or DNS Blacklists, are spam blocking lists that allow a website administrator to block messages from specific systems that have a history of sending spam. As their name implies, the lists are based on the Internet's Domain Name System, which converts complicated, numerical IP address such as 140.239.191.10 into domain names like example.net, making the lists much easier to read, use, and search. If the maintainer of a DNS Blacklist has in the past received spam of any kind from a specific domain name, that server would be "blacklisted" and all messages sent from it would be either flagged or rejected from all sites that use that specific list.

DNS Blacklists have a rather long history in web terms, with the first one being created in 1997. Called the RBL, its purpose was to block spam email and to educate Internet service providers and other websites about spam and its related problems. Although modern DNS Blacklists are rarely used as educational tools, their function as an email blocker and filter still serves as their primary purpose to this day. In fact, almost all of today's email servers support at least one DNSBL in order to reduce the amount of junk mail clients using their service receive. The three basic components that make up a DNS Blacklist - a domain name to host it under, a server to host that domain, and a list of addresses to publish to the list - also haven't changed from the time when the RBL was first created to today.

Since then, dozens of different DNSBL's have sprung up and are available for use, and they all have their own lists that are populated based on what does or doesn't meet their own standards and criteria for what a spammer is. Because of this, DNS Blacklists can vary greatly from one to the other. Some are stricter than others, some only list sites for a set amount of time from the date the last piece of spam was received by the maintainer versus others that are manually maintained, and still others not only block IP addresses, but also entire ISP's known to harbor spammers. This results in some lists working better than others because they are maintained by services with a greater level of trustworthiness and credibility than competing lists might have. Users can also use these differences to decide on which DNS Blacklist works best for them depending on what their specific security needs are. Less lenient lists might allow more spam to get through, but might not block non-spam messages that have been misidentified on lists that have stricter guidelines for what goes on or what is left off of it. To help facilitate this, DNS Blacklists that are intended for use by the public will usually have a specific, published policy detailing what a listing means and must adhere to the criteria laid out in it in order to not only attain public confidence in their services, but to sustain it as well.

Related Articles


image1.JPG


How to Remove an IP Address from a Blacklist

(Go to our Blacklist Check page to find out if your IP address is listed on an anti-spam database. This article explains why that happens and how to get off a blacklist.)

Each blacklist database has its own criteria for flagging IP addresses and compiling its own list of online offenders. Those criteria could include a variety of "listings": technical, policy, and evidence-based.

  • Technical listings occur mostly from mail-server configuration issues, such as missing or incorrect reverse DNS records, missing or incorrect banner greetings, and mail servers operating within a suspicious range of IP addresses.
  • Policy listings are based on an operator that does not wish to receive email from certain countries, or ISPs, that have a history of not honoring "unsubscribe" requests.
  • Evidence-based listings are those where the operator has received direct (or indirect) evidence that an IP address has been involved in sending unsolicited emails.

If your IP address has been blacklisted and you want to investigate, you'll need to visit the blacklist's website and do a lookup on your IP address. Most blacklist databases will provide general listing reasons, but don't list specific email addresses tied to blacklisted IP addresses.

Getting "unblacklisted."

If you're able to find out why you were blacklisted, you can try to get it reversed. (You may want to work with someone who is technically savvy to better help you.)

To start with, take time to ensure your network and mail server are configured correctly and all the details are in order for resolving the issues, as prescribed by the blacklist. For example, they may ask you to correct both forward and reverse DNS records, as well as SMTP banners. In addition, you can do the following:

  • Scan all computers on your network for viruses
  • See if there are any known and needed "patches" (updates and fixes) for your operating system
  • Configure routers more securely
  • Establish and enforce stronger passwords

Following the blacklist-removal process.

You want to be removed from any blacklists because databases often share IP addresses that have been listed. If you think you've fixed things on your end, go back to the blacklist's site and follow their instructions for the IP address removal process. Here's what you're likely to come across:

  • Self-Service Removal. There are a few blacklists with a self-service removal feature that lets you take your IP address off the list without much trouble. However, you'll want to make sure you've resolved any issues before doing this. If you don't and your IP address gets listed again, it won't be easy to get it removed that next time.
  • Time-Based Removal. Most blacklists have a built-in, automatic process that removes lower-level listings (IP addresses that are light offenders) within a week or two. But if the IP address had sent spam more than once or did a high volume, the time period will be longer.

Be nice...and see what happens.

When you're trying to get off a blacklist, you'll get farther along if you follow the rules and cooperate. If you are truly innocent of any deliberate wrongdoing (or if you made an honest mistake), let them know. The more open and direct you are with a listing database, the simpler it may be to have your IP address taken off the blacklist.

Keep this in mind:

  1. Their priority is to reduce the spam on their email platform for their customers—their goal isn't to prevent you from sending emails.
  2. Spam is a serious problem. They don't blacklist lightly. It's their way of trying to identify and prevent real problems.
  3. Blacklists are legal because they are designed to prevent fraud or other activity that disrupts normal business. We all need to accept that fact.
  4. If you made a mistake and were blacklisted, don't make the same mistake again. You likely won't be forgiven a second time.

You might be able to resolve any blacklist issues online. If not, and the blacklisting is troublesome for you, consider contacting the list by phone and try to resolve the issue that way.

Related Articles




^ed 
Sent via iPhone

^ed 
Sent via iPhone

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

A Day in the Life

Let's face it... my job pretty much sucks: 

The very nature of being a crisis counselor, therapist, casemanager or any other kind of mental health professional requires that I respond with professionalism to kids who have 
been abused and basically fucked over for years; first by their families, and then by a system that fails to protect them. 

I get calls in the middle of the night from children, adolescents, and even my friends who are in vaiying stages of crises— some are suicidal psychotic, angry, and pretty much just all kinds of fucked up. 

But today, TODAY!!!! 

Today, a child rolled up her sleeves to show me that her set finflicted wounds (cutting) were beginning to heal. She threw out her last razor blade from her hidden collection the night 
before. 

Today, I won a small battle. 

Today, I saw a life change and the healing begin, Not just for her, but for aii of us. Today, I won a small battle. 

As one of my former clients told me, what I do is important— 
because even though I may not change hundreds or thousands of lives every day of my fife, I make a difference one life at a time. 

At the time, I couldn't: stop the tears from my eyes now I can't stop the warm feeling that has taken hold of my body and me same instead of the tears.
 
I am so very proud of you. 



Elyssa D. Durant, Ed.M.

Thursday, November 28, 2013

HMO AMERICA

HMO AMERICA

Hello, and welcome to HMO America where your health maintenance is our number one concern.

Your call is important to us, so please do not hang up.

If you think you have a life or limb-threatening emergency, and need to go to the hospital before the end of this message, do so now.

Remember, however, that ifHMO America determines in hindsight that you did not have a life or limb-threatening emergency, you will be responsible for all of the hospital and physician charges which could mn into several thousand dollars.

Please select from one of the following options:

☎ If you are having head pain, press one now.

☎ If you are having chest pain, press two now.

☎ If you are having abdominal pain, press three now.

☎ If you do not know where the pain is located, press five now.

Incidentally, if you are still using a rotary phone, you are going to die!

Thank you for calling HMO America, where we manage your healthcare so your physicians don't have to!




edd, edm

Friday, September 27, 2013

No Teacher Left Behind

SUBMITTED THIS MORNING... DO YOU AGREE?

To the editor:

The City Paper featured a front-page story (“Metro School district
begins revamp of failing elementary, middle school,” May 21, 2007)
that completely sugar-coated the situation in two metro middle
schools that have fired (via involuntary transfer) the entire staff
and faculty as a result of their failure to meet NCLB benchmarks.

For the last 5 weeks, I have been working as a substitute teacher at
Jere Baxter Middle School and the experience has shaken me to the
core.  Everything I used to believe about school finance reform has
been turned upside down.  Jere Baxter is a Title I school with
access to numerous resources including a math specialist on site
full time, district mentors to advise and assist new teachers.
They have mental health specialists come into several classrooms on
a weekly basis, and it is not uncommon to see caseworkers and
prevention specialists from a variety of community agencies on
campus.

However, despite the plethora of enhancement activities and access
to resource materials, the majority of the 7th and 8th graders do
not know simple math such as long division, subtraction (if they
have to carry the one) or their times tables.  You could throw a
million dollars into this school, and it would not make a bit of
difference!

For the first two weeks, I was assigned to a self-contained
classroom  At one point, the Assistant Principal walked in,
observed the children, and even acknowledged the small black and
white television hidden in the teachers aide desk tuned in to the
Young and the Restless.  She smiled and walked out.  Apparently,
she did not have a problem with the children watching Tom & Jerry,
Sponge Bob and BET music videos from 10 a.m. through dismissal. A
few days later, I gave a make-up assignment during the students
“free time,” (lunch-time through dismissal) and I was told that my
expectations were simply too high.  That class in particular lost
15 teachers this year alone—16 including myself.

The children are running the show at Baxter and they know it.  The
faculty receives little, if any, support from the administration.
As a result, the majority of the teachers have simply given up.
Dealing with disciplinary problems has become the primary focus in
the classroom displacing teaching, learning, and cooperation.

The numerous behavioral disruptions that occur each and every day
prompted the administrators to pull the most effective teachers out
of the classroom to enforce (or re-enforce) school policy while
their classrooms remained empty or were covered by floating
substitute teachers.

The children are completely out of control and simply refuse to do

any work. I was told not to give any student a grade below 75--
even the one who threw his crumpled up science assignment in my
face and walked out of class shouting profanities.  What the
students have learned is that there will be no consequences for
inappropriate behavior or actions.  The administration treats
teachers with complete disrespect: in front of students, teachers,
and guests, completely undermining any sense of autonomy, authority
or cohesiveness. Even I was embarrassed for them, and I was only
there for a few weeks!

This is a classic example of a top-down policy failure.  As a policy
analyst, I always advocated for equity in education, and believed on
some level that throwing money into poor schools (poor performance &
achievement records to disadvantaged students) might help level the
playing field for disadvantaged schools, translating into better
outcomes for students and the community.

The City Paper glossed over the magnitude of this desperate
situation by calling it a “fresh start.”  These teachers have been
treated poorly enough by students and administrators, and now we
have a number of young professionals who are underpaid, uncertain,
and unemployed.  We all know that teacher pay is ridiculous to
begin with, but coupled with the added stress of the re-application
process, Metro may lose a large number of educated, motivated,
displaced educators to surrounding districts, counties, and states.
This is simply ridiculous.  By cleaning house, Baxter will lose the
few experienced, dedicated teachers they have, prompt the younger
set to leave the profession all together, and discourage future
teachers from applying for jobs in Metro.

Everything we know about the positive outcomes in neighborhood
schools is their strong reliance upon community buy-in and parental
involvement.  One thing that makes magnet, lottery, charter schools,
parochial, and private schools so good is the fact that parents,
teachers, students, and administrators fight to get in, and fight
to stay there.  The act of choosing, in effect, leads to an
enhanced sense of community and builds a supportive, consistent,
and structured environment.  Calling this decision a fresh start is
ridiculous-- it would be more accurate to call it a very bad ending!
In this case, No Child Left Behind is, in effect, leaving No
Teachers Left Behind.

Elyssa Durant, Ed.M.
37115



-- 
Elyssa Durant, Ed.M.
Nashville, Tennessee

"The paradox of education is precisely this-- that as one begins to
become educated, one begins to examine the society in which he [or
she] is being educated."   - Baldwin