Re: murphy is listed on spamcop
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: murphy is listed on spamcop
- From: Miles Bader <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:16:58 +0900
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: Miles Bader <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <20041126140200.GB4307@cobalt0.panici.net> (firstname.lastname@example.org's message of "Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:02:00 +0000")
- References: <20041125143231.GA16596@cobalt0.panici.net> <20041125151622.GA10198@wonderland.linux.it> <email@example.com> <20041125235136.GA28960@wonderland.linux.it> <20041126140200.GB4307@cobalt0.panici.net>
paddy <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> In which case, is there something fundamentally broken about the spamcop
> system ? Or is there some technically insoluble problem here ?
It seems to be more that they just don't really give a crap:
(1) they trust users, (2) users are stupid, and (3) there's no apparent
attempt to compensate for (2), despite a long history of problems.
It's clearly a very bad idea to use their blacklist for anything except
a vague hint, but many ISPs _do_ use it as a hard blacklist. I've had
experiences where complaining to the ISP just resulted in replies like
"Ha ha ha! You suck! I won't change!" so it would be really nice if
spamcop themselves could be a bit more responsible.
Freedom's just another word, for nothing left to lose --Janis Joplin