Re: murphy is listed on spamcop
On Thursday 09 December 2004 14:16, Miles Bader <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> paddy <email@example.com> 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,
But if the users do the wrong thing then they threaten to ban them. They are
fairly strict and even minor infractions result in nasty email from the
> (2) users are stupid,
Stupid users will get banned from spamcop if they enforce their threats.
> and (3) there's no apparent
> attempt to compensate for (2), despite a long history of problems.
The system seems to be working well. Big sites need multiple reports to get
them listed (so a single stupid user can't cause a major server to be
blocked). Stupid users get LARTed. Generally their DNSBL doesn't give many
> 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.
Yes, that stops a lot of spam. Spamcop as a hard black-list is the best
measure to stop spam that you can use without excessive complaints.
> 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.
If the report of spam is false or malicious then complain to the spamcop
admins and they will deal with it. If the report is legit then banish the
spammer from your system and wait for the black-list to timeout. It's
reasonable and it works.
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page