Re: murphy is listed on spamcop
On Tuesday 28 December 2004 06:38, Florian Weimer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> * Russell Coker:
> >> 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).
> This isn't true. Another precondition for not being blocked because
> of a single incident is that Spamcop (or Ironport?) sees enough
> solicited mail from your server. Most non-US/non-English mail ISPs
> aren't in this category, even if they have many users.
I haven't noticed any problems when running non-US mail servers.
In any case it's got to be better than having US mail servers block large
parts of the outside world as their solution to spam.
> I wouldn't be
> surprised if you could change by becoming a customer of Ironport and
> use their spam-related services. Go figure.
I would. Spamcop doesn't appear to have changed much since the change in
> > 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.
> Spamcop never blocked MSN Hotmail, even when it was a constant source
> of spam (submitted over the web interface)...
Hotmail is also a large source of legit mail. Hotmail is in many people's
white-lists because of it's popularity. For a long time it was the option
you would use to inform someone that their anti-spam setup blocked your
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