[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: murphy is listed on spamcop

On Tuesday 28 December 2004 06:38, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> 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

Reply to: