Re: murphy is listed on spamcop
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 05:55:12AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > 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
I've had enough problems with utterly bogus spamcap blocking that your
statement ("the system seems to be working well") seems completely ludicrous
on the face of it. False positives are indeed a (big) problem with spamcop.
The "solutions" you list (blacklisting users known to have submitted
wrong/malicious reports) seem absurdly inadequate.
No problems in the last few months though, so I guess I can cross my fingers
and pray that they've gotten a clue...
"Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture
and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure,
and demoralizing. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the
future of the world depends." -Oscar Wilde, "The Soul of Man Under Socialism"