Re: murphy is listed on spamcop
On Tuesday 28 December 2004 11:14, Miles Bader <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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.
Any anti-spam measure that gets any large portion of the spam will have some
> The "solutions" you list (blacklisting users known to have submitted
> wrong/malicious reports) seem absurdly inadequate.
They seem to work reasonably well on my systems, hardly any complaints from
users or people sending them mail.
> No problems in the last few months though, so I guess I can cross my
> fingers and pray that they've gotten a clue...
What "clue" are you suggesting that they should get? Blocking all the sources
of spam in real time requires input from many users. How could you take
input from so many users in a way that gives better results than with
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