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

Re: [Fwd: Re: Spamassasin over RBL, was Re: rblsmtpd -t?]



On Tue, 7 May 2002 17:44, Jason Lim wrote:
> > > Jason has complained in the past about his IP addresses being listed
> > > in spews even though none of them has ever been used for sending spam.
> > > Simply because he lives in a country that contains lots of open relays
> > > is enough to be listed as a spammer.  Is this a better policy than
> > > spamcop?
> >
> > well, then, all he has to do is move to another country. problem solved,
> > right?  after all, if it's a documented policy, it must be right and he
> > has no cause to complain...any more than anyone else has cause to
> > complain about spamcop's documented policy.
>
> That is real mature... "move to another country". So that is your
> solution.
>
> I think that just about sums up the logic you have about all this.

I think that Craig was trying to draw an analogy between my position on 
SpamCop and the position some people take regarding SPEWS.

> > capable of reading headers isn't going to waste their time reporting to
> > spamcop, they're going to maintain their own filters instead....which
> > leaves the vast majority of spamcop reporters being idiots.   garbage
> > in, garbage out.
>
> I can read the headers just fine. I use Spamcop because it saves me time.
> If I was to personally parse all the spams that I get manually, then thats
> all i'd do all day. I have better things to do... not sure about you.

Same here, that's why I use SpamCop.  Also I'll trust the scripts of SpamCop 
to parse the headers correctly rather than my own ability, presumably the 
SpamCop admins know better how to parse such headers than I do, and scripts 
are not going to mis-read things or make typos...

> No one is asking you for "every spam" you receive. Give 1 example.
>
> And even if 1 example got though, the Spamcop admins (check the newsgroups
> and mailing lists) are contantly tweaking and improving the code used to
> identify spam. So even IF your example does prove to be true (which you
> have no proof or example of) then tell Spamcop and they will analyse it.

Yes, presumably the SpamCop admins could be discredited if someone proves 
that their scripts mis-diagnose spam sources and they fail to fix them.  So 
someone who dislikes SpamCop could attack them by publishing information on 
how to defeat their scripts...

-- 
If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines
of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do
whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by
posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org



Reply to: