Re: spamcop

[Mike Bird <mgb-debian@yosemite.net>]

On Wednesday 27 September 2006 09:51, Seth Goodman wrote:
> I agree with Michael: tricking a server that responsibly sends out
> confirmation messages into sending one to a spamtrap is about denial of
> service.  I also agree with Kumaraju that sending mail to spamtraps
> should get anyone listed.  If your server is not otherwise a spam
> source, and the DoS continues, you should expect to get the server
> whitelisted.  However, it is your responsibility, and not the DNSBL
> maintainer, to make sure this happens.
>
> It's a rather nasty form of DoS, as it uses an organization that tries
> to fight network abuse to cause problems for the FLOSS community.  Worst
> of all, the Debian listmasters have swallowed the bait.  That's why it
> is important, whether people like SpamCop or not, to arrange to get
> murphy whitelisted.  Complaining that SpamCop is cluelessly administered
> won't convince many to stop using SpamCop, yet will convince some that
> the Debian community has an attitude problem.  Either way, the people
> perpetrating the DoS win, though it turns out differently if we
> cooperate with SpamCop.

+1

This is entirely reasonable and responsible.  Spamcop even has its
own opt-in confirmation that works the same way.  All we need is a
listmaster with the time and inclination to communicate with the
Spamcop deputies.

--Mike Bird