> > > > ------------------------------- > > > > Q41: How does one contact SPEWS? > > > > A41: One does not. SPEWS does not receive email - it's just an automated > > > > system and website, SPEWS and other blocklist issues can be discussed in > > > > the public forums mentioned above... Note that posting messages in these > > > > newsgroups & lists will not have any effect on SPEWS listings > > > > > > the fact is that SPEWS lists known spam sources. this is good. i > > > *WANT* known spam sources to be blocked. I don't want to receive mail > > > from known spam sources. you seem to think that there's something wrong > > > with this.
Okay... in that case, you can block virtually ALL the large network providers and hosting providers like Sprint, UUnet, Level3, etc., because nearly all of them have some sort of spam problem, big or small. I know of virtually no large provider that has not had 1 single complaint of spam about them. > > 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. > > > > ISP is (eg. Sprint), they will still block them. In Spamcop's > > > > case, it won't ban large ISPs, because if you tell them a general > > > > figure for the mail volume, it will take that into consideration. > > > > > > why the hell should an RBL care how big an ISP is? it's not > > > relevant - they're either part of the spam problem or they're not. > > > size doesn't come into it. Okay... go ahead and block Sprint, UUnet, Level3, Hotmail, YahooMail, and all other providers with spam complaints. > > It is relevant. In my spare time I run two small ISPs in Melbourne. > > The total user-base of them both is <1000 users, logs are carefully > > watched, and spam incidence is almost zero. 18 months ago I was > > running one of Europe's larger ISPs with >500,000 users (probably > > comparable to the entire online population of Australia). The amount > > of spam reports was hugely higher as you would expect primarily > > because of having a larger user base. > > it's still not relevant. a host is either a spam problem or not. if it > is a problem, then it should be blacklisted regardless of the size of > the ISP responsible for it. if it's not a problem, then it shouldn't be > listed. > Again, go ahead and block Sprint, UUnet, Level3, Hotmail, YahooMail, and all other providers with spam complaints. > > Blocking one of the smaller Melbourne ISPs because of 10 different > > people complaining about spam in one day is reasonable. But blocking > > zonnet.nl for less than 500 spam reports would be totally > > unreasonable! I think it is all relative. If a small company with 500 users has 100 spam complaints, then obviously their problem is real big and they are having a serious problem... and unless they clean up their act, they are obviously blackhat. On the other hand, Hotmail getting 100 complaints when they have... what... 10M email accounts (or more?), would be plain stupid. It is all relative. And to say otherwise is plainly foolish. > most complaints are self-evidently made by idiots. hardly anyone who is > 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. > > > > that's one of the problems with spamcop. if a host deserves to be > > > listed in an RBL, then it should be listed regardless of how large > > > the ISP is. otherwise you end up with notorious spam-havens like > > > uunet being immune to listing no matter how many pink contracts they > > > sign, while small ISPs get listed just because some vermin spammer > > > forged their IP address in a Received line. > > I've said it before, and I'll say it again... go ahead and block Sprint, UUnet, Level3, Hotmail, YahooMail, and all other providers with spam complaints. > > a bad (i.e. spamhaven) ISP should be blacklisted regardless of their > size. good ISPs shouldn't be blacklisted. > Your definition of "good" and "bad" is so subjective it isn't worth commenting on. I work with facts and figures. Spamcop does the same... if a host is considered to have above 2% email as spam, or something like that, then it will block that host. So therefore, if UUnet (good or bad) sends out 10M emails per day, and Spam complaints are 1000, then okay... but if a tiny host sends out 500K emails, and spam complaints are also 1K, then obviously they have a problem. I've said it before, but you obviously don't get it. > > > it's also obvious just from looking at headers in spam that spammers > > > are definitely aware of how spamcop works and are deliberately > > > forging IP addresses and domain names belonging to anti-spammers. > > > > Could you please send me a copy of such a spam for analysis purposes? > > i don't keep copies of every spam i receive. > > look at your own spam. you'll see the patterns. 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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
