On 1/6/2013 6:18 PM, Ron Guerin wrote:
> On 01/06/2013 12:29 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring system.
>>
>> I agree that Spamcop used to be awful, with vast numbers of false
>> alarms. But since Ironport bought them several years ago, ther
On 01/06/2013 12:29 PM, John Levine wrote:
Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring system.
I agree that Spamcop used to be awful, with vast numbers of false
alarms. But since Ironport bought them several years ago, there's
been a nearly complete turnover of staff and i
On 1/6/2013 11:29 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring system.
>
> I agree that Spamcop used to be awful, with vast numbers of false
> alarms. But since Ironport bought them several years ago, there's
> been a nearly complete turnover of staff
>Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring system.
I agree that Spamcop used to be awful, with vast numbers of false
alarms. But since Ironport bought them several years ago, there's
been a nearly complete turnover of staff and it's much better run.
Take another look. I f
Jos Chrispijn:
>
> Wietse Venema:
> > Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring
> > system. Wietse
>
> What is your concern about Spamcop?
Read their blocklist policy.
I use it, thusly:
postscreen_dnsbl_sites = zen.spamhaus.org*2
bl.spamcop.net*1 b.barracudacen
Wietse Venema:
Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring
system. Wietse
What is your concern about Spamcop?
Happy to learn,
Jos
