[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Andrzej Adam Filip wrote: > >> "Steven W. Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > On Wednesday, Aug 2nd 2006 at 13:50 -0700, quoth Derek Harding: >> > >> > =>On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 16:37 -0400, Tom Ray wrote: >> > =>> Anyone serious about stopping SPAM should not use SpamCop. They have no >> > =>> real checking method, it's like AOL's spam blocking method...they just >> > =>> let users submit what they think is spam and then block it. It's >> > =>> pointless. There's not even a way to contact anyone at SpamCop to fix a >> > =>> falsely listed server or what not. >> > => >> > =>Spamcop has its problems, some very serious, however the above >> > >> > Hold on there Bullwinkle! I have been religiously using spamcop in the >> > hopes that the reports that are sent out get used by at least some of the >> > ISPs. Am I wrong about this? >> >> They help keep *good* ISPs clean. Bad ISPs care very little. >> I assume I receive <1% of received spam from good ISPs. >> >> It is not a bad idea to post copies of spamcop.net submitted spam (after >> munging) to NANAS with spamcop.net report link. > > I like to think that I'm a "good ISP", but I've had at least one of my > servers listed a few times by them. They delist in 24 hours, but there > are still people who reject using SpamCop as a BL. I do not recommend > this. > > Spamcop lists any server that bounces email into one of their spam traps. > I contacted them via their newsgroups and they are adamant that no server > should ever bounce email or have any kind of autoreply. > > While I agree that bouncing (as opposed to rejecting) email because it is > detected as spam or a virus is very bad, they're basically insisting that > you violate RFCs 2821 and 3464. If you have customer autoresponders, > you're SOL. If you host mailing lists that uses an autoreply confirmation > (itself an anti-spam measure), you're SOL. They insist that this is "bad > behavior". I insist that it's neccessary for my business and in > compliance with all applicable RFCs. > > I use them in SA...2.0 score, which I lowered from 3.5 when I notice that > yahoo groups were listed. But the only BLs I reject against are sbl-xbl, > which catches a big chunk with virtually no false positives. > > James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://3.am
I and Steven were talking about using spamcop.net for spam reporting to the responsible ISP. You talk about spam blocking/scoring. -- [pl2en: Andrew] Andrzej Adam Filip : [EMAIL PROTECTED] : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
