On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:38:21 -0400 "Tabor J. Wells" <twells@???> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 05:22:17PM +0200,
> Tony Earnshaw <tonni@???> is thought to have said:
> > I have a feeling that I should understand what this is all about (I
> have
> > heard of Spamcop, that's all; for the rest I confess to being
> > intellectually challenged and senile.)
> Essentially this person signed up for exim-users, confirmed their
> subscription, and then reported the mail from exim-users as spam to
> Spamcop.
> Enough complaints to Spamcop and it'll end up on the Spamcop blacklist
> which
> some sites use to block mail (although given some of the more broken
> behavior of Spamcop I can't understand why anyone would want to use
> the SC blacklist in a production environment).
this whole discussion happened while i was driving from NY to NC today.
it's also a bit OT, but i'll take a shot at the last OT posting...
Julian, designer of Spamcop, has made the Spamcop BL hairtrigger, i know of
cases where an IP has been BL'd for _two_ reports of spam. his sample sets
are not even remotely valid in size.
it's heavily automated, and has very broken header parsing, so IPs are
often implicated that have nothing to do with the source of the email.
i know of cases where persons filing spamcop reports have inadvertantly
gotten their own MX hosts listed.
delisting is automated too; Julian tends to refuse to manually remove bad
listings, so if something goes wrong and your IP gets listed unfairly,
you're pretty much screwed.
so as far as i'm concerned, Nigel's action is 100% justified. he's actually
being too nice; people who subscribe, confirm, and then report as spam to
spamcop really should be taken out back and shot.
richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty@???
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
