Gmail's server blocked Options

[Wazoo]

This was found on Gmail's site just now so I am guessing this is a standoff and will not be revisited by them:
--------------cut here-------------------------------------------------------------
We don't reveal IP addresses as part of our ongoing effort to protect every user's privacy.
--------------cut here-----------------------------------------------

That's actually kind of a silly stance .. as pointed out elsewhere in this very Topic, this so called "protection" isn't in place in total .. the difference between e-mail sent via the web interface vice using a POP/SMTP connection ....

[petzl]

That's actually kind of a silly stance .. as pointed out elsewhere in this very Topic, this so called "protection" isn't in place in total .. the difference between e-mail sent via the web interface vice using a POP/SMTP connection ....

I agree

Why would gmail conceal the identity of someone sending one email?

We don't reveal IP addresses as part of our ongoing effort to protect every user's privacy

SpamCop rightly tracks spam to the last traceable IP
If an email server is set-up correctly the IP SpamCop adds to it's SCBL is the actual computer sending the spam

By concealing the source is an open invitation for gmail to be nothing more than another internet nasty and deserves blocking

This is the stance of more uneeded incompetent IT staff spewing bluster instead of fixing their problem (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

This post has been edited by petzl: Feb 7 2006, 03:23 PM

[hadaso]

If Gmail forged "Received" headers like Hotmail and Yahoo do then spamcop reports about "source of spam" would go to the sender's ISP (or internet cafe or whatever...) that would certainly not close the sender's Gmail account. The way Gmail does it spamcop reports get to Gmail's abuse team that can act on it. And the way Gmail explains it to email admins might make them read spamcop's faq and perhaps use SCBL correctly (through spamassassin or something similar).

When I receive spam sent from a Hotmail account and try to report it to Hotmail, I cannot do it using SpamCop because spamcop sends to a connectivity provider that cannot close the sender's email account that they do not control. I have to manually send a report to Hotmail's abuse that can then close the spammer's Hotmail account.

This post has been edited by hadaso: Feb 7 2006, 05:16 PM

[Wazoo]

If Gmail forged "Received" headers like Hotmail and Yahoo do then spamcop
...
try to report it to Hotmail, I cannot do it using SpamCop because spamcop sends to a connectivity provider that cannot close the sender's email account that they do not control. I have to manually send a report to Hotmail's abuse that can then close the spammer's Hotmail account.

I'm thinking that there is something lost in the translation here.

[petzl]

If Gmail forged "Received" headers like Hotmail and Yahoo do then spamcop reports about "source of spam" would go to the sender's ISP

The problem is that many rouge email servers do not stamp where the email is actually received from and break the IP chain. Usually at the email server itself meaning that SpamCop will block the email server instead of IP of the computer sending the spam (In this case SpamCop would send a great many reports before doing so).
All abuse reports (not only those from SpamCop) will also go to the owner of that rouge email server instead of the provider that has control over the IP acually sending the spam

a summery
If an email server is competently set-up SpamCop's SCBL will only list the
*computer* sending the spam and add that IP to the SCBL

That is only after SpamCop has tried to notify the email address given for
the operator of that IP

Example of a properly configured computer
you will see that SpamCop identified NO email servers just the IP <203.134.9.119> of my computer that sent the above example email to hotmail (This means if my computer sent enough spam. SpamCop would only block MY computer nothing else)
you can go here and put/replace that IP in the box then see the country, city, suburb which that IP belongs to

If ANYONE is listed by SpamCop's SCBL it means they have a problem they should fix and need to fix.
SpamCop would have made attempts to tell them so

The right to have a broken email server and expect customers to pay for this dis-service is idiotic and nothing more than a threat. In this case from Gmail( which is in beta?)

The real fix is to get a Proper email service like SpamCop's Email service for the only email address you will ever need
If someone is trying to push something "free" on you it will be free till you use it (like advice)

This post has been edited by petzl: Feb 7 2006, 07:11 PM

[Telarin]

The problem is that many rouge email servers do not stamp where the email is actually received from

a bit off topic, but its important to know the difference
Rouge and Rogue

[Wazoo]

And brought up in the samcop newsgroup today --- SpamCop and GMail
(Archived version starts at http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...ary/108765.html )

From: Sofa King Tyred of Lar Ting
Newsgroups: spamcop
Subject: Spamcop and Gmail
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:50:08 -0500
Message-ID: <dsiqpe$qme$1[at]news.spamcop.net>

My Google alerts spotted this article today. I'm not sure how objective
it is. Any feedback?

http://www.techworld.com/security/news/ind...sID=5337&inkc=0

From: "WazoO"
Newsgroups: spamcop
Subject: Re: Spamcop and Gmail
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:20:31 -0600
Message-ID: <dsisif$sb1$1[at]news.spamcop.net>

This article has a whole lot of wrong information.  I don't see a
way to contact the author.  But one source of information from
both sides of the fence can be "publicly" seen at
http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3973

Seen in that huge Topic/Discussion are snippets of dialog between
users and Google "techs" explaining exactly what the issue is.
The "privacy" thing to me doesn't fly because it's not a blanket
deal, as seen by my testing and demonstrating the differences
between GMail sent via the web interface as compared to using
the added POP/SMTP access.  Only the web-access method
fails to identify the "real" source of the e-mail.  This the end of
the parsing chain when trying to track it down .. can't go any
further than the GMail server involved.

Even the description offered of the "blocking action" by SpamCop
is ass backwards, even if it was close to being correct at all.  Yet
another "reporter" that has not done his homework before rushing
to press.

The "lack of an IronPort" response has come up before by
folks trying to contact them to "complain about SpamCop" ...
The SpamCop "staff" doesn't work "at" IronPort.  This doesn't
necessarily explain the lack of a response, but ...

From: "WazoO"
Newsgroups: spamcop
Subject: Re: Spamcop and Gmail
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:57:29 -0600
Message-ID: <dsiunp$tnh$1[at]news.spamcop.net>

Interestingly enough, one of the "reference" articles listed in this
article also points back to the exact Forum discussion I just
pointed to.  Brian McWilliams Spam Kings blog ....
http://spamkings.oreilly.com/archives/2006...e_gmail_se.html

Posted there as a comment (awaiting 'approval')
How SpamCop.net makes the call;
http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/297.html
Note the math involved.

Note also that even SpamCop.net does not recommend using their BL in a
blocking fashion, even the SpamCop.net filtered e-mail accounts side of the
house uses it as either a Tagging option or part of a filter set which moves
suspected spam e-mail to a "Held" folder (option selectable by the user) ...
and also pointing out the obvious .. SpamCop.net cannot block any e-mail
itself, this "action" being due to the configuration of the ISP using the BL
in their e-mail management toolset.

As noted, there is a huge discussion at
http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3973 .. which includes
some snippets of dialog with Gmail "techs" ... and the demonstrated issue
with their "privacy" stand ... the lack of the appropriate data in the
headers only occurs from the web-based interface.  Use of the POP/SMTP
feature/function results in "correct" headers, which allows the SpamCop.net
parser to track beyond the GMail servers for the 'actual' source.

Posted as a comment at the other referenced site; (awaiting 'approval')
http://www.spamroll.com/blogarch/2006/01/s...p_fills_t_1.php

How SpamCop.net makes the call;
http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/297.html
Note the math involved.

Note also that even SpamCop.net does not recommend using their BL in a
blocking fashion, even the SpamCop.net filtered e-mail accounts side of the
house uses it as either a Tagging option or part of a filter set which moves
suspected spam e-mail to a "Held" folder (option selectable by the user) ...
and also pointing out the obvious .. SpamCop.net cannot block any e-mail
itself, this "action" being due to the configuration of the ISP using the BL
in their e-mail management toolset.

As Brian McWilliams also noted, there is a huge discussion at
http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3973 .. which includes
some snippets of dialog with Gmail "techs" ... and the demonstrated issue
with their "privacy" stand ... the lack of the appropriate data in the
headers only occurs from the web-based interface.  Use of the POP/SMTP
feature/function results in "correct" headers.

From: "Mike Easter"
Newsgroups: spamcop
Subject: Re: Spamcop and Gmail
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:05:53 -0800
Message-ID: <dsiv78$u5o$1[at]news.spamcop.net>

// Spamcop and Gmail lock horns again -- 2006  February 09 //

The above is the derivative of the derivative of the derivative, where
the beginning starts in the forum 9 months ago:

http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3973  would someone
please enlighten me, how does adding gmail's server to a black list
makes any sense at all?  -- 2005 Apr 19

http://spamkings.oreilly.com/archives/2006...e_gmail_se.html
SpamCop blocking some Gmail servers -- At least three mail systems
operated by Google Mail have been placed on the SpamCop blacklist. --
2006  January 29

http://www.spamroll.com/blogarch/2006/01/s...p_fills_t_1.php  SpamCop
fills the paddy-wagon  - And again, its GMail users in the shackles.
SpamCop recently added several Gmail servers to its blacklist.  --  2006
January 30

Spam from gmail webmail SC parses to name the gmail server as the
source.

Considering that the SC blocklisting algorithm uses a formula which
includes the number of spam reports as a numerator, and a derivative of
the number of nonspam mails which constitutes 'reputation' or 'traffic'
based on nonspam queries to the blocklist as the denominator, for busy
servers like gmail's to get themselves blocklisted indicates that some
significant quantity of spam or whatever causes spam reports by
reporters or spamtraps is being generated behind gmail servers.

None of the articles do justice to describing the issue comprehensively,
which can best be explored in the forum or other spamcop related
exchanges such as the archives of news messages.  Naturally I prefer to
read the discussions which occurred in the newsgroups which you can see
here:

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=gmail+se..._qdr=all&as_occ
t=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=news.spamcop.net&as_rights=&safe=images
make oneline or use http://snipurl.com/mfpm which is a search for the
terms gmail servers in news.spamcop.net

--
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin

From: "WazoO"
Newsgroups: spamcop
Subject: Re: Spamcop and Gmail
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:43:04 -0600
Message-ID: <dsj8e9$3vc$1[at]news.spamcop.net>

"Sofa King Tyred of Lar Ting" <nobody[at]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:dsiqpe$qme$1[at]news.spamcop.net...
> My Google alerts spotted this article today. I'm not sure how objective
> it is. Any feedback?
>
> http://www.techworld.com/security/news/ind...sID=5337&inkc=0

And while I was at it, fired off an e-mail to John Dunn, listed as the
Security section Editor ....

From: "WazoO"
To: John Dunn @ techworld.com
Cc: "SpamCop Support - JT" ,  "SpamCop, Deputies"
Subject: Bad reporting
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:31:07 -0600

Either a lack of research or a lack of understanding seems
to be involved in the article just read at "Spamcop and Gmail
lock horns again" written by Guy Kewney, Techworld
http://www.techworld.com/security/news/ind...sID=5337&inkc=0

The leading sentence is obviously some kind of an attempt
a simply gathering attention and generating emotion ... yeah,
I know, standard fare ... however, pointing to the obvious
fact that the SpamCopDNSBL is a very dynamic list, the
real 'facts' are a bit different than conjectured.

> Several minor incidents of "false positive" spam identification
> occurred last year,

Not true at all, spam is spam.  The fact that Google doesn't build
a complete set of headers from the web-based interface causes
the SpamCop.net parser to stop chasing the source at the last
IP address in the chain, which turns out to be the GMail server.

The "last year" and the following "this month" are totally absurd.
Based on a mathematical formula, comparing the amount of "total"
e-mail traffic seen from a specific server and the amount of user-
reported spam tracking back to that source and/or spam-trap hits,
those various servers go on and come off the SpamCopDNSBL on
a continuing basis, depending on the spam spew.
See http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/297.html

> but this month, several Google servers have been blacked
> completely, shutting all users of those servers off from sending
> e-mail to any address monitored by Spamcop.

Even if this was close to being correct, it's still ass-backwards.
SpamCop.net does not have the power to block anything.  It's
the providing of a dynamic (and aggressive) Block List that is "the
story" .....  Any actual "blocking" is performed by an ISP that has
decided to configure his / her e-mail server to user this BL in a blocking
mode.  This is not the recommended way to use it, stated quite clearly in
the associated FAQ.  In fact, the SpamCopDNSBL was originally
created to be used for folks using a SpamCop.net filtered e-mail
account.  The use of this BL is to either "TAG" the headers of a suspected
spam and delivering that e-mail to the user's InBox, or using the BL as
a part of a filtering list (that also includes other BLs) that would then
move the suspected spam into the user's "Held Mail" folder, thus keeping
it out of the InBox.

SpamCop.net does not "monitor" addresses ... the BL is driven by
user-submitted spam reports and spam-trap hits, comparing those
numeric results to traffic numbers developed by IronPort's SenderBase
application.  See http://www.ironport.com/company/

> Occasionally, Gmail is listed on SpamCop because we do not reveal
> the IP address of our users.

Only partially true ... use of the GMail system via the POP/SMTP
functions result in "correct" headers.

> Brian McWilliams noted that the Gmail servers in question are not
> on other big blacklists, "which makes you wonder how SpamCop
> is making decisions on their own account," said Spamroll.

I've provided a comment on Spamroll's site and the Spam King site,
both referencing the same link as above which offers some dialog on
how the SpamCop.netDNSBL works.  There are thousands of public
BLs out there, probably millions (?) of personal BLs in use ... each one
of them is built to some specification, which explains why there are so
many of them.  SpamCop.net's is unique in that it is "automatic" ... spam
complaints / spam-trap hits come in with sufficient quantity, it gets listed

for a maximum of 24 hours (after the spam stops) ...

There is even a one-time offer of a "quick delisting" for that ISP/Admin
that may have tan into an issue, got it resolved, and is sure that the spew
has stopped.  Of course, in reality, too many folks hit this page first,
then try to troubleshoot the issue.

The really embarrassing thing is that one of the articles referenced in this
article also includes a pointer to a huge SpamCop.net Forum Topic /
Discussion on the "GMail servers are blocked" issue.  That discussion
also includes snippets of some e-mail dialog with some GMail "techs" ...
some work-ups on the actual issue, words from folks on both sides of
the fence ... never mind the ovbious information about the on/off situation
of various GMail servers.  Please see
http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3973
That dialog was updated again today based on some traffic in one
of the SpamCop.net newsgroups.

> Coincidentally, perhaps, Spamcop's owner, IronPort Systems, has
> failed to respond to requests for a comment on this issue. This might
> indicate that it has nothing to say, or it might indicate that even inside
> IronPort, Spamcop implementation is not sensitively set up.

I can't speak for anyone, just a volunteer supporter, but have to point
out that SpamCop.net has its own staff.  Please see a list at;
"Section 8 - SpamCop's System & Active Staff"
http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=faq&cat=10

For contact points, please see "Where to get Help" at
http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=faq&article=78
or "How To Get Official SpamCop.Net Customer Support" at;
http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...ounce&f=2&id=23

Again, I'm going with the fact that there seems to be a huge lack of
actual research and understanding of the actual issues involved in this
specific issue.

c.w. edwards
Yes, I'm showing as the Admin of the SpamCop.net support Forum,
but this is a totally volunteer effort on my part.

This e-mail will also be added to that Forum discussion so as to inform
anyone else following up on this article or either of the referenced links
mentioned by the author .. in addition to keeping that Topic 'current'

For the record, SpamCop.net has no association with the Domain
thieves that offer up samcop.COM and / or spamcop.ORG .....

[Roelant]

Hmm, it looks like the Gmail servers have been removed from the blacklist? Did something change and is the matter somehow resolved, has Gmail silently become an exception or did the listing just expire and is it a matter of time before the Gmail servers will be back on the list?

By the way: bad coincidence this had to happen right after I published an item about it on my website (in Dutch). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

[Wazoo]

Hmm, it looks like the Gmail servers have been removed from the blacklist?

The SpamCopDNSBL is very dynamic. The SpamCop FAQ entry on "What is on the BL?" offers up some of the math involved. The critical part of all of this is ... the BL lists IP addresses that have met those conditions, delists them when the "math" works "back to null" ....

So the specific answer starts with that "the Gmail servers" is a bit broad. This Topic was started a long time ago, and in that time several IP addresses that ended up being a Gmail server have mede it to the list, have been delisted, have found their way back on the list, on and on .. this is one of the unique features of the SpamCopDNSBL.

[Roelant]

So the specific answer starts with that "the Gmail servers" is a bit broad.

Well, you may be right, but there ware several servers on that blacklist until Monday evening, and all of them 'dissapeared'. But the mistery is solved already, this morning the server I used to check on (and again: several others) is listed again. Thank you anyway for taking the time to react. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[hadaso]

Sometimes outgoing mail from gmail is blocked and tSpamCop is cited as the cause of blocking.

SpamCop is not the cause of blocking.
Gmail is not the cause of blocking.
The cause of blocking are some stupid postmasters at some ISPs that use blocklists without understanding what they mean:
SpamCop lists IP addresses that sent some spam. It doesn't list IP addresses that send only spam. So using SpamCop listing as the sole criterion for blocking is very bad and would result in lots of legitimate email being blocked. On the other hand SpamCop BL is an excelent resource when used in conjuction with other methods of filtering spam, as it it constantly updated and never contains old info.

Some ISPs happily collect their $2/month for blocking spam and don't care if their users don't get all their email, and most email users don't understand much and would accept that losing some email is a technical problem that cannot be solved unless they want lots of spam.

The problem is how to educate these ISPs about correct spam filtering. One way to do it is that if a bounce message contains a link to spamcop as explanation to why the message was blocked, the spamcop page reached would clearly say that this list is not appropriate for direct blocking, and is very good as input of a comprehensive filtering system, such as SpamAssassin or others. This would avoid most complaints about "SpamCop blocks my email" since anyone whose email is blocked would immediately get the explanation that the reason is the ISP that uses SpamCop incorrectly. And this would have another good effect in generating public demand for better spam filtering (as in: "My dearly beloved ISP: I pay you $2/month for spam filtering. Why do you supply me wih only basic and incorrectly implemented blocking when there are better tools that you can download freely and use in your server?").

[StevenUnderwood]

SpamCop is not the cause of blocking.
Gmail is not the cause of blocking.
The cause of blocking are some stupid postmasters at some ISPs that use blocklists without understanding what they mean:
SpamCop lists IP addresses that sent some spam. It doesn't list IP addresses that send only spam. So using SpamCop listing as the sole criterion for blocking is very bad and would result in lots of legitimate email being blocked. On the other hand SpamCop BL is an excelent resource when used in conjuction with other methods of filtering spam, as it it constantly updated and never contains old info.

A slight correction, SpamCop lists IP addresses that recently sent a significant percentage of spam. It doesn't list IP addresses that send only spam.

[Wazoo]

The problem is how to educate these ISPs about correct spam filtering. One way to do it is that if a bounce message contains a link to spamcop as explanation to why the message was blocked, the spamcop page reached would clearly say that this list is not appropriate for direct blocking,

The problem with this suggestion is that the "message / link" seen is placed there by the ISP involved .... some don't include the IP address, some screw up the BL used and the 'error' message, others don't say much of anything at all ....

[hadaso]

A slight correction, SpamCop lists IP addresses that recently sent a significant percentage of spam. It doesn't list IP addresses that send only spam.

This is becoming dangerously close to language that the average sysadmin of a small ISP (or junior staff at a major ISP) would not understand and does not care about. How about "SpamCop lists IP addresses that recently either sent a predetermined relative amount of email messages to some secret addresses or generated a significant relative amount of complaints about spam received. It doesn't list IP addresses that send only spam."...

Simple language that makes every reader understand immediately that the list means that the IP generated email that has some spam but is not all spam, with a link to the details in the faq is best, in that a reader that understands nothing about email should be able to understand immediately upon reading the message that the fault is with the recipient's ISP not doing their homework, and then the reader can learn more if the reader wants to learn more.

One problem is that ISPs sell ineffective filtering services. If mosti ISPs would have to learn how to filter spam more effectively (because users learn about it and demand it) then Spammers would have a real problem.

This post has been edited by hadaso: Mar 22 2006, 07:04 AM

[micaheli]

I really don't see the big fuss.. It is (for the most part) a free service. If you don't like it.. don't use it.

I'm using postfix. What I did was add a check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/exceptions line to the mynetwork = line.. Then, just add "gmail.com OK" to the file, run postmap exceptions, restart postfix.. and voila... you are now making gmail.com an exception to the spamcop rule. The problem with this is that anything claming to be from "gmail.com" will be allowed through. Although, I haven't seen any false positives yet (been running like this for a couple weeks).

Just FYI.

--Micah

[ziegast]

Two observations:

1. According to openrbl.org, SpamCop is the only service listing the IP address of the Gmail server that I lookup. This makes me question whther Spamcop should really be listing it, or whether their filters need to be tuned. It's more important for me to receive email from gmail users than it is for me to block spam, so I need to remove spamcop from my list of RBL servers at least temporarily until this storm passes.

2. The problem is being masked by Gmail. If I send an email to a bad address, I get a bounce message almost immediately. If I send an email to a host blocking using RBL lists, I don't get a bounce message. My mail server blocks with "554 Service Unavailable ...etc...". With a 5xx message, I should get a bounce message. Seems slimey to me. It's causing me support problems becasue my email customers think I'm just dropping their mail.

[hadaso]

...This makes me question whther Spamcop should really be listing it, or whether their filters need to be tuned.  It's more important for me to receive email from gmail users than it is for me to block spam, so I need to remove spamcop from my list of RBL servers at least temporarily until this storm passes.

Spamcop listing should not depend on other listings. SpamCop listing is based on different criteria, so there's no reason why anything that is listed on SpamCop should be listed on anther list that employs different criteria, and vice versa.

Nobody forces you to refuse all email from sources listed on SpamCop BL. SpamCop doesn't recommend doing it. It recommends using the listing as data to be fed to a more comprehensive solution such as SpamAssassin (that gives it appropriate weight among other criteria used to decide what should be discarded or diverted from users' inboxes).

2. The problem is being masked by Gmail.  If I send an email to a bad address, I get a bounce message almost immediately.  If I send an email to a host blocking using RBL lists, I don't get a bounce message.  My mail server blocks with "554 Service Unavailable ...etc...".  With a 5xx message, I should get a bounce message.  Seems slimey to me.  It's causing me support problems becasue my email customers think I'm just dropping their mail.

You mean if you send from a Gmail account to your server and your server bounces? If Gmail can detect that the cause of the "554 Service Unavailable ...etc..." message is a SpamCop listing then they might treat it as a "45x blah blah ..." and reschedule the email to be sent later, as a SpamCop listing is a transient condition (24 hours) and your server would accept the email once the listing is removed after 24 hours or less.

[rurikhan]

Just an intuition I had when I put toguether a couple of facts here, dunno if anyone came up with this or no, hope I'm not repeating anyone's idea and if I am I won't mind the admins deleting my post or something like that, but I honestly do not have the time to read the 14 pages of posts at the moment (I will do so later however).

So here's a conclusion I've come to, firstly I've been wondering if Spamcop ever checks the origin of the spam reporters, because from my point of view, if I was Bill Gates, and had a service like Hotmail I would be pretty annoyed at Gmail for ofering a BETTER service then mine and for FREE, and again assuming I was Bill Gates and I had a battallion of programmers, IT Engineers and alot of other ppl at my diposal I imagine it would be pretty easy for me to have them all send an e-mail reporting a few Gmail adresses as spammers, thus incapaciting Gmail to compete with me since they're e-mails would always be blocked and listed as spammers.

And since Gmail has a strict policy not to reveal their user's identities (which is from my point of view correct), they are bound by their own policy and can't really do anything to prevent being reported as spammers.

Basically, Gmail is by far the BEST e-mail provider, and I can Imagine how that would make other ppl angry (particularly other e-mail providers who have inferior services). I gave you an example from Microsoft's point of view, however this example can easily be transformed to any other company that has an email provider service ...

You may see this as a conspiracy theory, but I simply see it as pure logic, it's the law of the jungle in these new technologies and basically anything goes ...

Again I apologize myself if I am merely repeating someone else's idea.

And also, I would like to ask SpamCop to verify their reporters origins, because I mean, I personally could get about 50 ppl send an e-mail here reporting the same e-mail adress or the same adress, and I could probably get a few ppl blocked by exploiting your block formula ... it's pretty easy to be honest.

Bare in mind that with this post I do not mean to insult or in any way demean your endeavour, after all I am one of the first persons to defend it as I now receive less (if any) spam messages, however I find myself being blocked along with it, and find the best e-mail provider being blocked as well so you have to admit there may be a few flaws in your system and that you should check the origin of the spam reporters.


Rui Modesto

[Miss Betsy]

You might read the FAQ about what SpamCop does so that you have a better idea of how blocklists work.

Basically, your email address is not relevant. It is the IP address. Gmail has problems because they don't reveal the IP address that the spam comes from so their servers get blocked (I think that's correct). IP addresses don't reveal much about most people since many IP addresses (like gmail) have hundreds of email addresses.

It's all about netiquette.

Miss Betsy

[hadaso]

... I honestly do not have the time to read the 14 pages of posts at the moment (I will do so later however).

Honesty is good! I only had time to read all these posts because it was in portions over several months.

...  assuming I was Bill Gates ... it would be pretty easy for me to have them all send an e-mail reporting a few Gmail adresses as spammers, thus incapaciting Gmail to compete with me since they're e-mails would always be blocked and listed as spammers.
...

As much as we like to hate M$, they're not that bad, and I don't think they'd stoop so low.

... Gmail is by far the BEST e-mail provider, ...

What an exaggeration! What do you compare it to? Hotmail and Yahoo? there's lots of basic email functionality that's unavailable in Gmail, and thaere are lots of email providers that you may never have heard of offering functionality you don't have with Gmail. There is no such thing as a "best e-mail provider" since email is very complex, and what is "good" depends on how you are using it.

And also, I would like to ask SpamCop to verify their reporters origins, because I mean, I personally could get about 50 ppl send an e-mail here reporting the same e-mail adress or the same adress, and I could probably get a few ppl blocked by exploiting your block formula ... it's pretty easy to be honest.

SpamCop listings are not based on email addresses. They are based on parsing email headers to locate the machine that originally sent the email message. So it's not so easy to get SpamCop to generate false listings, but actually it's probably possible to forge email headers in a way that fools SpamCop into accepting false reports. So it's actually an interesting question: what mechanisms does SpamCop has to detect and avoid false reports?

... I find myself being blocked along with it

SpamCop blocks no email: SpamCop only publishes a list of IP addresses, and those are IP addresses that sent several email messages that produced complaints by their recipients. Some email providers or users refuse to receive email from these sources so they block them. SpamCop advises against using the list in this way and advises a more subtle approach that uses several parameters to decide what to do with a received message. The main cause of this long thread is not SpamCop or Gmail but rather stupid email admins that apply the SpamCop list without reading the manual.

This post has been edited by hadaso: Apr 28 2006, 07:56 AM