zdavatz Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Dear all As mentioned in other forums on the internet, Spamcop is major crap in terms of my personal opinion! Why? Because it can block an IP Address for about 10 minutes an then all of a sudden the IP Address is unblocked again. Also Software like TMDA that works with a trigger-response-system will fall into the Spamcop Traps. Also spam-bounce-messages will fall into these traps. Our server does not send any spam but we are using TMDA and qmail. Qmail does bounces and then if a bounce falls into a trap you are done and can not send your clients any more Emails! Just find a better solutions guys! This sucks! Zeno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Just find a better solutions guys! And I will suggest YOU find a better solution than redirecting your spam problems onto innocent third parties. That is what misdirected bounces to the forged replay address are, spam. And, while I don't have time to check, I suspect TMDA is a challenge/response system, which is the same thing, bothering those that did NOT send the original message, simply because a spammer decided to use their address in a spam run. It can not be a spam solution if you are simply "passing the buck" onto others. P.S. I'm sure I will get no VALID reply to this message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Dear Zeno, Thank you for your opinion. There are reasons why "responses" sent to addresses that didn't initiate any communications are very bad, and SpamCop helps system admins all over the world to deal with things that they don't want. As for TMDA, while you may like it, there are other opinions....here's one: TMDA Users Can B*** Me I never respond to the "challenges" from challenge/response systems, nor does anyone I know. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telarin Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I use the opposite tactic David. If you don't respond, then you keep getting requests from many of them. I simply respond to all of them, whether I sent them a message or not... That way their bounced spam is no longer my problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A_Friend Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Just find a better solutions guys! YOU should find a better solution instead of ranting! TMDA generates backscatter - it sends challenges, even if the sender address is forged. So effectively *YOU* become a *SPAMMER*. TMDA offloads the decision wether a mail is spam or not to the sender. If I send you spam and I confirm the challenge, it's not spam anymore. You have given me permission to act on your behalf. TMDA can easily deadlock with other C/R systems. Two C/Rs can easily challenge each other until the heat death of the universe, so important mails end up in limbo. And last but not least, TMDA burdens the sender with additional work, implying that *your* time is more valuable than *mine*. No thanks! Everybody who's using a C/R system is on the same evolutionary level as a spammer. A. Friend Suggested reading: http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html http://spamlinks.net/filter-cr.htm http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Rants/challenge-response.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Fixed a small typo in the Topc Title ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I never respond to the "challenges" from challenge/response systems, nor does anyone I know. David, I have replied a few times to challenge/responses, especially when it is spammers and/or viruses sending the messages. Otherwise, there would be no way to let the person know that their "system" is simply pushing their spam onto some other innocent person. If it also allows the spam and/or virus through, well, it is their system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 As mentioned in other forums on the internet, Spamcop is major crap in terms of my personal opinion! You have the right to speak your opinion even if it is without any knowledge of the subject. Why? Because it can block an IP Address for about 10 minutes an then all of a sudden the IP Address is unblocked again. Spamcop connot block any IP address. (re: Lack of knowledge?) Also Software like TMDA that works with a trigger-response-system will fall into the Spamcop Traps. Also spam-bounce-messages will fall into these traps. Why are you bouncing email to addresses that did not send them? (re: Lack of knowledge?) Our server does not send any spam but we are using TMDA and qmail. Qmail does bounces and then if a bounce falls into a trap you are done and can not send your clients any more Emails! See above answer (re: Lack of knowledge?) Just find a better solutions guys! I think the best solution would be better informed people running email servers. (re: Lack of knowledge?) This sucks! So does getting bounces from poorly run email servers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 ... it can block an IP Address for about 10 minutes an then all of a sudden the IP Address is unblocked again.You prefer other block lists in which you are listed longer? - if I have guessed your server's IP address correctly I can see that wish has been granted. Do we need to guess or can you tell us the address so we can all share in your enjoyment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zdavatz Posted December 8, 2006 Author Share Posted December 8, 2006 Moderator edit: the following post was original posted as a new topic and was later merged into this topic as it was simply a continuation of the same rant. Dear SpamCup Developers! Obviously you like lots of cups full of spam because that will justify your technology more! You should change your name to SpamCup! So please tell me one thing: So why does "SpamCop" add Non-delivery-reports as potential spam? What is your idea behind that? Do you just want to fill up your blacklists so you can go to your clients and show them how "effective" you are? Why are you guys breaking internet rules? The internet does not belong to you! ht tp://hay zeus net/blog/20 06/03/23/spamco p-s ucks/ Please stop inventing your own rules and start adjusting and polishing the existing ones. Best Zeno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Most people find that NDR's that have been sent to the return path - which has been forged by the spammer and which they never sent at all - are just as annoying as spam, if not worse. Some people are horrified to see their address in the From; others receive hundreds overfilling their mailboxes. If you read the FAQ about 'backscatter' and 'misdirected bounces' you will have a better understanding of the problem. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbiel Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 See the following link: Blowback, Backscatter, Misdirected Bounces Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 ...Did you bother to read the answers to your last post? Dear SpamCup Developers!...You're addressing the wrong people -- SpamCop developers don't come here. This is primarily a user-to-user forum. On rare occasions, "official" representatives of SpamCop drop in but not the developers.Obviously you like lots of cups full of spam because that will justify your technology more! You should change your name to SpamCup!...Thank you for expressing your opinion. <g><snip> Why are you guys breaking internet rules? The internet does not belong to you! ht tp://hay zeus .net/blog/2006/03/23/spamco p-sucks/ <snip> ...Sorry, I am not navigating to a URL on a system I do not know offered by someone I do not know. Would you be so kind as to provide a link to an authoritative source? Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Don't spend the time replying here folks .... Topic starter has dropped by twice, started 'new' Topics both times, and yet .... as the normal spammer type, never bothers with or wants to deal with any 'real' data .. Both Topics have been merged into the 'first' bit of rant ... as it seems pretty obvious that no research has yet been done, no fixes applied, so it would be an easy guess that the server involved got itself listed again, assumedly for the very same reasons. The 'advertised' URL was also edited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Our server does not send any spam but we are using TMDA and qmail. Qmail does bounces and then if a bounce falls into a trap you are done and can not send your clients any more Emails! Just find a better solutions guys! So why are you sending mail back to addresses that never sent it to you? They never asked for it and they surely don't want it. Some people know so little and they know it so fluently! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Sorry, I am not navigating to a URL on a system I do not know offered by someone I do not know. Would you be so kind as to provide a link to an authoritative source? Thank you! I did try it and posted a reply to his rant there asking him to return with more information and an open mind. We will see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 ... I am not navigating to a URL on a system I do not know offered by someone I do not know. Would you be so kind as to provide a link to an authoritative source? Thank you!Checked with LinkScanner (FWIW), "no known exploits" - unfortunately missed one bit of the munging initially which gave an alarming response but, fixing that, all OK to the extent to which LS tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.