When I utilize all three of my rbl lists: spamcop, ordb, spamhaus, the auto-responder from Spamcop is not getting through to my email client.

If I modify it to other settings that are localized, the responder message does come through.

The catch is that, when that happens unwanted spam does get by.

----

I have been tweaking email spam blocking via our mail server to find the best mix and to prevent blocking of wanted email. For the most part, when using all three rbl, there is very little problem. That is, other than blocking Spamcop.

I use Merak Mail Pro with limited relaying per Setup and our website has a lot of email traffic via our form-based entry areas, thus the relay.

My reporting has been working quite well blocking a lot of Asian, Brazilian, etc garbage.

Edited: I believe I may have created a work-around. I set a rbl bypass filter file to inlcude all *.spamcop.net



Thanks to Jeff and Wazoo for the speedy reply to my first posting to the Forum!

I will go back and run one rbl and rbl-sbl in turn as suggested to ensure which is blocking. Two days ago, I did check to be sure none of my machines are listed on the three lists I use.

==== insert ====

Here is the last header from what I believe was my last reporting to you guys.
Received: from vmx1.spamcop.net ([])
by mail.kwp.org (Merak 4.2.3) with ESMTP id KPJ36965
for <tbarker[at]kwp.org>; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:12:23 -0500
Received: from sc-app4.ironport.com (HELO spamcop.net) (204.15.82.23)
by vmx1.spamcop.net with SMTP; 30 Oct 2005 10:08:42 -0800
From: SpamCop AutoResponder <spamcop[at]devnull.spamcop.net>
To: tbarker[at]kwp.org
Subject: SpamCop has accepted 1 email for processing
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:08:42 GMT
Message-ID: <spamid821405550[at]msgid.spamcop.net>
Content-type: text/plain
In-Reply-To: <010401c5dd7b$c898a510$f4f66841[at]kwp.org>
References: <010401c5dd7b$c898a510$f4f66841[at]kwp.org>
X-Envelope-To: <tbarker[at]kwp.org>
X-NAS-Language: English
X-NAS-Bayes: #0: 5.53489E-132; #1: 1
X-NAS-Classification: 0
X-NAS-MessageID: 6317
X-NAS-Validation: {A2357B4F-4ACC-403D-B375-22EBE8EB163B}

SpamCop is now ready to process your spam.

==== end insert ===

Which autoresponder is having this problem? Can you enable each zone in turn to see which one is blocking that autoresponder? Can you post the headers of an autoresponder message that did get through? Thanks!

In addition, per What is the SpamCop Blocking List (SCBL)?, "With any spam filtering system, you should consider keeping suspected spam so that it can be retrieved. Doing so will prevent bounces from your system hitting innocent third parties."

SpamCop Discussion > Discussions & Observations > How to use .... > SpamCop Reporting
This Topic will be moved in a bit .... not a Reporting issue, even though this may turn out to be a How To ....

I read the SCBL rules but not sure about the "keeping suspected spam", and "bounces from system hitting innocent".

Give me a tad bit guidence or point to a FAQ that might cover this. I have tired to perform search of all the Forums for items I wanted to flesh out.

Thanks for the help so far.

That section is not very clear, is it?

My guess is that suspected spam should be accepted and tagged as spam (that's how you can retrieve it - it is in a special folder).

The 'bounces' is ambiguous. The term 'bounce' used to be used indiscriminately to cover any undeliverable message to the sender. However, the spammers ruined the method of accepting the email and then sending an email message to the sender by forging innocent people in the return path. The only acceptable way now is to reject the email at the server level. Of course, an end user (especially someone using Mailwasher) cannot reject the email at the server level so there is no way that an end user can return a spam to the correct sender. Since the passage in question mentions innocent parties, MG is that it is referring to the method of accepting email and then sending an email message to the return path if it is undeliverable - which, at this point in time, will certainly send it to someone innocent - and can be reported through spamcop.

And that explanation is consistent with accepting all spam and tagging it rather than rejecting it at the server level.

Rejecting email at the server level returns it to the source. If the actual sender of the email is 'innocent', it is usually because s/he is using a server that has a compromised computer on it (usually a trojan) or someone who is the spammer. It is a good idea to alert those 'innocents' because if it isn't their computer, someone else should be warned or the spammer stopped.

Miss Betsy

Please see http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...indpost&p=34082

Aha, I was not thinking in mail server admin mode