Jump to content

nogin

Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About nogin

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://nogin.org/
  • ICQ
    0
  1. It used to be the case that the blocklist's "checkblock" URL would tell its reasons for listing a host even once the host is delisted. In my opinion, this is an essential feature since if an email is bounced because of the list, the user (or the admin of the listed host) might get around to looking at it only when the host is already delisted, and the justification for the listing better still be there. However I just realized that, for example, http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblo...p=132.236.56.28 currently simply states "132.236.56.28 not listed in bl.spamcop.net", while I see in my logs that it was listed at some point on June 8th. Was the information justifying past listing removed on purpose? Why? Is it possible to get it back? Or is this just some kind of a glitch affecting just a specific IP? P.S. I am a paying user of the SpamCop reporting service and I mostly use it because I want to play my part in keeping bl.spamcop.net up-to-date. The less justification is provided by the "checkblock" URL, the more doubts I have about using bl.spamcop.net for filtering my own mail (and paying for the reporting service).
  2. nogin

    Mozilla plugin?

    Just wondering - have anybody ever tried to create a plugin (.xpi) for Mozilla (and consequently - Netscape) that would add a "report this messsage to SpamCop" entry to the message menu (and the right-click context menu)? The way I envision it is that it would bring up a browser window, sending an appropriate POST request (with the full spam body) to the SpamCop reporting. This would be very convenient and save a lot of time spent on copying/pasting to the web interface or attaching and waiting in the case of email interface... P.S. Personally, I use email interface, so every time there is some slowdown (like today), I keep wishing for a more reliable way to report spam quickly (without having to manually copy&paste everything).
  3. Yes, it iis relatively clear that the "strict confidence" applies to the email field. But not promising such confidence for the "name" fielld still does not imply "there is a big chance we will share it with a lot of other people". The wording for the name box should, IMHO, state much more explicitly that the name may be shown to other SpamCop users _and_ that the name that would make sense to those other users should be chosen.
  4. I see that the message on the "Add mailhost" page now reads: It is good that is states "standard", however it still seems a bit insufficient, especially since it goes shortly after Therefore, I beleive it should be augmented to excplicitly state that the name could become visible to other people _and_ that the name should make sense to other people.
  5. The "specific fact" is that the Mailhosts page does not have any "Rename" button next to "Mailhost name" field. I am not complaining about bad names of specific mailhosts, I am requesting an interface improvement.
  6. This is IMHO irrelevant. Yes, it makes a lot of sense to share the malihosts' objective data (e.g. hostnames, domains, IP addresses, etc). However, it makes absolutely no sense to share the names that are assigned by the users. In many cases users would pick names lick "School", "Work" or "Home" that would be completely useless (or even misleading) for others.
  7. nogin

    SpamCop database down again?

    It started working for a short while, but now it is down again
  8. I am getting the error message: "Your authorization code is invalid. Please obtain a new authorization code. Cannot open database connection in getList" when trying to connect to my reporting account. Is the DB down again?
  9. They are global as far as I know. This is really bad. Somebody with access to the DB ought to check how many mailhosts are named just "Home", "Work", or something like that. Such names could be informative for a specific user, but would obviously a very bad idea if used globally.
  10. We don't necessarily want you to rename mailhosts. As the knowledge gained with a mailhost entry is remembered by the system and populated to other user mailhosts we may have given a name to a mailhost and don't want it changed. Altho if there is a good reason to want to rename mh's I'm happy to listen to the reason. Are you saying that the names I give to mailhosts somehow become global? E.g. If I named a university mailhost serving mail to my home machine "Home", and the entry was later coalesced with a bunch of other servers at my university, then now everybody who uses that mailhost will se it called "Home"??????? Also, right now I have two diggerent entries in my mailhost config named "Home" (because I did not quite understand the way it all works when I was first experimenting), shouldn;t I be able to rename one of them?
  11. I agree 100% - there should be some easy way to rename the mailhosts, without having to delete and re-add them. Current mailhosts interface simply does not provide any way to rename mailhosts.
  12. Well you can -- as a payingmember -- go to your preferences in the reporting system and set them to unmunged ... or is that more than you want? Yes, I want more. I definitely want the default to be to send mudged reports. But if some ISP requires unmunged ones and I decided to trust that specific ISP with my identity, then for that sepcific ISP, I would like to see such decision remembered.
  13. When I am reporting spam to an ISP that "refuses munged reports" and I chose to send them an unmunged one, it would be nice if SpamCop offered to remember that decision and enbled sending unmunged reports to this particular address by default. Thank you!
  14. Replying to my own post: I see that this suggestion is already implemented and "webmail"-like "trusted" relays are being listed as report recepients. Thanks a lot for such a quick reaction!
  15. I don't agree, and here is why: My own ISP has an optional spam-filtering option, which, if set, removes any email "detected as spam" before the user sees it. Since I am one of those who prefer a few false negatives to even a single false positive, I have intentionally turned that option off on my accounts, and I do my own filtering on incoming mail, using the SCBL and several others, and diverting rather than refusing. Some emails (e.g. those addressed "To" a ML to which I am subscribed) are re-directed away from the "spam" folder by a mail-client "rule" whether or not my spam filter has marked them as "probable spam". Thus, on the mail I get, my ISP does (if it obeys my settings) no spam filtering whatsoever; nevertheless, I don't want to see it listed for having relayed spam to me. I am sorry, but you seem to have completely missed the point of my post. I am specifically talking about the case where another ISP has a mail server that is marked "trusted" by deputies. Of course, my proposal has nothing to do with the "this is my own mailserver[\I]" flag set by the basic Mailhost system.
×