Jump to content

Noddy

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Noddy

  • Rank
    Member
  1. It would appear that spamcop has decided that they will provide a list for its users that can block an entire IP address for an entire ISP and all that ISP's users, that's a little different to blocking the actual spammer don't you think? Why allow the users the ability to block 100's of people? You can't keep on trawling out the same old "we don't block anyone" response. If you provide the tools for the users to implement you're part of the problem. It would be akin to me saying to an arms dealer "no I don't hold you responsible because you didn't pull the trigger, the user did". I agree, but I think most decent people would be surprised to hear that the system also affects people who are completely innocent. No, blocklists are not the only way, they just happen to be the way you agree with most. I have personally elected to use both blocklists and CR. Regrettably Spamassassin as it is provided to me is not user configurable, I simply have the option to switch it on or off. Your last sentence would I suspect be aimed at someone who is purely using CR. Somewhat utopian in your beliefs there I'm afraid! One look around these forums and you'll soon realise that such a thing is all but impossible, I could cite many reasons, one of them being that some ISP's profit from it. As much as I admire your support for the product, I'm afraid I'm still to be convinced that the product is not indiscriminate. The emphasis seems to be on protecting users of spamcop rather than caring about those who are victims of those that use the software and implement the blacklists. There appears to be much reliance on the technical aspect that spamcop "doesn't block anyone", this seperation of responsibility bears no credibility from my standpoint, it simply comes across as pedantic. Given the fact that visitors to this forum are expected to read through pages of FAQ's before posting their legitimate complaint will only serve to alienate you from those who feel miffed that their emails are being rejected. Just the same as some of those who have posted on this thread have demonstrated their impatience in dealing with an individuals query, don't expect "newbies" to react too kindly to being told that the onus is now on them to contact their ISP with a list of demands for something they are at a loss to understand. It's ironic how many times I've read about the "rights" of spamcop users on these forums, yet I take it they couldn't care less about the time someone like me has to spend to find a solution. If I were to believe that the product will save the spam universe I might not have minded, but as it won't, I do mind! But I shall thank you for your previous post where you pointed out to me what I needed to tell my ISP, I do realise that you don't work for spamcop and for that I am grateful, thank you! I've had a think about what you have written Steven and you make a valid point. I've taken a closer look and adjusted some of the "rules" in my CR software to reduce this, time will tell I guess how successful that will be. I know you'd no doubt like me to stop using the CR software altogether....not much chance of that I'm afraid! I appreciate your replies.
  2. Next time the postman delivers mail for the next door neighbour I'll rip it up then? Just stating the obvious, didn't want any passing readers to think it was the definitive resource on spam on the net. I couldn't care less about other BL's, it's the spamcop one I have issues with, not the others. Ban all people who don't meet certain geek standards then? Stop selling spamcop to newbies unless they pass a spamcop exam? Give me a break! I wouldn't have a clue as I've freely admitted. I'll get my handbag and we'll duel at dawn. That's what happened here. I know damned well that every user here has to connect to that IP address. So spamcop can't release a list of "white listed" email addresses with its black lists? You don't think the idea has merit? Or you don't care? No close it, I've experienced the friendly atmosphere and I've decided that I've had enough of you. And a thank you to those that helped, I do appreciate it.
  3. Oh dear! The link was to show you that the government here does ban webmail, you saw that right? You asked the question. The idea behind the link was to clarify that, your post appeared to suggest you were surprised (which I can understand). The quotation marks were there to serve a double purpose, one was that there is no freedom here (i.e. irony), the other was to question in a cheeky way (but by no means disrespectful way) Miss Betsy's reply to me. Hence my "Get it?" at the end. You know damned well that I'm not agreeing with it. Thank you! Oh come on! I freely admitted it was off topic, if you're so bothered by it you should have ignored it.
  4. Either way, you're holding the person who sent the challenge as responsible for the spam when it should be apparent that they were duped into sending a challenge. Don't shoot the messenger! I think you need to decide what side of the fence you are on with such a debate (not you personally). What I'm getting at is that here on these forums we have the world of spam according to spamcop. On one hand as you read through their FAQ's you come across references to UBE or UCE which I suspect most would argue is spam. Then you have the Spamcop FAQ telling people not to use autoresponders and the like because they don't like them. 100's of companies use them, just because they don't fit into the Spamcop scheme of things doesn't necessarily mean they should be outlawed. The black list idea on its own is flawed, think about it, if it was so good and worked so flawlessly you wouldn't have people in Spamcops forums asking themselves "why do I bother?". I would also agree that CR anti-spam software is not the ideal soloution either. But I would argue that the two in tandem offer me what I want. OK, my domain name provider uses something called spamassasin which is probably crap (I really haven't delved into it to be honest) and lets too much crap through, most of it from the US from what I can see. It's all the usual viagra rubbish etc. To catch the remaining spam I use the CR software. I get what I want. Selfish? Shoot me! This perplexed me:- "Selfish: This is the problem we are mainly concerned with. By using challenge/response filtering, you are asking innumerable third parties to receive your challenge emails just so that a relatively few legitimate ones get through to the intended recipient". Well surely that is less "selfish" than, we'll just carpet block 100's of users because one of them may have a trojan on their machine, as happened (is happening) to me. We can't go and re-invent the internet just to suit Spamcop. Here's an idea:- Spamcop allows individuals to whitelist themselves using a CR system like this website does (automatic). Individuals remain on the whitelist despite the indiscriminate blocking lists until they are reported by a spamcop user.
  5. Diatribe? Confusing? Let me help:- http://www.opennetinitiative.net/studies/burma/ Hence the quotation marks when I was referring to my "freedom of the internet". Get it? The whole point of my "diatribe" is that is doesn't have anything to do with my email address!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wish it did! My limited understanding was where I came up with it. I'm man enough to admit that. I really didn't understand that (I'm being serious!). Are you suggesting that I contact vortechhosting.com to get my email address whitelisted? I think I've covered this above, at least one of the companies using the list is aware of their error. Changing the subject and going a little off topic, I note on Spamhaus' website that the worst offenders are in the US and that some of the ISP's (I think one was MCI) are notorious for spam. Presumably Spamcop blacklists the entire ISP? Moderator Edit: Much unneeded quoted material timmed.
  6. I've been thinking about what you wrote. OK, so let's say my CR anti-spam software did send a challenge to one of these "spam traps". To follow this logically, that would mean that the original email had forged an email address that belongs to one of these spam traps right? So when the spam trap receives my challenge email, it sets off a very loud klaxon to alert all spamcop deputies that a crime has been committed The deputies go to investigate, they see that the email the spam trap has received is a challenge from me, they know its not spam right? Spamcop wouldn't set up such a system unless it could recognise the difference between a spam email and a legitimate one would they? To suggest that they would do such a thing beggars belief, they're in the anti spam business!
  7. Appreciate the reply Betsy. I have emailed the ISP with the link, hopefully they will contact one of these so called deputies. The "Censor" in my case is the government here, all online webmail is blocked (as well as numerous other websites), they want to be able to read everything that comes in and goes out (which means they see all my CR responses ). Unfortunately it would appear that my "freedom of the internet" has been challenged by a system that lets us all down by failing to discriminate between legitimate users and the unscrupulous. It would appear that it's time for Spamcop to have a good look at its "philosphical" position if this is the aim they are trying to achieve.
  8. Anything that makes it past some software called Spamassasin provided by my domain hosting provider gets zapped by my CR anti spam software. I don't use it irresponsibly, it's just that Spamassasin lets so much through. And no, I'm not breaking any T&C's with my ISP.
  9. I'm trying to! I need to understand it so I can phone the companies up that I deal with and tell them to do something about it. I wondering if I shouldn't just tell them to scrap Spamcop full stop at the moment! But here I am trying to sort out Spamcop's mess and I'm being told that I can't even get my email address whitelisted so YOUR customers get the email they are expecting. You (Spamcop) do maintain these lists right? You do surely appreciate that you have a vested interest in making sure they are accurate right? You've gotta laugh at this email that this website sent to me then:- "Noddy, This email has been sent from http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php. You have received this email because this email address was used during registration for our forums. If you did not register at our forums, please disregard this email. You do not need to unsubscribe or take any further action. ------------------------------------------------ Activation Instructions ------------------------------------------------ Thank you for registering. We require that you "validate" your registration to ensure that the email address you entered was correct. This protects against unwanted spam and malicious abuse. To activate your account, simply click on the following link" If it didn't work Derek, you guys wouldn't use it now, would you? :angry:
  10. So you don't send them a list that tells them to block an entire IP address then? Whether they should or shouldn't use the list to block seems to be irrelevant. If you send them a list which effectively blocks a whole group of people because one of them is sending spam (or "out of office" replies!!!), shouldn't you also allow individuals who don't spam the opportunity to have themselves attached to that list as "legitimate"? If I'm understanding Spamcop's product well enough, unlike my anti-spam software that requires verification before an email gets through (and still allows me to block them even if they do verify their address), Spamcop just blocks huge chunks of users indiscriminately?
  11. Thanks Betsy, This begs the obvious question:- Ok, so you decide to block an entire IP address, where do I submit my email address so that when you distribute your non-discriminating list I can ensure I am not on it or exempted (i.e. whitelisted)? Can you email these details to karl[at]bagan.net.mm and tell them that they have a problem then?
  12. So that's it? I am now totally buggered because someone else has sent spam? How much spam has actually been sent from this IP address and how can I find out who it is? Presumably there is no way of finding out who is responsible as the information is so easily forged?
  13. Derek, appreciate the reply but my "non-tech" head is having a few problems getting around this! The emails that I had in response indicate that Spamcop was the reason they were blocked, I have pasted below one of them (I have edited out actual email addresses for privacy reasons):- Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mxout.bagan.net.mm. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. <xxxx[at]xxxxxxx.com>: 216.157.145.29 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 451 Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?203.81.162.12 Giving up on 216.157.145.29. I'm not going to try again; this message has been in the queue too long. --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: <xxxxxx[at]xxxxxx.net> Received: (qmail 49211 invoked from network); 20 May 2006 10:05:03 -0000 Received: from send.bagan.net.mm (HELO GHT-POP3) (203.81.71.100) by mxout.bagan.net.mm with SMTP; 20 May 2006 10:05:03 -0000 Received: from "mymachinename" ([192.168.5.28]) by GHT-POP3 (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k4K6rs8m026964 for <xxxxx[at]xxxxx.com>; Sat, 20 May 2006 13:24:00 +0630 Reply-To: <xxxxx[at]xxxxx.net> From: <xxxxx[at]xxxxxx.net> To: "Name of person I'm sending to" <xxxx[at]xxxxx.com> Subject: RE: Glycerine Recovery Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 16:37:56 +0630 Organization: xxxxxxxxxxx MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAkFHvJ+1Dq0W/SFRYiMjKNsKAAAAQAAAAVGlqRM9HGEGab2yvgPMVeAEAAAAA[at]xxxxxx.net> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000B_01C67C2B.BEFBD190" In-Reply-To: <005101c67bef$bd868df0$010aa8c0[at]mmnt> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Importance: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. Unfortunately all online "web based" email is banned here. The Censor likes to read everything if you catch my drift! I would dearly love to contact my ISP (in fact I already have) and get them to do something, but I know damned well that unless I give them the details of the problem my email to them will just get deleted, you know what these tech people are like, unless you send them an email in gobbledegook they just ignore you! Question: If Spamcop has detected spam email sent to a "spam trap" is this a good enough reason for them to ban an entire IP address? Why don't they just ban the individual email address? I'm confused as to why you would write "You could contact (using a throw-away Yahoo, Hotmail or Gmail address) the ISP of your client who is doing the blocking and ask for your email address to be white-listed." Why don't spamcop just blacklist the offending email address(es), why the entire IP address of an ISP?
  14. I see that Spamcop has blocked an entire IP address that happens to be a proxy server that just about every customer of this particular ISP has to connect to. It means that Companies I do business with can't receive my emails. http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=blcheck&ip=203.81.162.12 is the link provided in the email I got sent back to me. I have contacted my ISP but to the best of my knowledge they have done nothing about it. If it wasn't for the fact that I desperately need to send a few emails I wouldn't be posting here. As far as I can make out from the link above Spamcop has blacklisted 1,000's of users because of some spam trap they have set. Has any spam actually been sent? Not that I really care, I just want my email delisted, I do not want to be included in a list with 100's of others who can't be bothered to run anti-virus software or update their PC's against security flaws. For 3 days now my messages are getting returned. Which machines from this IP address are responsible for this spam? I want to email the ISP and get them to stop this. If you won't give it to me, please email it to them:- helpdesk[at]bagan.net.mm and tell them that you have blacklisted them, at least let them sort the problem out! For the love of God please sort this mess out!
×