Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About EOC_Jason

  • Rank
  1. EOC_Jason

    One down, too many to go...

    Give him the chair! Or lethel injection... or whatever they have there in NY...
  2. EOC_Jason

    Is filing reports worth it?

    I've been using spamcop too for as long as I can remember... Submitting my spam as it comes in... loads and loads of it... It wasn't until I started tweaking my spamassassin rules and adding some of the other RBLs like SORBS did I get spam to die down. Now, I get maybe only 2 a day or so in my inbox... (hint, flagging emails as spam that contain .info & .biz urls REALLY took a bite out of the junk I get)
  3. EOC_Jason


    Okay, well I just glanced at the limb... but that's all it took...
  4. EOC_Jason


    I'm gonna have to go out on a limb here and say... SPAMMER
  5. EOC_Jason

    High Score

    I think I had one hit 80+ before... lol... but it was before I set spam assassin to delete spam. The reason it does all the checks is because high scoring spam can be run through the bays engine if you have the self-learning flag turned on.
  6. That's a very interesting read about UT, personally if I was the UT admin, I would of just silently filtered and blocked that other guys site. One thing that I think could make spamcop a lot more powerful is to start matching spam domains based on registrant information and / or DNS servers. I've been tracing back every domain these past couple weeks that have slipped through my spam filters, and they seem to come from several groups of people, which there is a lot of overlapping if you trace back the email domain they used to register a domain, or using the same dns server, etc... I actually started filtering out all email that has .info & .biz, I do not know anyone, or even care to talk to anyone that uses or sends me a link to those domains. It has cut down on incoming spam dramatically! As for spamcop setting the precedent for fines... why not? Someone has to do it... Google started out as a project by two college students, and look where it is today. I think end users can understand their ISP being blacklisted because every user is frustrated with spam and would like to see it stop. I really miss the early days of the internet when just a few people had access to it. No spam, no email viruses, no porn sites, just people exchanging information.
  7. Exactly! My whole point is to "weed out" the incompetent and irresponsible ISPs / Webhosts... I'm not talking about blacking listing an ISP who doesn't pay up $5... Rather there could be a threshold. You figure X cents per reported spam, if it stops before a certain amount of reports, then they get delisted with no charge. But say the reports just keep flooding in... and they accrue like a $100 "fee", then they stay listed until they pay. If reports keep coming in, then it keeps going up. An ISP is not going to like having to pay these "fees" out of pocket, so obviously they are going to be motivated to do more than simply "drop" the users account that created all the spam. Hopefully they will be willing to take some sort of legal action against the user to collect the fees they had to pay in the first place. That in turn will hopefully deter the spammer to commiting future criminal acts (or hopefully they will get thrown in jail with a very long sentence). If an ISP keeps having spam problems which they can't resolve, and they don't care enough to take action against the spammers, then IMO they don't deserve to be in business (or even have access to the internet!). Sure it sucks for their other legit clients, but they can always find an alternate and better provider. I know personally I wouldn't want to support a business that allows mass spam to be sent out constantly. As for if it will raise more legal action against spamcop, doubtful. I myself get threatened with "we will take you to court" emails every month, but it's always someone just blowing a bunch of hot air out their rear with no legal precedence. I too would rather have 1,000 legit emails rejected than to let one more spam email through. You can configure email servers to bounce them, so the sending user knows they didn't get through. Email is going to change sooner or later, it's inevitable because of how insecure the current system is. But until someone takes steps forward like this (charging for spam), people are just going to sit around with thumbs up their you-know-what debating on how things should change, rather than actually making changes. It seems the only time people are motivated to do something is when it is costing them money. Also, it's not like every ISP & company is forced to use spamcop, if they want to open the floodgates and let a ton of spam through, so be it. I also think this methodology is better than companies that have created spam blocking software but want to charge hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars to use their product. There is no incentive there for spammers to quit because they will just keep coming up with new methods to send spam, and you on the other hand have to pay even more money for upgrades or add-ons to that companys software.
  8. My point isn't to extort money from ISPs... It's more of a "motivator" for ISPs to take action against their users who violate their TOS/AUP. Like you said, an ISP/netblock/IP (whatever) gets listed when X amount of spam is reported coming from that source... Then it gets de-listed once them spam subsides... Okay, so does that mean any action was taken against the spammer (account deactivation, being charged a fine, legal notice, etc), or are they just meerely waiting for their IP to be de-listed so they can send out spam once again? Sure, spamcop sends out the email notices, but what happens on the ISPs side is beyond anyone's knowledge. All the system knows is that spam has stopped coming from a particular source, but it doesn't mean that anyone has learned their lesson. I would just like to see spammers take it where it hurts... in their pocketbook... If an ISP had to pay a fee to be de-listed (based on the spam sent), they might then realize that they will have to monitor their user base more closely, and perhaps take REAL action against spammers for reimbursement and penalties. I do like the idea with money being given to charity. I know it may sound harsh to some, but until there is some monetary disincentive to sending out spam, I don't think anyone is going to take any forceful action to prevent it. Think of it also as a way to "weed out" the bad or incompetent ISPs / webhosts... Like I said before, this is just my two cents... I don't know what I would do without spamcop!
  9. I would of thought this topic has been discussed before, but I tried doing several searches and came up empty, if there is a thread already please post a link to it. Anyhow, my question to spamcop is this. Why don't you charge websites and/or ISPs (whatever is applicable for the submitted spam) to be de-listed (assuming they have corrected the situation). I'm not talking about a huge fee, it can be a very small amount per-reported spam. But it all adds up. And if they don't pay, they stay on the list. I think this would lead ISPs & Webhosts to become more responsible and proactive in their anti-spam measures since they obviously don't want to keep paying tons of fees. Maybe it would even encourage them to track down their customer who was spamming and bill them / report them to the authorities. This is just my two cents, I think it would give spamcop a viable source of income to keep going, keep the bad domains on the list, and hopefully make some people re-think their anti-spam measures so they are more proactive instead of simply deleting an account when spam is reported...