Merlyn Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 Yes, yes ... SpamCop is trying to stop spammers. It's not working, but SpamCop is continuing the pretense and doing a good job of inconveniencing legitimate users. The attempt is a noble one, but in the "war on spammers" SpamCop is just carpet-bombing lots of innocent civilians. The sooner SpamCop, and it's "aggressive/error prone" system (if you can call it that) disappears, the better. It's unfortunate that the emperor Julian has no clothes, but that's the naked truth. It was a really good try. Spamcop works great. The bl stops a large amount of spam. If ya don't like it don't use it. There is nothing worse than a troll that can't even troll properly. Just starting to sound like penis envy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yourbuddy Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 SpamCop works poorly, stops much good email. I don't like it, and I don't use it - and encourage others not to. Don't know anything about trolling or penis envy, but I'm sure you must. Is it trolling when you walk around with your fly open? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 Any bets this gets moved to the Lounge now and is there some reason why it should not at this point? conversation has veered quite far off the "request for help" category of "this" Forum ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dra007 Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 SpamCop works for me, mind you it stops spam in cycles, but as long as my 300 spams a day will be reduced to 30, 70% of the time I will continue reporting. One of my ISPs has taken very aggressive action since I started using SC and the spam I get there has been reduced to a trikle... Thank you SpamCop.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 I mean there's a big difference between a merchant protecting himself against fraud in his own store (they have every right to insist you pay cash, after all) and some self-appointed "cop" blocking your Internet mail. The merchant owns the store, and you can take your business elsewhere if you don't like his terms. You have been reading too quickly. It is the ISP (merchant) who is using a *tool* -the spamcop bl - to block spam. The ISP has every right to do that and you can take your business elsewhere if you don't like his terms. His customers may prefer "no spam" in their inboxes in place of your selfcentered resentfulness. I would prefer to receive email from people who have chosen reliable email service which means that the email service is competent enought to prevent spammers from using their service and to deal promptly with any that slip through by crooked means (such as trojanizing a machine). I also would like ISP's to use blocklists rather than content filters because if, for some reason, an email of mine is caught by the filter, I will get a message informing me why. The state or county can legitimately close a highway for maintenance, but you have no right to throw up a roadblock just because you don't like the sound of traffic going by your house, but this is essentially what people are doing when they block my mail. There is no government on the internet. You can use governmental solutions as analogies for what happens on the internet, but what happens is done collectively by people who agree on a solution. And this particular analogy does not apply in any case. The correct analogy is that *noone* has a right to enter my private space (yard, house, inbox) without my explicit permission unless there is a court order. Maybe the inconvenience seems minimal to you, but I can see where it could have serious consequences, and the "everyday glitches," as you call them, are worse now than they were when the Internet was still in its infancy. It would not, as you point out, if people were not perfect fools. Using blocklists is effective and natural way of controlling unwanted bulk email on the internet. If all the people who do not want to receive it used blocklists of known spam IP address senders, and if all the people understand the value of blocklists and so chose ISP's who provided that service, then all of those people would be able to email one another with very rarely ever seeing a spam (just as I very rarely see a fight in my neighborhood). Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yourbuddy Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 Yes ... In a perfect world, where every ISP used a perfect DNSbl in a perfect way, there would be no spam. But there is no perfect DNSbl (SpamCop is one of the worst for having the result of blocking legitimate email) and there is no perfect ISP (they often use a DNSbl incorrectly - particularly SpamCop's). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 I deliberately phrased my comment as being /in perfect world/ since the other poster's solution is always for other people to be perfect. You and I know that there is no perfect world. However, IMHO, it is better to aim toward a workable solution (which I think blocklists are) than an unworkable solution of everyone knowing how to avoid getting spam (which is not possible, as Steve U. pointed out, unless everyone starts over again with new addresses which many don't want to for legitimate reasons) and somehow stopping anyone from buying from the spammers (and the only way to accomplish that is to use censorship which is a worse evil than spam). Very soon, there won't be that many innocent people who will get their email blocked because they will have learned, as intelligent people have learned how to protect their email address as spam became prevalent, that choosing a responsible ISP is important if they want to use email reliably. There may still be ignorant people or people who only want their email accepted because they are not spammers - just the way I would like merchants to accept my check without an ID check (BTW, there are some who still will - I have a really honest face). Content filtering has its place, but it is nothing but automatic JHD. It does nothing to stop the *sending* of spam - which, after all, is the major problem and may cripple email - even if the majority of people filter it out. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 SpamCop works poorly, stops much good email. I don't like it, and I don't use it - and encourage others not to. Then you are using it wrong or on very different lists than I am. Spamcop stops at last count almost 200 messages per day which are spam. If I find 1 message a week trapped in the held mail, it is surprising. I whitelist it and go on. I have been using spamcop for about 16 months now and my whitelist consists of about 50 entries, mostly lists from vendors I have agreed to receive. As far as false negatives, I have usually 1 or 2 a day that get through the filtering and those are reported immediately. I had 9 sitting in my inbox this morning, but they were all from the same host and within an hour of each other before they got on the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yourbuddy Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 Obviously, you are not stoping spam by using SpamCop. The evidence speaks for itself - the spam just keeps on, but you are causing a great deal of inconvenience to other users by listing an IP used by many non-spammers to send email. Yes, I know, I know - the old story about get another ISP who does not allow spam, well that's just plain nonsense and you know it (or perhaps you haven't learned that yet) - and what about all the bandwidth you are using by your reports. SpamCop is a poor business model and has needed to be "bailed out" several times. Perhaps the poor concept and the poor software that causes so much inconvenience to so many, will disappear from the Internet - it would be a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spambo Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 I don't think... Clearly. If you think "Right" and "I don't think so" make rhetorical points then thinking is not your strongest suit. God, I wish this lousy web forum program permitted users to plonk the trolls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 God, I wish this lousy web forum program permitted users to plonk the trolls. Ditto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yourbuddy Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 dra007 and Merlyn ... Is your definition of a "troll", any one that expresses an opinion that is contrary to yours?? That's so typically "redneck" USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dra007 Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 dra007 and Merlyn ... Is your definition of a "troll", any one that expresses an opinion that is contrary to yours?? That's so typically "redneck" USA. It appears that you are the unwelcomed here. Don't you think you should tone down your anger? Maybe people would listent to what you say rather than react to your anger. Not that you have ever said something with a dram of inteligence. Not yet to my knowledge! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yourbuddy Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 dra007 and Merlyn ... Is your definition of a "troll", any one that expresses an opinion that is contrary to yours?? That's so typically "redneck" USA. It appears that you are the unwelcomed here. Don't you think you should tone down your anger? Maybe people would listent to what you say rather than react to your anger. Not that you have ever said something with a dram of inteligence. Not yet to my knowledge! Unfortunately, you mistake criticism for anger (typical for you). Fools do not recognize intelligence (they lack the capacity to). If I'm "unwelcomed" by you is a compliment (thank you). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technicrat Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 I think the reason someone thinks you are angry is you started name calling. I.E. "redneck USA." which in itself held no other value than to incite other posters. IME those that resort to that sort of method have admited they are out of ideas. Sort of like using profanity online which often as not is just a "small mind" trying to make a BIG point. Tech out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dra007 Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 Sort of like using profanity online which often as not is just a "small mind" trying to make a BIG point. That was exactly my conclusion, thanks for restating, I was too subtle for small minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yourbuddy Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 Sort of like using profanity online which often as not is just a "small mind" trying to make a BIG point. That was exactly my conclusion, thanks for restating, I was too subtle for small minds. Thank you for your observation - it's interesting. Equating opinions you dont agree with as "profanity" makes you what? dra007 has a typical "redneck USA attitude" - it seems rather obvious. dra007 could it be that small minds can't handle subtle thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.