good job on yahoo groups

[WB8TYW]

Whitelists are irrelevant in that example since failure to deliver postal mail that deals with contractual agreements is a felony in the U.S.

Not if the postal service decices it is not safe for their employees to deliver the mail.

If they determine there is a hazard, any hazard at all, they do not need to deliver the mail.

Have you looked at the postal regulations? It is a sender pays, and unless you pay extra, they do not know or care if someone actually received the mail.

If you want better confirmation, you have to pay extra.

But you are paying them to deliver the mail to a mail box. You are not paying the recipiant to read it or to accept it.

Also, they only deliver to mailboxes that they control. That mailbox in front of the house is there property by law, not the person that paid to have it installed. If anyone other than the postal service puts a message for you in to it, the postal service can and in the past has prosecuted people for doing so. They have even successfully prosecuted their own employees for putting Christmas cards in mailboxes with out actually sending them through the mail system.

If you send it signature required, and the doorman at the building that is receiving it says they will not sign for it, it will not be delivered, and the doorman has not violated any law.

Look at your contract with your ISP or e-mail provider. See if they guarantee anything at all. The only applicable law in the U.S. gives them immunity if they accidently block legitmate e-mail to you while they are attempting to block objectionable content.

If you want an unfiltered e-mail connection, you have to purchase a level of internet service that allows you to run your own server. And that means that either you will have a bandwidth cap where every packet you send or received counts toward, or it is a metered rate.

You will find that the minimum monthly charge for such a connection is much higher than your ISP.

That is why postal services do not have junk mail filtering.

Interesting concept. Other posters to this and other forums have indicated that you can have the U.S. Post Office do junkmail filtering. Of course if they make a mistake, I doubt you can hold them liable.

When you send a postal mail, you pay up front, and unless you request the sender to pay, you pay the costs. And the receiver knows how much the COD charge will be before they aggree to pay it.

With e-mail, the receiving ISP has to pay for all message that they accept, and they do not know the charge in advance. Essentially the only thing that the ISP knows is the I.P. address of where the message came from, and what name the server claims to be going by.

If postal mail was priced the same way as e-mail, sending postal mail of any size would cost you a penny, yet to pick up your mail, you would only be told the zip+4 code it came from, and then you would have to aggree to pay the mail before you found out how much it was going to cost you. And payment is manditory.

While you may pay a fixed rate for your internet access, at some level above you, your provider is on either a limited or metered rate.

Any spam that they accept is money that they lose, and the only way they can recover those costs are to raise their prices, or cut their services.

Read the pinned topic in the spamcop lounge about the "cost of spam".

Then for a more extreme view of things go and read the FAQ at http://www.spews.org.

The spamcop.net DNSbl is stated up front to be aggressive and will list real mail sources. So any mail administrator that is using it, should know that using it does have a risk of rejecting real e-mail. This has been pointed out to you before.

Under current Yahoo announced rules, Yahoo permits the creation of an unknown number of groups by anyone, and then 50 unsolicited messages per group per day to people who are not subscribed to that group.

Now another thing to consider is that the spamcop.net tries to identify the exact source of the spam injection. Yahoo apparently last year modified their servers to identify that source to the spamcop.net. parser.

So either there is a parser error, Yahoo stopped identifying the I.P. where they were getting the e-mail from, or the Yahoo mail servers have been compromised.

Only a deputy can look at the reports to see what is the exact case.

Being an outsider, the closest I can come to is looking in the MAPS-OPS database or looking in news.admin.net-abuse.sighings using http://www.google.com, just like anyone else can.

http://www3.mail-abuse.org/cgi-bin/nph-ops...ew?66.218.66.83. The latest shows to be February 2004. That spam sample came from a prodigy I.P. address, but was relayed through several yahoo servers until it hit the spam victim.

If the parser was working correctly, it would have identified the prodigy address if it had processed that spam.

Google Groups search of [ "66.218.66.83" group:*abuse* ] omit the brackets shows a bit of spam. Adding [ MAY 2004 ] narrows it down to 6 reports.

The first one I see is from May 21st,. and has comments that the poster to .sightings claims came from AOL. However it that can not be determined from tracing the parts of the headers that can not be forged that it originated from AOL. The only headers that are possibly verifiable point to Yahoo originating the spam from 66.218.66.121, another Yahoo group server.

The only thing pointing to AOL, is a forgable non-standard header that can not be trusted and could have easily been put there if there was some sort of security breach.

With out a deputy looking into the specific spam reports, it may not be possible to resolve what is going on. Such details used to be available to everyone, but spammers were using the data to determine what ISPs did not have adequate spam defenses, or when to jump to a different I.P. address.

The evidence from .sightings is that Yahoo is no longer identifying where it got the e-mails from in a standard mannor.

Have you contacted your mail administrator to ask them to either stop using the aggressive spamcop.net dnsbl, or to whtelist Yahoo?

I have not seen any postings from deputies about any parser problems causing Yahoo to be listed, and of course I do not know if Yahoo and Spamcop have had any communication.

Yahoo has been getting a report from spamcop.net for each spam received to a reporter, and not to a spamtrap.

At this time, the I.P. address 66.218.66.83 is no longer listed on the spamcop.net dnsbl.

Maybe this means that Yahoo has changed this server and others to identify where they are getting their e-mail from by using standard headers. Or maybe something else has happened like the spammer deciding to stop using Yahoo servers for a while.

-John

Personal Opinion Only

[cyberboy]

Your ISP can do anything they want to do with your e-mail, based on their technical skills and the limits of their software/haedware.

Please think about your comment before posting. The thingy called the “Terms and Agreement” is a contract. On top of that, there are privacy laws regulating service providers. An ISP cannot post all of your personal emails on a public forum or post your personal info (mailing address, phone number, etc.) on a public forum or take your money and not provide service. They have the technical ability to do so, but it is illegal. I thought I would correct Wazoo on this misconception before s/he gets fired or sued.

A relevant issue would be if an ISP has the legal rights to block spam. In my opinion, I feel they do, providing it was truly unsolicited. That was the main issue with my posts

.. so there is no "subscription"

If you want to be efficient at dealing with this issue, please stop defining and correcting every term I use. I don’t care, as I am sure with most people in my position, whether IPS subscribe, signup, request or any other term for that matter, for SpamCop. I am not an ISP, I have stated I am not an ISP, therefore I do not care how to setup the SpamCop daemon on my Apple iBook. The relevant issue to this thread is that legitimate opted in email are being blacklisted. If you want to discuss how to setup or configure SpamCop on a server please start a different thread.

If you can't convince your provider to stop spamming, then you can use a responsible provider.

Miss Betsy: Your entry started out well, the first to provide reasonable insight as to how it is suppose to work. However, it does no good to accuse Yahoo Groups of sending spam, they are not the one sending spam. Members send spam to the group and in turn the group list server sends it to every one else. The best information that has been provided is that abusive moderators adding thousands of email addresses of people who did not opt-in to spam groups. It would be counter productive to block such issues, in that people like me get hurt. That is something that needs to be reported to Yahoo and to the abusive moderators ISP.

However, caveat emptor. If you don't know how to choose, you are likely to get a service that is irresponsible.

Let the buyer beware, British commonlaw issue superceded by fraud laws, but that is not the issue. I signed up, and paid my lifetime membership to a well-respected organization (that I wish to leave nameless for the time being) that provides email hosting. I did not have problems till this weekend. I personally think I chose wisely, even when they lost their ISP due to spam abuse problems. That is probably why they chose to use blacklists. Please do not assume that an email provider that is using your blacklist is a lowlife. I would prefer the issue to be corrected without giving them to much problems. As I stated in a previous post, SpamCop provided the blacklist, and possibly the daemon. It would be easier for SpamCop to deal with the issue then have every ISP using your list to whitelist Yahoo Groups.

Then tell your ISP to stop using it. If your account is worth the reported $1200/month they are probably saving by not accepting email from known spam sources, they will stop using it.

Now you are talking business. A little something the lawyer may not be familiar with because it is a public policy issue. In a capitalist society, the government prefers industries to self regulate. This is done through professional organizations, private civil cases, understood concept of the results of destructive behavior, etc. If an industry fails to properly regulate themselves, then government regulations are enacted. This is due to the fact that government regulations are socialist in nature, but due to issues of greed, pure capitalism has resulted in major problems since its inception in the 1700’s. The opposite is also true in the United States. If an industry is able to regulate itself then the legislators see no reason to waste their time (and taxpayer’s money) on drafting legislation.

In relation to this issue, the use of blacklists by ISP’s is becoming more common due to the increase in spam. As we are aware, the government has been attempting legislation against spammers, but it is unwise to assume that the U.S. government will be able to fully squelch the problem. This is where blacklists come in. However, if the providers of blacklists continue to block opted in emails then the government will be obligated to regulate on behalf of email recipients. In other words the U.S. government will offset the $1200/month incentive to block opt-in emails through regulations.

The question is not whether my account is worth $1200/month, but an issue of balancing my rights as a consumer over the interests of businesses. This goes back to my comment about your work being worthless if this problem is not effectively resolved. If my rights as a consumer is not considered and issues like this is not resolved then the government will try to fix it after more and more ISP start using blacklists and people start complaining louder and louder. If you are from the U.S. then you should understand how much the government with screw it up in the long run.

[cyberboy]

Not if the postal service decices it is not safe for their employees to deliver the mail.

How does this relate to SpamCop blacklisting Yahoo Groups? Can you please provide proof of an email bomb that will blow up your office and kill you? Can you please provide a proof of a server that was so iced over that sendmail would break it’s neck if it got close to it?

[Wazoo]

OK, this rant is so far outside the realm of "Help" I'm moving the entire Topic over to the Lounge area.

[dra007]

OK, this rant is so far outside the realm of "Help" I'm moving the entire Topic over to the Lounge area.

Good move! And as any ranter we have experienced in the past this one is too only interested in venting frustrations, not in geting help!

[cyberboy]

OK, this rant is so far outside the realm of "Help" I'm moving the entire Topic over to the Lounge area.

Since no one wishes to deal with the situation and my problem is being removed from the help section. I have no choice but to continue following the issue and submit a report to the Missouri Attorney General and my legislators. It is obvious that my rights have been violated and a political activist organization has took in upon them selves to violate my constitutional right of press in free speech by actively censoring my email. I pray for speedy regulation on purposely blocking my opt-in email. I pray that someday you will be sent an important email about the health and well being of a love one only to have the message blocked because some bozo decided to send spam from a yahoo or aol server.

[dra007]

Our rights have been grossly violated by the spam spewed from your IP. If you think your threats are intimidating you are wrong. They do nothing but elicit a good laughter!

[cyberboy]

Our rights have been grossly violated by the spam spewed from your IP. If you think your threats are intimidating you are wrong. They do nothing but elicit a good laughter!

Found the problem, spam is unsolicited email. I found a problem with SpamCop, it blocked by opt-in email, I brought up the issue on your fourms ( which would be solicited and not email).

It appears your deffinition of spam is anything promoting a point of view or reveling a problem that you do not want to hear, is spam.

[tooangry]

If the Spamcop reporters of Yahoo group messages have not subscribed to the groups sending the messages, then those messages either

1. fall within the 50 per day allowed by Yahoo rules, or

2. represent an abuse by the group moderator.

If the first, then a request to be dropped from the list is likely to be honoured.

If the second, then use Yahoo's abuse procedures. That is likely to be a far more effective way to deal with the issue than trying to get the whole system blocked by Spamcop for a few days.

Faulty unsubscribe links are surely not sufficient for the message to be reported as spam. There is a system in place to deal with that. Even Spamcop has its share of technical glitches.

Yes, in a system the size of Yahoo's there will always be the odd person who abuses it, but that's not a reason to try close the system down. Nor is getting it on blocklists the most effective way either of pushing Yahoo to police their system effectively or of winning converts to the Spamcop approach.

[dra007]

You are wrongly assuming that what was reported was opt in newsgroup content. It is more likely that it was penis enlargement pills, breast enlargement or mortgage quotes from a compromized IP, contents which fall in the usual spam categories, and which I assume you dislike to the same extent as us all.

Until you come up with proof to the contrary, your rambblings are pointless and useless...

[tooangry]

You are wrongly assuming that what was reported was opt in newsgroup content. It is more likely that it was penis enlargement pills, breast enlargement or mortgage quotes from a compromized IP, contents which fall in the usual spam categories, and which I assume you dislike to the same extent as us all.

If the message was straight spam then, again, it should go to the Yahoo abuse system, which I have always found responsive.

Blocking the whole system is a very blunt instrument. I think you just find it hard to accept that there is a situation where Spamcop is not the appropriate tool.

And I still think that trying to close down the Yahoo groups system will make you more enemies than friends.

[ewv]

Please do not assume that an email provider that is using your blacklist is a lowlife.

No one here assumed or stated any such thing. As was pointed out to you before, "Your ISP made a sensible choice on behalf of its customers. The issue is not one of blaming your ISP, but of attempting (several times now) to explain to you that spamcop is not blocking your mail and that you are complaining to the wrong place. If you don't want your email filtered for spam, then choose an ISP that either does not filter or allows you to bypass the filters."

I would prefer the issue to be corrected without giving them to much problems. As I stated in a previous post, SpamCop provided the blacklist, and possibly the daemon. It would be easier for SpamCop to deal with the issue then have every ISP using your list to whitelist Yahoo Groups.

Spamcop's identification of known spamming IP addresses is not a "problem". No exceptions should be made by spamcop which undermine its accuracy, credibility and integrity. Nor should every ISP that uses the spamcop list modify how it is used the same way. If you want exceptions made in the use of the information in processing your own email, then go to your ISP or pick another ISP.

...if the providers of blacklists continue to block opted in emails then the government will be obligated to regulate on behalf of email recipients. In other words the U.S. government will offset the $1200/month incentive to block opt-in emails through regulations.

The question is not whether my account is worth $1200/month, but an issue of balancing my rights as a consumer over the interests of businesses.

You have the right to choose an ISP who will provide the kind of service you prefer, if anyone is willing to offer it to you. Otherwise you can pay to create your own. You have no "rights as a consumer" to tell spamcop what to put in its own IP address list or to tell ISPs they have to accept mail on their network from known spam-spewing ISPs. Your "opt-in" agreement with yahoo imposes no duties on spamcop or your ISP.

You began with an invalid complaint against spamcop for identifying an IP address as a source of spam, falsely claiming that spamcop blocked your email. You claimed that spamcop cannot decide for you what mail you receive because this isn't a "communist country", overlooking that spamcop isn't imposing anything on you. Now you revert to the opposite, threatening that government will intervene to coercively impose your views on the rest of us by imposing "regulatory" costs on ISPs that exceed the costs imposed by spammers. That cost on "business" that you dismiss as irrelevant in comparison with your demands is a cost imposed on real people -- including both those individuals who provide you with the service you want and the customers who must pay more to make it worthwhile for people in "business" to provide the service at all.

If you don't want the spamcop list used by your ISP to filter your email, this is not the place to complain, which by now you should understand. If you want to know how spamcop works, read the FAQ and forum discussions. If you have a specific technical question, ask it, but the political ramblings and pompous empty threats are not helping.

[Wazoo]

Yes, in a system the size of Yahoo's there will always be the odd person who abuses it, but that's not a reason to try close the system down. Nor is getting it on blocklists the most effective way either of pushing Yahoo to police their system effectively or of winning converts to the Spamcop approach.

And in the same vein, there's no way to generalize about all the users of the SpamCop tool set. So while there may in fact be some out there that are trying to work the system to persue some personal vendetta, if you note the general tome of most folks, there's just too much spam coming to handle from all directions to spend the time focusing in on a particulat target .. repeat, for most folks.

As far as "tying to close the system down" .. this implies a lot that's outside the scope of the SpamCopDNSbl ... the SpamCopDNSbl is unique in that as fast as IP addresses are listed, they are also de-listed rather rapidly once the spew stops (or in reality, the "good" traffic tips the math formula below the threshold) .. Again, the focus of the SpamCop tool is to stop the spew quickly which is a far cry from attempting to shut down all of Yahoo Groups.

As already stated by others, I find Yahoo's abuse staff pretty non-responsive, and from what I've seen, it's all too easy to set up a group by folks that just don't have a clue what some of the settings are for, how / when to use them, much less actually control some of that group's output. So, at times, even starting out correctly with the Group manager is a lost cause. Escalation of complaints to the Yahoo sraff and getting the "it didn't come from here" responses when it's all too easy to see from the headers that it came from no where else ... there comes that time that some would say "just screw it" ...

[tooangry]

there comes that time that some would say "just screw it" ...

That implies the odd person getting fed up.

Since SpamCop started counting, this system has been reported about 440 times by about 220 users

That implies a lot of people, not getting too much spam from this source (an average of two reports each), who just can't be bothered to use the appropriate channels.

[ewv]

That implies a lot of people, not getting too much spam from this source (an average of two reports each), who just can't be bothered to use the appropriate channels.

The sample of 220 reports from 440 reporters implies that the spam is spread out over a lot of people rather than being concentrated on a few. It doesn't imply anything about anyone who "can't be bothered to use the appropriate channels". Spamcop reports go to the abuse department at yahoo. That is the "appropriate channel". No one has an obligation to go through yahoo's convoluted web site contact forms. There is nothing "inappropriate" about using email to report abuse. If the "appropriate channels" at yahoo respond quickly and stop the spam then like any other network yahoo is not listed. If they don't respond they are listed. When they are listed, complain to yahoo, not spamcop.

[Miss Betsy]

Yes, in a system the size of Yahoo's there will always be the odd person who abuses it, but that's not a reason to try close the system down. Nor is getting it on blocklists the most effective way either of pushing Yahoo to police their system effectively or of winning converts to the Spamcop approach.

No one is trying to close any system down. The Internet runs on netiquette. When someone behaves badly, etiquette gives them the 'cut direct' and blocking is the equivalent.

Spamcop sends a report (most of the time - spamtraps no longer send reports) and expects the abuse desk getting the report to respond. If there is a mistake, the response should be to spamcop so that the IP address can be delisted.

Blocklists are the *only* IMHO effective way of getting internet users to police their systems. The *sender* of email is the only one who can control or stop spam.

For ISP's the problem is how to have policies so that spammers cannot use their system without their knowledge and how to quickly stop one if one slips by. Spamcop assists in this by sending reports; other blocklists do not send reports.

If users chose responsible, competent ISP's to send their email then blocklists and spam would not be a problem.

Not everyone thinks the spamcop bl is useful. However, it is not the only blocklist. and there should be more blocklists using different criteria so that every user is comfortable using blocklists.

Just because yahoo has a popular service doesn't mean that it is a responsible internet business. In another post self regulation and government regulation were mentioned. yahoo is one of those internet businesses apparently that will only self regulate when enough customers start complaining about their irresponsible ways (or the government steps in - , on the internet, it is very unlikely that any governmental action is going to be effective - this is pure capitalism, but unlike offline, users do not have to rely on the government to exert pressure for reform. )

Unfortunately, those who are grossly misinformed or do not know how to use the internet properly make a lot of noise and slow the self regulation of the internet in regards to spam and blocklists.

Miss Betsy

[Spambo]

Let's make sure I understand this.

Spamcop reporters have been reporting as spam messages that they have received through Yahoo groups to which they have opted in.

No. SpamCop users are reporting spams from Yahoo groups to which they have NOT opted in.

But then you knew that.

[Merlyn]

No.  SpamCop users are reporting spams from Yahoo groups to which they have NOT opted in.

But then you knew that.

I knew that!

[Ariel]

OK, this rant is so far outside the realm of "Help" I'm moving the entire Topic over to the Lounge area.

Since no one wishes to deal with the situation and my problem is being removed from the help section. I have no choice but to continue following the issue and submit a report to the Missouri Attorney General and my legislators. It is obvious that my rights have been violated and a political activist organization has took in upon them selves to violate my constitutional right of press in free speech by actively censoring my email. I pray for speedy regulation on purposely blocking my opt-in email. I pray that someday you will be sent an important email about the health and well being of a love one only to have the message blocked because some bozo decided to send spam from a yahoo or aol server.

I have a much less strict definition of spam than a lot of people here... and I can understand your frustration at some of the responses people like to leave on this forum. There are a lot of people here who like to post the same sarcastic "boiler plate" posts over and over.... I don't read the SC newsgroups anymore for this reason. However, you should keep in mind that no one who has replied to your posts is an actual employee of Spamcop; we're all just users ("official" SpamCop posters have the logo under their name on the left).

BUT... you are way off base. First of all, as people have explained, your ISP chooses to use the SpamCop BL to protect its customers from spam. No one is holding a gun to your ISP's head and forcing them to use SpamCop's BL. In fact, SpamCop has every right to publish a list of IP's that are spam sources. If you don't like the way your ISP is using that list, you ought to tell them. Most ISP's will allow you to whitelist senders - why haven't you asked them to do that for you? Personally, I use SpamCop's email service, and I haven't had any problem receiving Yahoo Groups that I subscribe to, since I've whitelisted those senders.

Threatening to contact the Missouri Attorney General is not going to matter to anyone here, since it is not illegal for SpamCop to publish a list of spammy IP's.

[cyberboy]

Here is a recommendation

Why can't you blacklist part of a subject line of an IP addresses, or range of IP addresses. If people have problems with a Yahoo Group sending an email with the subject line (group name in []) “[RepublicansSuck]…” then why can’t you blacklist all emails coming from the offending group instead of a group like [MacUsers]?

However, you should keep in mind that no one who has replied to your posts is an actual employee of Spamcop; we're all just users

SpamCop is a known political activist group, I did my research. If not, why did one of the posters have the permissions to move my concern out of view from assistance?

For what it is worth, the Missouri Attorney General will be notified. There are several legal concerns that needed to be addresses that are not being recognized. Even though spammers have no recourse on the issue of interstate commerce, the email recipient most likely could. It is against U.S. law to willfully and knowingly interfere in interstate commerce. Such action includes blocking IPs that most reasonable people use for opt-in email communications. To state that SpamCop is not responsible for the actions of the ISP is wrong. SpamCop openly and actively promotes their blacklist technology, even to the point of providing the cost of saving figures by using SpamCop’s software. This would be considered as providing the means to violate the law, which is illegal in most cases in the state of Missouri. Not only that, the stance that SpamCop protects your constitution rights is an advertising issue that encourages ISPs in to using your product in “good faith” that it does protect peoples constitution rights (as discussed on this thread). If the product infringes on peoples constitutional rights (as discussed in next paragraph), then it is not the ISP responsibility to bear the responsibility of the false advertising that the ISP relied on and is regulated by the FTC.

If SpamCop openly and actively blacklists message groups that most reasonable people use for social communication and education (as in my case), then they are engaging in censorship. Censorship is a violation of the US constitution (freedom of press and speech). Since SpamCop openly and actively promotes its blacklist services to ISPs, and members of your political activist group openly state it protects constitutional rights, you are purposely encouraging ISPs to unknowingly engage in censorship and in turn violate constitutional law.

The final issue deals with the nature of this group. It is obvious that it is a political activist group. Although the law (and constitution) encourages the right to assemble, it comes with limits. Due to the members of this groups’ view that their constitutional rights supersedes mine, it is a fascist militant group. In dealing with constitutional rights, the rule of thumb is that your rights end where my rights begin. A spammer does not have the rights to send unsolicited emails because I have the rights to not receive unwanted emails. However, since I am an email recipient, I have the rights to receive the emails I request and expect to receive. SpamCop members do NOT have the rights to blacklist them and encourage my ISP to block them. The issue with my future complaint to the Attorney General is not the bug with SpamCop as I originally reported on this thread, but rather the supremacist attitude of the members of the SpamCop political organization. To state that your rights supersede my rights to the point that it is OK for you to violate my rights is NOT encouraged by federal law. It is expected that a political activist organizations benefit the people it represents as a whole. In SpamCops case, the overall organization of activists that promotes SpamCop, believe that only they have rights and a say in the matter. All other fellow email recipients are stupid and any concerns of rights are without merit. Due to SpamCops position of openly and actively expanding their agenda by encouraging ISPs to use their blacklist services, they are infringing on my rights as a human being to stay clear of your agenda. To tell me to switch ISPs because they started using your service is a very fascist comment. I was there first.

This being said, I feel that the state and/or federal government should regulate email blacklists to prevent vigilantes such as yourselves from deciding what email I should receive or not receive. Your political activist group must be controlled before the Internet is crippled by fascist censorship by a group of uptight people with unmerited grudges against corporate America. Most reasonable people do not get so bent out of shape because that receive a bunch of junk mail after posting their primary email addresses all over the Internet. Most people learned the hard way when they posted their phone numbers in every contest box at the local shopping mall.

P.S. Who said you have the rights to an email address? I’ve never heard that one yet. Can you please provide a source?

By the way, there is no need to waste your time ripping my post apart, I no longer have the time to spend dealing with a group of people that do not play well with the rest of society.

[sommerfeld]

Wow.

[Merlyn]

Here is a recommendation

Why can't you blacklist part of a subject line of an IP addresses, or range of IP addresses.  If people have problems with a Yahoo Group sending an email with the subject line (group name in []) “[RepublicansSuck]…” then why can’t you blacklist all emails coming from the offending group instead of a group like [MacUsers]?

SpamCop is a known political activist group, I did my research.  If not, why did one of the posters have the permissions to move my concern out of view from assistance?

[lots of garbage snipped]

You know so little and you know it so fluently.

nuff said!

[turetzsr]

<snip>

By the way, there is no need to waste your time ripping my post apart, I no longer have the time to spend dealing with a group of people that do not play well with the rest of society.

...Finally, this participant exposes her/himself for what I've suspected since the beginning that s/he is ... one of the "don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up" crowd! <g>

[turetzsr]

Here is a recommendation

Why can't you blacklist part of a subject line of an IP addresses, or range of IP addresses.  If people have problems with a Yahoo Group sending an email with the subject line (group name in []) “[RepublicansSuck]…” then why can’t you blacklist all emails coming from the offending group instead of a group like [MacUsers]?

<snip>

...For those of you non-SpamCop users who care enough to continue to follow this thread: the answer is that this type of information is far more easily faked than IP addresses are.

[dra007]

If I cared to follow it it was only for its humorous content. It seems that people who already made up their mind make up the crowd of visiting trolls who acomplish nothing but diminish the signal to noise ratio in this forum. Thankfully for the most part they eventually give up and leave.