yourbuddy Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Spamcop is too aggressive to use in a production environment. They act as Judge, Jury and Executioner (by proxy) based on the snitches. Their snitches (and unidentified moles and spamtraps are often wrong, due to various reasons - over-enthusiasm and just plain ignorance are some). Stop using it, tell your ISP to stop using it - tell other ISP's to stop using it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 There will be a reply, perhaps many.True. However, Spamcop is too aggressive to use in a production environment.That's what its legal advisors say. Many admins around the world disagree. They act as Judge, JurySpamCop facilitates spam reporters' reports, it does not judge. ISPs' abuse desk personnel judge. and Executioner (by proxy)SpamCop facilitates spam reporters' reports, it does not execute. ISPs' abuse desk and legal personnel execute. based on the snitches.Reporters. If your neighbor across the street saw burglars trespassing on your property in the dead of night, wouldn't you want them to report that activity? Their snitches (and unidentified moles and spamtraps are often wrong, due to various reasons - over-enthusiasm and just plain ignorance are some).Incorrect syntax. Reporters who are wrong are disciplined. Stop using it, tell your ISP to stop using it - tell other ISP's to stop using it.One has to wonder what bad experience "yourbuddy" has had that caused "yourbuddy" to feel this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yourbuddy Posted February 20, 2004 Author Share Posted February 20, 2004 You incorrectly blocked a large commercial ISP, of which we (corporate user) are a customer. Your mistake was corrected, after a considerable amount of inconvenience SpamCop caused as Corporations and ISP mistakenly rely on your information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 You incorrectly blocked a large commercial ISP, of which we (corporate user) are a customer. Your mistake was corrected, after a considerable amount of inconvenience SpamCop caused as Corporations and ISP mistakenly rely on your information. What proof can you offer that the blocking was a mistake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yourbuddy Posted February 20, 2004 Author Share Posted February 20, 2004 By the fact that SpamCop acknowledged the "mistake" You are aware (of course you are) that they make mistakes based on mis-information received from dubious sources Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yosemite Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Hmm. Seems acceptable to me. (ratio of verified spammage IP's vs accidental listing) Sounds like you have an axe to grind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yourbuddy Posted February 20, 2004 Author Share Posted February 20, 2004 QUOTE=JeffG,Feb 20 2004, 12:17 PM If your neighbor across the street saw burglars trespassing on your property in the dead of night, wouldn't you want them to report that activity? If my "neighbor across the street" was a "mole" and reported the wrong person, the wrong person could be accused by this "unidentified mole" - who could not be made accountable to the wrongly accused, due to protection by the "spam" Cops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Quite on the other hand .. if during investigation of said mole reports it is found that those reports were bad, action is in fact taken against this reporter by SpamCop .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yourbuddy Posted February 20, 2004 Author Share Posted February 20, 2004 Yes, after the fact ... After the fact that damage is done to an innocently accused. One "squished mole", one less "snitch" (uh, reporter). One more innocently accused in the "spam" Cop jail for 48 hrs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Not sure why you seem to be on a continuing troll in these Forums. Would looking at things in a differnt light help? SpamCop is unique in the their listings are dynamic, and as you have pointed out several times, errors can be handled quickly. spam stops, and listing is removed .. timing is based on a not-so-simple equation, containing terms of e-mail sent, number of reports, and time, so the 48 hours is actually a worst-case scenario (though still based on when spam stops) Compare this to a listing in SPEWS. A spamming IPA is listed, but if it continues with no reaction from the owner of that address space, the single IP gets expanded to a block. If it continues, that one block gets expanded. removal of the "entire" block only occurs when "all spam" has stopped and the powers-that-be are actually convinced that it has stopped .. and there's a bit of bias in reaction time based on how long the spew had been running before action had been taken. The amount of damage you keep alluding to kind of depends on which side of the fence you're on. That you found out that you were blocked is based on the statistics of which of your outbound mails hit one (out of how many?) ISPs that was in fact using the SpamCopBL (noting that all the other outgoing e-mail were delivered [unless blocked due to oher issues, other BL's, etc]) So actually, the amount of "damages" might actually be a bit hard to quantify. Other issues have arisen here on the home front, so will stop this here .. but at least I'm hoping that there's enough at this point to cause you to take a step back and ponder a bit about the bigger picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spambo Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Yes, after the fact ... After the fact that damage is done to an innocently accused. One "squished mole", one less "snitch" (uh, reporter). One more innocently accused in the "spam" Cop jail for 48 hrs. You made the claims, can you back them up? · What large ISP? · What was the nature of the mistake? · What were SpamCop's exact words used in the alleged accusation? · Where can these accusations be independently documented? References: On Feb 20 2004, 11:21 AM yourbuddy wrote: You incorrectly blocked a large commercial ISP, of which we (corporate user) are a customer. Your mistake was corrected, after a considerable amount of inconvenience SpamCop caused as Corporations and ISP mistakenly rely on your information. On Feb 20 2004, 01:33 PM yourbuddy wrote: By the fact that SpamCop acknowledged the "mistake" You are aware (of course you are) that they make mistakes based on mis-information received from dubious sources Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yourbuddy Posted February 21, 2004 Author Share Posted February 21, 2004 The "claims" don't have to be backed up. They are self evident. You know that SpamCop makes mistakes, and you know that many innocent people suffer as a result. You know that all too well I like the BOLD Type, that's really intimidating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 OK, back for a bit .. how about this for a small attitude adjustment .. This is a "help" forum for users to find solutions .. As you feel that you've been burned, how about spending time in here, learning how it's supposed to work, and assisting in solving problems so that it doesn't happen in the future? The trolling thing just isn't going to fly, I'm afraid, so why not make your time in here a bit more constructive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spambo Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 You made the claims, can you back them up? · What large ISP? · What was the nature of the mistake? · What were SpamCop's exact words used in the alleged accusation? · Where can these accusations be independently documented? The "claims" don't have to be backed up. They are self evident. You know that SpamCop makes mistakes, and you know that many innocent people suffer as a result. You know that all too well So then you're admitting that you can't back up what you've said. I thought not. The real truths are: SpamCop did NOT accuse you, your ISP, or anyone else of spamming. While it does prepare and send computer generated spam reports to abuse addresses when authorized to do so by the recipient, these reports make no accusations. SpamCop compiles a database (blocklist, SCBL) containing IP numbers of reported spam sources but it does NOT reject or bounce any email based on that data and it does NOT claim that email coming from a listed IP is spam. The SCBL is NOT represented as being anything other than a list of IPs recently reported as spam sources by its users. It does not claim the list is infallible and it does not recommend admins use the SCBL to reject email. Some admins DO use it to bounce email but SpamCop played no part in making that decision. SpamCop does not have the power or authority to tell any ISP or other mail provider how to run their servers or what criteria is acceptable for consideration when making policy decisions. Spammers victimize millions of people every day by sending billions of unwanted emails at the expense of others. The total cost worldwide is probably in the trillions of dollars. If you can come up with a perfect method that rejects spam and never makes an error then do so, the world will beat a path to your door. You're making a mountain out of a molehill, a few occasional erroneous blocklist entries is such a miniscule issue that it isn't even listed on the grand scheme of things. At least SpamCop is trying to make a molehill out of a mountain and it does so without resorting to pathetic methods like spreading falsehoods, innuendo, and downright lies. I won't speculate on your motivation, but I will say that I think it's pretty damn cowardly. If you don't like SpamCop and want to encourage others not to use it, fine, but at least have the intestial fortitude to speak truthfully. I like the BOLD Type, that's really intimidating It wasn't intended to be intimidating, it was intended to get your attention - which it obviously did. It's too bad HTML cuteness can't pound a few well placed clues into those who need them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yourbuddy Posted February 21, 2004 Author Share Posted February 21, 2004 SpamCop (at their website: http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml) states: "This blocking list is somewhat experimental. This system and most other spam-filtering systems should not be used in a production environment where legitimate email must be delivered." etc. Need any more warning than that? Legitimate email can be blocked by blacklisting ISP or Corporate servers. Yes, I know, your legal guys made you say that, to try preventing lawsuits. Damaging innocent bystanders with erroneous suppositions from ignorant "reporters" and unidentified moles - makes this a nonsense statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 You incorrectly blocked a large commercial ISP, of which we (corporate user) are a customer. Prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yourbuddy Posted February 21, 2004 Author Share Posted February 21, 2004 Prove that you have never incorrectly blocked large commercial ISP's. You are inferring/making this claim, so logically you can back it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bumpkin Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Prove that you have never incorrectly blocked large commercial ISP's. You are inferring/making this claim, so logically you can back it up? I think first you should consider explaining why you are trolling the forums and flaming anyone who posts anything other than "i'm blocked!", then we may be able to have an intelligent conversation instead of watching you toss rocks at your glass house. Apparently you've got an issue with Spamcop. If you'd like it resolved, it's much easier to deal with facts than assumptions and accusations that can't be backed up. If you want logic, please use it so it can be returned in kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yourbuddy Posted February 21, 2004 Author Share Posted February 21, 2004 My current "issue" with SpamCop is: Prove that you have never incorrectly blocked large commercial ISP's. You are inferring/making this claim, so logically you can back it up? That's straight forward enough, isn't it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek T Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 why do you all keep feeding this troll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 I have never seen any evidence that spamcop has incorrectly listed any large ISP's. I have seen evidence where certain servers of large ISP's have been blocked because of spam coming from them. I have seen evidence where certain servers of large challenge/response types of services have been blocked because of challenges coming from them to people whose address was forged as the sender of the message. I have even seen evidence where ISP's were reported incorrectly due to network timeouts during a parse. Thses types of problems can cause problems for small ISP's with a small amount of sent messages, but large ISP's are less affected since it takes a percentage of the sent traffic to be reported. Please present your evidence so that I can see you side of the problem. why do you all keep feeding this troll? Because I need something to do on a Saturday morning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spambo Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 My current "issue" with SpamCop is: Prove that you have never incorrectly blocked large commercial ISP's. You are inferring/making this claim, so logically you can back it up? That's straight forward enough, isn't it When has SpamCop ever said that it has never had listing errors? It's a known fact that it has had errors and that it acted to them as soon as they were discovered. It would be ridiculous for SpamCop to attempt to prove otherwise. Your request is like asking General Motors or Ford to prove that no one has ever been injured due to a malfunction in a vehicle they made. Do you also tell everyone not to buy their vehicles because they aren't perfect either? Or are road deaths less important than bounced emails in your small mind? Legitimate email can be blocked by blacklisting ISP or Corporate servers. Yes, I know, your legal guys made you say that, to try preventing lawsuits. Damaging innocent bystanders with erroneous suppositions from ignorant "reporters" and unidentified moles - makes this a nonsense statement. The "legal guys" didn't have to make SpamCop write any such thing. Another lie on your part is exposed. A law passed by Congress has already seen fit to ban such nuisance suits. US Code, TITLE 47, CHAPTER 5, SUBCHAPTER II, Part I, Sec. 230You just can't stand the fact that you can't fight SpamCop with the truth so you resort to fabrications which your mind thinks will pass as being true.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 IMHO, all posts that are not directed at answering the poster's question should be moved to the Lounge. One of the things that was extremely annoying to me as a newbie was to be looking for answers and find a long thread like this. The standard in the ng (at one time) was to post a message "please don't feed the troll" with a link to an explanation of what a troll is. Then regular members did not post again except to answer the question. I don't understand how this software works exactly. Perhaps individual posts can't be moved. If so, then irrelevant posts could be deleted. Or if the poster continues to post personal opinion rather than help, the poster could be blocked. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yourbuddy Posted February 21, 2004 Author Share Posted February 21, 2004 Well Spambo ... At least we got to the truth about SpamCop "listing errors". SpamCop does make mistakes and cause harm to innocent bystanders. One of your own members said the "disclaimer" was to dissuade litigation. The "fabrications" are the SpamCop "listing errors". When SpamCop provides incorrect "listing errors" and others act on them, then SpamCop has some complicity in the damage/inconvenience caused. Perhaps the experimental nature of SpamCop should be made apparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yourbuddy Posted February 21, 2004 Author Share Posted February 21, 2004 Miss Manners (Miss Betsy) ... Dissenting opinions should be welcomed. It's a poor democracy that disallows criticism, and a feeble one that can't learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.