Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kamaraju

why should I report to spamcop if gmail already filters spam out?

Recommended Posts

I am a newbie to spamcop. I do not want to raise flame wars or sound presumptuous or anything like that.

I already have a gmail account and gmail filters the spam quite efficiently without any false positives and puts it in the spam folder without any charge whatsoever. So my questions are

1) I am not a paid member of spamcop. If gmail already filters the spam out, what is the point in reporting to spamcop?

2) Is it just to help out others? If that is the case, then I think it is too much to expect someone to go through the delay of 6 seconds to submit one spam email. Please note that I have tried this system for the whole of today (reported about 50 spam emails through the web interface) and it is pretty boring to say the least.

If it is just to help out others, how do you justify the 6 second delay that you are imposing upon people who are trying to be helpful to you without expecting anything in return?

thanks

raju

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... If it is just to help out others, how do you justify the 6 second delay that you are imposing upon people who are trying to be helpful to you without expecting anything in return?...
Certainly it is purely altruistic to report if you are aleady happy with a solution which doesn't involve the SCBL.

There may be a better way to report through gmail than your present paste in method (batch submisstion via email) - have you looked at

http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3581 ? It does look a bit cumbersome to me, whatever way you use it with gmail (which I don't use)

Anyway, the delay is of course to encourage free users who *do* get some benefit to pay up, remove the delay and contribute something to the service they use. It doesn't cover your situation (or my own) but how to tell the altruists from the "users"? - anyone can use the SCBL, anyone can (register and) make occasional or frequent use of the parsing tool to identify spam sources and the sites advertised for whatever purpose they desire. No doubt there are other ways to structure the service but what's in place has evidently suited SpamCop until now, more or less.

And thanks for taking time out to report a few [amended - make that "a heap", if it took a day that is in no sense "a few"]. Whatever you decide to do in the future, every little bit helps.

Edited by Farelf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) I am not a paid member of spamcop. If gmail already filters the spam out, what is the point in reporting to spamcop?

2) Is it just to help out others? If that is the case, then I think it is too much to expect someone to go through the delay of 6 seconds to submit one spam email. Please note that I have tried this system for the whole of today (reported about 50 spam emails through the web interface) and it is pretty boring to say the least.

Hi Raju!

As Farelf says, if you have a solution that works for you then reporting is entirely for the purpose of helping the wider community and you may not want to bother.

Certainly, if you are using Gmail, then processing your held spam may be a hassle too far.

That said, I have no knowledge of the process that Google has set up for identifying spam. It may be that they are using the SCBL as part of their filtering process. In that case you will gain some benefit in reporting spam since it would then help Google maintain their filtering.

But knowing Gmail a little I'd say thanks for what you've done to date, but there's less value in reporting if it is proving to be a hassle.

Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I already have a gmail account and gmail filters the spam quite efficiently without any false positives and puts it in the spam folder without any charge whatsoever. So my questions are

Whereas I have to remember to physically go to the web-interface to check that which was identified as spam, as I see a lot of false-positives. I had one client send me around 40 e-mails over a two-day timeframe, kicking me the data she wanted placed on her web-site .... seven of those e-mails were identified as spam ....

1) I am not a paid member of spamcop. If gmail already filters the spam out, what is the point in reporting to spamcop?

The plan all along has been to try to get the folks in charge of the traffic to put a halt to the flow. Howver, just like the "war on drugs" .."war on poverty" ... etc., etc., etc. ... there are those folks that don't seem to have the same goals in mind ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Wazoo said, the original intent of spamcop was to filter out spam while informing the source so that server admin could stop the spam.

As it turned out, there are numerous server admins who don't care whether spam is coming from their network or not. In addition, many web hosts turned a blind eye if a website was using spam to advertise. Spammers also didn't want to get blocked so they developed ways to avoid being reported. That led to changes in the procedures.

Although end users get the benefit of filtering if they use the spamcop email service (and don't get blocked the way gmail occasionally does), many of the people who use spamcop are server admins. It is kind of like a cooperative spam filter for them. End users who use Mailwasher also can benefit. People who have spam filters set up for them by their ISPs don't know what criteria is being used to filter spam.

The only reason to report spam (if you don't also use the spamcop blocking list) is that, for responsible server admins and web hosts, spamcop acts as an early warning system if something goes wrong with their anti-spam efforts. Since they get a report from spamcop, they are able to fix it before they get on other blocklists. Admittedly, that is a minority of all spam reports.

Actually, it is more important, if an end user is interested in being a good netizen, for an end user to choose a responsible, competent ISP who doesn't allow spammers (or infected machines) and cooperates with other ISPs in their efforts to control spam. Yahoo and GMail apparently don't cooperate with spamcop. Yahoo apparently liking the commercial benefit. GMail apparently thinking the principle of not disclosing individual IP addresses more important than identifying spam sources. (disclaimer - I am not sure about the truth of either of those statements since I haven't paid very much attention to the discussions.)

That's my $.02 USD

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) I am not a paid member of spamcop. If gmail already filters the spam out, what is the point in reporting to spamcop?

2) Is it just to help out others? If that is the case, then I think it is too much to expect someone to go through the delay of 6 seconds to submit one spam email. Please note that I have tried this system for the whole of today (reported about 50 spam emails through the web interface) and it is pretty boring to say the least.

thanks

raju

Positives in using SpamCop to report spam

Try quick reporting. Make sure you configure "mail hosts" first, then there is no wait. But URL's in spam will not be reported

Aside from getting a spammer listed by the SCBL

(1) which stops spam as it is being sent not after it is sent (makes it te most effective blocklist to use)

(2) SpamCop notifies the listed owner of the IP address sending spam

(3) By reporting spam it alerts ISP's of criminal activity

(4) Increasingly more and more spammers face the courts because of reporting spam

(5) Just blocking spam without reporting has minimum impact on spam (SpamCop will send a abuse report)

(6) The most effective way of attacking spam and spammers is through a SpamCop Email account Although MailWasher is very good (turn off "bounce feature") a SpamCop Email account is superior and helps finance SpamCop

(7) With spam, attack is your best defence. SpamCop allows one to do this easily and accurately

Edited by petzl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am a newbie to spamcop. I do not want to raise flame wars or sound presumptuous or anything like that.
...You haven't and you don't. You raise a good point (note that others have raised this in other threads, as well, although yours has a slightly different flavor).
I already have a gmail account and gmail filters the spam quite efficiently without any false positives and puts it in the spam folder without any charge whatsoever. So my questions are

1) I am not a paid member of spamcop. If gmail already filters the spam out, what is the point in reporting to spamcop?

2) Is it just to help out others? If that is the case, then I think it is too much to expect someone to go through the delay of 6 seconds to submit one spam email. Please note that I have tried this system for the whole of today (reported about 50 spam emails through the web interface) and it is pretty boring to say the least.

If it is just to help out others, how do you justify the 6 second delay that you are imposing upon people who are trying to be helpful to you without expecting anything in return?

<snip>

...My situation is similar to yours, although I am not a GMail user. I use my employer's Microsoft Exchange-based e-mail and a personal (free) Yahoo!Mail account. In both cases, the spam filtering is pretty good (especially Yahoo). I report spam because (to paraphrase South Park's Eric Cartman re hippies) spammers p*ss me off.

...If you don't want to sit through a 6-second delay for dozens of spam, just report what you have the time and inclination to report. Every little bit helps the cause! And thank you! :) <g>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I already have a gmail account and gmail filters the spam quite efficiently without any false positives and puts it in the spam folder without any charge whatsoever.

If gmail already filters the spam out, what is the point in reporting to spamcop?

Is it just to help out others?

Cross-pollinating here.

news.spamcop.net]news://news.spamcop.net/e77sh4$q54...ews.spamcop.net

None -- yes.

Mike Easter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea just what thread Mike E. was wanting to point to .... I did drop a PM talking about the issues of trying to use a "newsgroup type" URL here, whuch is why I usually point to the newsgroup archives .... However, it turns out that there is more wrong with the offered link than just the [at] sign munging ..... one of those places where Subject Line: and Posting Date would have certainly helped ....

Intended link has been figured out to be ... (the [at] replacing the [at] sign in this display);

news://news.spamcop.net/e77sh4$q54$1[at]news.spamcop.net

Later Edit: I see that the newsgroup archiving tool is still broken (due to a full disk as stated in my last Announcement post) ... and for some reason, it took a few times cycling through all the spamcop newsgroups I monitor to finally get a new posting to show up (over an hour after it shows as being posted ..???) ....

spamcop newsgroup - found at news://news.spamcop.net/spamcop (again, links scattered in numerous places)

Subject: Webforum2nntp - Raju

Post Date/Time: Monday, June 19, 2006 11:11 PM GMT -5

Point that Mike wants to make is that there is also traffic in the newsgroups that deals with the same subject matter. Wazoo points out that links to the newsgroup server and newsgroups are found at the top of this very page, the www.spamcop.net Help pages, the SpamCop FAQ found here, etc., etc., etc.

Edit Continued: And it would appear that my previous remarks were wrong ... it appear that Mike wants to start a new thread in the spamcop newsgroup starting with Raju's posting here ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kamaraju, I'm in the same boat as you. I usually pay a bit once a year, but use up that 'fuel' pretty quickly and then have the delay for the rest of the year. I also report mail from Gmail. However, I (almost) never have to wait for a delay. The key is that you can have multiple browser windows open, and SC parses them all for you. You don't have to wait for one to finish parsing before submitting the next one. Here's how:

Open up your spam in Gmail, click more options, click Show Original. This opens up a new window with the source. Right click, Select All, Copy, then go to spamcop.net. Paste, and click submit. Then, go back to the Gmail window, click Delete, open up the next spam, click Show Original, etc. Gmail always opens the source in a new window. I usually submit 5-10 at a time that way, then as I have time I bring up the window, check, and submit the report. The delay is irrelevant unless I'm waiting on one particular parse for some reason.

Edited by Jank1887

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you just forward it as an attachment to your submit address? Then there is no delay. Does Google not allow messages to be forwarded as attachments, or is there some other problem? Note you will need to be sure to set up Mailhosts first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> If gmail already filters the spam out, what is the point in reporting to spamcop?

Your question suggests a paradox. If gmail already filters out the spam, then there shouldn't be anything to report to SpamCop. If you have any spam to report, then something leaked through gmail’s filter.

Those spams leaking through the filter are the most important ones to report.

And as usual, your reports are most beneficial if reported as soon as possible after they hit your Inbox. Not only will adding to the blacklist help to stop the spams from spreading, but your quick action increases the chances the police will catch the person(s) responsible for generating the spam.

-Neil-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If gmail already filters the spam out, what is the point in reporting to spamcop?
Your question suggests a paradox. If gmail already filters out the spam, then there shouldn't be anything to report to SpamCop. If you have any spam to report, then something leaked through gmail’s filter.
...Unless GMail's filter simply directs suspected spam into a different folder than normal e-mail....

...My answer to the question would be, if there are already police to stop drunk drivers, why should I report a suspected drunk driver? If the answer isn't obvious, please let me know and I'll make it explicit. :) <g>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... why should I report a suspected drunk driver?
And the reason for your suspicion being he had just jumped the kerb and knocked down your letterbox, emerged from his vehicle to urinate on your front lawn before resuming his place behind the wheel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your question suggests a paradox. If gmail already filters out the spam, then there shouldn't be anything to report to SpamCop. If you have any spam to report, then something leaked through gmail’s filter.

...Unless GMail's filter simply directs suspected spam into a different folder than normal e-mail....

Yes. Gmail filters the spam out and puts it in a separated location. Just wanted to confirm this behaviour so that it will be easy for people reading archives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...I can not get to news.spamcop.net. Thanks!

Nor can I Steve but that link Mike just posted goes "elsewhere" and you should be able to reach it. Hopefully ... But, if not
Subject:
Webforum2nntp - Raju
From:
"Mike Easter" &lt;MikeE[at]ster.invalid&gt;
Date:
Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:11:24 -0700
Newsgroups:
spamcop

&lt;snip&gt;
Subject:  why should I report to spamcop if gmail already filters spam
out?

I am a newbie to spamcop. I do not want to raise flame wars or sound
presumptuous or anything like that.

I already have a gmail account and gmail filters the spam quite
efficiently without any false positives and puts it in the spam folder
without any charge whatsoever. So my questions are

1) I am not a paid member of spamcop. If gmail already filters the spam
out, what is the point in reporting to spamcop?

2) Is it just to help out others? If that is the case, then I think it
is too much to expect someone to go through the delay of 6 seconds to
submit one spam email. Please note that I have tried this system for the
whole of today (reported about 50 spam emails through the web interface)
and it is pretty boring to say the least.

If it is just to help out others, how do you justify the 6 second delay
that you are imposing upon people who are trying to be helpful to you
without expecting anything in return?

thanks
raju
&lt;/snip&gt;

Background:  I also use gmail, and expose a gmail address in a fair
amount of newgroup posting Reply-To header.

That gmail address receives spam, different from the spam I receive at
my 'main' email account, and gmail does an excellent job of
spamfiltering -- so far I have seen no false positives, and the
incidence of false negatives, ie missing spam, is very uncommon.  Gmail
does a good job of spam filtering.

Also, I don't report gmail spam -- either kind, the missed or the
caught.  Basically it is too much trouble to me to report the gmail
spam, so I don't.  I /do/ report spam I receive at my main addy at my
connectivity provider.

As per raju's qx/s

1 - re what is the point of reporting gmail spam to spamcop -- my answer
is that it is too much trouble to report gmail received spam to spamcop,
unless you are popping your gmail so that you can send it bulk.

2 - re 'is SC reporting spam just to help out others [if you have a good
filter in place that doesn't involve the SCbl]' -- to that I would say
yes.  My main email account uses SpamPal and DNSbl/s and SCbl is
included in the defense structure.  My feeding spamcop contributes to my
own spamfilter's effectiveness, besides being a 'good' antispam
contribution.

To the qx/whine about the brief nag screen [and other differences
between free vs paid accounts] - I personally have no objection to the
nag screen.  First of all, regarding reporting from gmail -- there are
so many inefficiencies in that operation as to make the nag screen the
least of the problems.

So, the moral of the story, from my perspective, is that it isn't worth
the trouble to spamcop report from a gmail account.  Others may differ
in their opinions.  I would be receptive to being convince otherwise,
especially if you can build your case on the ease of reporting gmail
spam -- caught or uncaught.


-- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin 

If you confirm you can follow the link, I will come back and delete the above. HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor can I Steve but that link Mike just posted goes "elsewhere" and you should be able to reach it. Hopefully ... But, if not

<snip>

If you confirm you can follow the link, I will come back and delete the above. HTH

Hi, Farelf,

...Thanks!

...Mike's link did try to take me to news.spamcop.net in my news browser (MS Outlook Express) and did not work, so your including the newsgroup post content was, indeed, most helpful! :) <g>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Mike's link did try to take me to news.spamcop.net in my news browser (MS Outlook Express) and did not work...
Y'r most welcome - darned whitefella magic [link worked fine for me, using Mozilla], I'll never understand it, eh:) Edited by Farelf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Could someone please post the relevant content of the newsgroup article here? I can not get to news.spamcop.net. Thanks!

I have to admit .... after having my chops busted so many times for "referencing the Forum FAQ without simply providing the specific details" ... it's a bit funny to note that these attempted links "to somewhere else" have been provided with no 'details' on what that link is supposed to provide ..... not meaning to start another war of words, but ... the situation struck me as a bit on the humerous side ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×