Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sabunduboy

Collateral Damage in the Fight Against Spam

Recommended Posts

JupiterResearch estimates that the cost of incorrectly blocked email is expected to be $107 million in 2006, and will rise to $419 million in 2008.

At least 20 percent of the email addresses on spammers’ lists are out-of-date, which has created a new problem: bounced email, which is estimated to cost companies $5 billion per year in IT resources.

Nine percent of email volume is misdirected or “bounced” email, which could result in a listing on the SpamCop Blacklist.

But wait SpamCop have got THE ultimate solution....

  • Stop bounces

  • Stop using Auto-responders

  • Upgrade your mail servers

to name a few

What a load of hogwash.

Do you have any idea how many messages 9% of daily email volume is, and how many ISP's and mail servers that represent?

There are approximately 1.1 billion email users worldwide and 1.4 billion active email accounts with a worldwide daily traffic of about 171 Billion Messages,

Do you really believe they will all do what SpamCop suggests?

Bill Platt of The Phantom Writers wrote:

"While the anti-spammers rail on the ugliness of spam, it seems they are perfectly willing and likely prefer that the only people permitted to send email should be those they directly give permission to.

Personally, I find the practices of the radicals of SpamCop to be more offensive than the activities of the spammers. It is a terrible thing to say, I know, but the spammers simply irritate me and the SpamCop fanatics try to oppress my activities.

Osama bin Laden brought external terrorism to the United States on September 11th, 2001. But the truth is that terrorists have long existed in our country on our own soil, and great numbers of them proudly were the shield of SpamCop.

We all must make a choice, do we stay home or do we fight the oppressors who seek to diminish our freedom."

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."

Albert Einstein

"There was a time when bl.spamcop.net was a useful blocklist. I say "was" because bl.spamcop.net is getting so many false positives now (several a day, from a variety of unrelated and non-spamming servers) that it has become more of a liability than a service, and I have removed it from my list of blocklists. I strongly recommend others do the same."

- Spamex on Spamcop -

At one point the Spamcop RBL seemed like it had potential. It was quick to list spammers and quick to remove the blocks when the spam stopped. In contrast to SPEWS and its policy of not removing netblocks even when they clean up, this made it one of the better RBLs, if one is going to use an RBL. However, by knowingly listing uninvolved parties, Spamcop has, in our opinion gone the way of SPEWS and rendered their RBL useless. Most people cannot afford to use an RBL that intentionally blocks email from hosts that have not been reported as spam sources but rather just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. This causes too much collateral damage.

Anonymous writer

"I recently worked with a datacenter that housed a rather notorious spammer (azoogle.com), and found out that spamcop actually does not filter them (or several other spammers). Why? Payoffs. That's right, spamcop is paid to not filter several several UCB sources... I guess that's their right though as a business (just as its mine to seek a better source of blacklists). Its a bit annoying that they have that paypal "donate" button up at the top of their website though. Imp sure they are doing quite well from the spammers bribes and the last thing they need is more money."

To Conclude:

We all agree that WE HATE spam, but in the end, the cost and time I spend deleting spam messages is far less than the cost and implications of loosing legit email messages because of IP numbers being blacklisted listed by members of SpamCop.

I will not do business with ISP's who uses SpamCop's blocklist to filter my incoming email.

You should all do the same!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is your choice as it is ours to keep reporting the sources of spam through SpamCop. Hogwash you say? Yeah, you filled a page with misinformed and misleading quotes, I agree, that's hogwash.

Edited by dra007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JupiterResearch estimates that the cost of incorrectly blocked email is expected to be $107 million in 2006, and will rise to $419 million in 2008.

At least 20 percent of the email addresses on spammers’ lists are out-of-date, which has created a new problem: bounced email, which is estimated to cost companies $5 billion per year in IT resources.

Nine percent of email volume is misdirected or “bounced” email, which could result in a listing on the SpamCop Blacklist.

But wait SpamCop have got THE ultimate solution....

  • Stop bounces

  • Stop using Auto-responders

  • Upgrade your mail servers

to name a few

Since misdirected bounces cost $5 billion per year, it makes sense to me to block them so that one neither has to use the bandwidth nor time to delete them (not to mention sorting through to make sure that a 'real' rejection is not in the mass of misdirected bounces).

Responsible, competent server admins reject at the server level before accepting, sending rejection messages to IP addresses that are still using outdated methods of sending rejection messages and autoresponders.

Do you really believe they will all do what SpamCop suggests?

It is not only spamcop who no longer tolerates misdirected bounces.

<snip ignorant quote>

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."

Albert Einstein

Spamcop reports are exactly that 'reports' It is up to the server admin who receives them to determine what to do. spam Traps do not send reports; however, the fact that they have received email is ipso facto condemnation since they should not be receiving email at all.

"There was a time when bl.spamcop.net was a useful blocklist. I say "was" because bl.spamcop.net is getting so many false positives now (several a day, from a variety of unrelated and non-spamming servers) that it has become more of a liability than a service, and I have removed it from my list of blocklists. I strongly recommend others do the same."

Many server admins use the scbl as part of a mix of filtering techniques or use it to 'tag' email as suggested.

- Spamex on Spamcop -

At one point the Spamcop RBL seemed like it had potential. It was quick to list spammers and quick to remove the blocks when the spam stopped. In contrast to SPEWS and its policy of not removing netblocks even when they clean up, this made it one of the better RBLs, if one is going to use an RBL. However, by knowingly listing uninvolved parties, Spamcop has, in our opinion gone the way of SPEWS and rendered their RBL useless. Most people cannot afford to use an RBL that intentionally blocks email from hosts that have not been reported as spam sources but rather just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. This causes too much collateral damage.

There are no 'uninvolved parties' concerning spam. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. People who use the internet should be responsible and competent and that includes how to deal with spam.

<snip unfounded accusation of bribery>

To Conclude:

We all agree that WE HATE spam, but in the end, the cost and time I spend deleting spam messages is far less than the cost and implications of loosing legit email messages because of IP numbers being blacklisted listed by members of SpamCop.

I will not do business with ISP's who uses SpamCop's blocklist to filter my incoming email.

If you never saw spam (spam is the meat product produced by Hormel), you wouldn't have to spend any time or money deleting spam. However, legitimate, but ignorant, senders would have to find reliable ways of sending email if they couldn't contact you via email because you were using blocklists. The cost of spam should be the burden of the sender because the sending end is the only way to stop spam.

It is your choice. Be a part of the problem or part of the solution. There is no need to use the scbl, if you choose not to, but blocklists are the way to control spam.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(snip lots of bad grammar)

If you want to more effectively make your point, you need to get someone to proofread your posts. Not only did your own text contain obvious gaffes, even some of your "quotes" were defective.

Oh, and a big THANK YOU to SpamCop and all those who help make it such a wonderful tool in the fight agains spam.

DT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will not do business with ISP's who uses SpamCop's blocklist to filter my incoming email.

Seems a strange place to post a recruiting advert for not using ISPs that employ the SpamCop BL - perhaps this is really a rant :P . But I, too, will not use an ISP that employs the SCBL to block spam. I understand why they do it - it is an effective means of reducing the volume of junk Email passing through their system - their choice, their Email resources.

As been said many times, the correct, and best, use of the SCBL is to filter spam to a holding place so mail isn't lost but handled at a convenient time. Using the SCBL and some extra blocklists I have tweaked my settings so around 98% of my incoming spam is trapped and I can only recall one false positive in the last nine months.

The problem is not the SCBL but the indiscriminate use of block lists in general. The fact that so many ISPs choose to use the SCBL just shows how many consider it to be effective and worthwhile. Since ISPs operate to make profit, I can only assume that use of the SCBL is helping them to do just that.

Andrew

Edited by agsteele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not do business with ISP's who uses SpamCop's blocklist to filter my incoming email.

<sarcasm>Yes. It is so much better that your message gets put into a Held Mail type folder and is never seen rather than being bounced back to you so you KNOW it has not been seen. </sarcasm> Just because you don't receive a bounce message does NOT mean you message was received or seen? Companies are dealing with tons of spam and are doing what they need to not to be drowned in those messages. I wish more companies would use blocklists so I know when my messages don't get through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To Conclude:

We all agree that WE HATE spam, but in the end, the cost and time I spend deleting spam messages is far less than the cost and implications of loosing legit email messages because of IP numbers being blacklisted listed by members of SpamCop.

I will not do business with ISP's who uses SpamCop's blocklist to filter my incoming email.

You should all do the same!

Some people know so little and they know it so fluently :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blush:

My previous post refers....

http://www.americasnetwork.com/americasnet...l.jsp?id=378327

"A court has threatened to shut down the Spamhaus Project, a volunteer-run anti-spam service, for ignoring a $11.7 million judgment against it, an Associated Press report said.

The Associated Press report said in a proposed court order, Judge Charles Kocoras of the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois calls on the organizations responsible for registering the Spamhaus.org Internet address to suspend the organization's Internet service. "

What can I say, its only a matter of time and SPAMCOP will be taken to court as well.

Time to start looking for a new job guys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A US judge can't shut down spamhaus, since it is not based in the US, nor does it have any offices, agents, or business operations in the US. At the VERY worst, they can force TUCows to pull the spamhaus.org domain name, and it would really not be that difficult for spamhaus to simply register a new domain name like spamhaus.uk with a non-US offiliated registrar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<snip>

Time to start looking for a new job guys

...Nope, my job has nothing to do with SpamCop! Did you miss the note above the box where you entered your post that reads "The primary mode of support here is peer-to-peer, meaning users helping other users. (please remember this at all times!)?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Time to start looking for a new job guys

Thanks for the heads up but I don't think I need a new job - unless you've been speaking to my boss behind my back. Wait a minute... I'm self-employed ;)

Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My previous post refers....

And as such, I fail to see the need for a second Topic on the same subject .... this will be merged into that "previous" Topic.

What can I say, its only a matter of time and SPAMCOP will be taken to court as well.

Been there, done that ...

Time to start looking for a new job guys

Retired now, though still much too busy. Time here is all voluntary ... documented by the way ... try the FAQs sometime ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha Ha. I wonder how many of the newbies who rant against anti-spam measures are actually spammers?

BTW I don't use an ISP that blocks anything either.

Fortunately my ISP uses Spamcop, Spamhaus and others so I can filter my mail however I choose. I haven't yet had a single false positive from spamcop :) Got a great system (my own configuration and choice) that blocks 2/3 spam and rising, and most of the rest goes into a junk folder (no false positives in the junk folder yet).

BTW - the recent judgement in the US against the UK organisation Spamhaus says more about the legal system and the spammer than spamhaus (which quite rightly didn't bother to mount a defense as they were not subject to US law). The judge seems to have no choice in the judgement under the current civil law provisions, tho reading between the lines of the judgement itself, he was more sympathetic to spamhaus than the spammer (no court costs awarded etc).

Edited by MrT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blush:

What can I say, its only a matter of time and SPAMCOP will be taken to court as well.

Time to start looking for a new job guys

Your reply has the smell of a NANAE Troll I am familiar with :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blush:

My previous post refers....

http://www.americasnetwork.com/americasnet...l.jsp?id=378327

What can I say, its only a matter of time and SPAMCOP will be taken to court as well.

Time to start looking for a new job guys

SpamCop and most other's actively assist in finding spammers where abouts, which often leads to taking them to court for being the criminals they are. Of course the politically correct also give the right for spammers to also attack us "Norms" right to defend ourselves, our children from spam and the hurtful filth it contains. You seem to be against ones right to stop illegal filth being repeatedly forced into one's homes and businesses

The SCBL is for SpamCop members use

Because it is so effective and accurate

(stopping spam as being sent, not after. Then quickly releasing an IP when spam is stopped being sent)

WITH ALL COMPETANT PROVIDERS NOTIFIED OF ALL REPORTED ABUSE by Spamcop

Many ISP's use our Members SCBL although not always as instructed because it is by far the most accurate. If used as instructed no email is ever lost and is NOT for bit-binning (which indicates you know nothing) Facts are an ISP's incompetency at setting up conformant email servers are the reason for ALL lost email and allowing spam to be sent

The fact that one is naively inclined to accept an ISP's compulsory email addy possibly does mean a fair percentage of email is bit-binned by a combination of ISP's incompetence and spammers who use their incompetency to invade the privacy of one's home and business security/reliability

One should always shop around if email is important to one. Second to none is SpamCops email service If all email was set up competently like SpamCops email service the figures for lost/bit-binned email would simply not be an issue. One can also turn all filtering off which should also suit a fool like you

Edited by petzl

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  

×