BL philosophy

[turetzsr]

<snip>

spam Cop's crusade is causing my business to suffer, because of something I do not see as a problem worth fixing.

Most users of spam Cop are unwitting "customers", because some systems person has deemed it to be a sensible thing to put on their server.

<snip>

...In addition to Rick's points immediately above, I will only add that:

• with due respect, whether you yourself see spam as a problem (and I suspect that you underestimate the harm to you, something the spammers no doubt rely upon to weaken the urgency felt by most about their behavior) is not germane, it is the millions of us upon whom the perpetrators are treading.
  
• if the unwitting "customers" are displeased with what their providers are doing, it is in their power, not SpamCop's, to change the behavior to that which SpamCop itself recommends rather than to flatly refuse delivery; this will result in higher operating costs to the providers, who will then presumably raise the costs paid by the customers, which may then cause those who like you evaluate the costs as being low to reevaluate their position as the true cost to them actually hits their pockets.
  

[Tommy Dodd]

Well if there is one constructive lesson to come from this discussion, and one which seems generally agreed, it is that any black list should either be used as one of many criteria for blocking a message or should result in a tag or something less draconian than a bounce or worse yet a black hole. Elsewhere it is pointed out by people apparently in the know that this approach is suggested by spam Cop, but my direct experience over the years shows that this advice is ignored by some server operators, and in my legendarily humble opinion should be emphasized in bold, red, 18 point type somewhere proximate to the FAQ that already admits that spam Cop sometimes makes mistakes.

I have also been waiting on tenterhooks for someone to point out that mailing liquor in the US is in fact illegal. But of course that only makes my hypothetical crusade a better analogy in that it is fixing a problem that doesn't need fixing. (An amusing aside is that the "prohibition" on mailing liquor does not extend to federal employees when the booze is being used for "testing purposes" - taste testing presumably.) So be sure to use UPS instead. Come to think of it, in the last week I have received a number of emails from UPS concerning some delivery or other that I am meant to be receiving, but can't figure out how to open the attached zip file. Maybe it's that order of hooch I desperately need to calm down.

[turetzsr]

<snip>

Well if there is one constructive lesson to come from this discussion, and one which seems generally agreed, it is that any black list should either be used as one of many criteria for blocking a message or should result in a tag or something less draconian than a bounce or worse yet a black hole. Elsewhere it is pointed out by people apparently in the know that this approach is suggested by spam Cop, but my direct experience over the years shows that this advice is ignored by some server operators,

...The other side of that argument would be "my server, my rules." For server administrators with customers, those customers should vote, too, if by no other means than to leave the provider if they disapprove the approach. Unfortunately, that requires those who, like you, discover their e-mail to those customers are blocked to inform the customers so that they are aware.

and in my legendarily humble opinion should be emphasized in bold, red, 18 point type somewhere proximate to the FAQ that already admits that spam Cop sometimes makes mistakes.

...Which would be effective only if the administrator(s) read the SpamCop FAQ, something I would think unlikely.

<snip>

So be sure to use UPS instead. Come to think of it, in the last week I have received a number of emails from UPS concerning some delivery or other that I am meant to be receiving, but can't figure out how to open the attached zip file. Maybe it's that order of hooch I desperately need to calm down.

...I, for one, appreciate the continued good humor with which you have presented your argument in the face of unanimous opposition. <big g>

[Farelf]

...I, for one, appreciate the continued good humor with which you have presented your argument in the face of unanimous opposition. <big g>

Me too.

Little solace perhaps but there's a bit of a "life cycle" to these things, it won't stay bad - but unfortunately progress is a little too "stately" to be endured in some cases. In any event, like all cycles, there's the recurrence to anticipate even when it does "come good". At the end of the day we seem to be holding our own on this treadmill. That takes a lot of work and is a bit of a "moveable feast". "Spammers ruin it for everyone". That's the bit that remains the same (plus c’est la même chose). It is dreadfully unfair. Well, a little pessimistic perhaps, more and more ESPs are blocking the spam at source. But it will never be 100% of them.

[lisati]

Ah, the on-going balancing act between zapping the bad guys with a fancy weapon and protecting the innocent bystanders.

[turetzsr]

Ah, the on-going balancing act between zapping the bad guys with a fancy weapon and protecting the innocent bystanders.

...This is just to note that SpamCop does neither in a direct sense. On one end (user reporting), it tries to notify the administrator of the source of the spam (we hope that the admin will take action against the spammer), on the other end (the SCBL) it provides the tool that ESPs can use to identify those spam sources (how the ESPs use it to protect or harm the innocent bystanders is left to the ESPs).