SpaCop email country wide blocklists not working

[petzl]

SpamCop blocklist is next to useless Grey listing works to certain degrees spam friendly countries like Brazil I want blocked and bombed (I hate therm and do all I can to harm them as a nation)

The Country wide Blocklists SpamCop Email have configured do not work? When I put them in my spam filter?

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5125008687zb...;action=display

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5126044894z6...a16ad344e5b856z

like "br.countries.nerd.dk" or "cn.countries.nerd.dk" they do?

Why not? For a company I pay money to block these creeps these filters are broken? Why do I have to resort to publicly tell SpamCop email this. I have advised them privately

Suggest you check if "Nerd.dk" are not stopping/blocking look-ups from you or your email blocklist is misconfigured If you can't get them to work remove them they are deceptive and don't help agian for a "spam free" email system I should not have to be stating this?

GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER

There are plenty of others out there doing this presently for free? Don't EVER think I pay you for nothing. Gmail offer 25 meg attachment size my Digital takes 40 meg photos which I cannot directly send. What happened to the Web space SpamCop was going to offer as a extra? Then I could at lest upload my photos for colleagues to download. My IT friends also need to have BIG programs (8 gig+) for download to remote stations

[DavidT]

For sending large attachments, you really shouldn't be using email clients or webmail, but rather a service like the one at YouSendIt.com, where a free user can send attachments up to 50mb.

As for the Spamcop BL, I have seen an increasing number of false positives arriving in my SpamCop "Held" folder due to false listings on the SCBL. Some are from Constant Contact, from whom I *never* receive spam, and some are from political organizations to which I've intentionally given my address, and they too don't spam. However, there are SC users who are falsely reporting both Constant Contact and the political senders (especially ones affiliated with the Democratic Party).

Even though I'm a longtime Spamcop member and customer, I've turned off the SCBL at work and urged other admins to do likewise, in that it's too subject to false reporting and even the spamtraps aren't "pure" (despite certain protestations to the contrary). I wish this weren't true, but at least in my experience, the SCBL is pretty worthless at present due instant "death penalty" meted out to senders who hit one of the apparently-bogus spam trap addresses. I only keep the SCBL turned "on" for my SC email account in order to see which senders are being hit by false positives (because I use Constant Contact at work and need to stay informed about delivery issues).

DT

[turetzsr]

<snip>

Even though I'm a longtime Spamcop member and customer, I've turned off the SCBL at work and urged other admins to do likewise, in that it's too subject to false reporting ... in my experience, the SCBL is pretty worthless at present ....

<snip>

...If you want a BL that allows you to stop incoming spam with few false positives then, true, you do not want the SCBL, as SpamCop itself says (SpamCop FAQ: "What is the SpamCop Blocking List (SCBL)?" first bullet). But that doesn't make the SCBL worthless - it can be used to sort suspected spam into a location other than users' Inboxes, for example.

[petzl]

...If you want a BL that allows you to stop incoming spam with few false positives then, true, you do not want the SCBL, as SpamCop itself says (SpamCop FAQ: "What is the SpamCop Blocking List (SCBL)?" first bullet). But that doesn't make the SCBL worthless - it can be used to sort suspected spam into a location other than users' Inboxes, for example.

I'm not finding false positive with the SpamCop blocking list just find that it is to conservative in blocking email servers. My problem is countries I do not correspond with ever, particularly Brazil are spaming flooding DOS attacking my email address and looking at reports a lot of others as well.

For some reason SpamCop email is not getting the "block" from "br.countries.nerd.dk" example

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5134997044z6...8aaccbae80bf30z

If I have this mail go through Mailwasher (MW) "br.countries.nerd.dk" which I have MW check it works no problem.

Just trying to get whoever is running SpamCop email to either get the countrywide blocklists working or take them down.

Disappointing SpamCop email no longer leads the rest, they now need to increase send file size to 30 meg and fix whats broken

[SpamCopAdmin]

As for the Spamcop BL, I have seen an increasing number of false positives arriving in my SpamCop "Held" folder due to false listings on the SCBL. Some are from Constant Contact, from whom I *never* receive spam, and some are from political organizations

You should put those senders on your whitelist so their mail will not be diverted to your Held Mail folder.

Constant Contact servers are sending spam to our spamtraps. If they are listed, it's because they should be. And political groups are notorious for sending unsolicited email.

Keep in mind that it takes way more than just one or two angry recipients to put an IP on our list.

- Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin -

- service[at]admin.spamcop.net -

.

[DavidT]

Yes, of course I could whitelist the senders, but that's not my point. Personally, I have NEVER received a piece of spam sent through Constant Contact.

Yes, I know it's quite likely that despite CC's efforts to keep clean and monitor their user's use of the service that some people could be hit when added to a list in violation of CC's TOS, but suddenly, a bunch of their servers are getting SCBL'd, something that doesn't appear to have been happening that much over the last few years, according to my own observations. I own/administer several accounts on Constant Contact and am experiencing delivery problems, but I evaluated almost a dozen such systems before going with CC and find them to be an excellent service. I have been fighting spam since about 1993, having published anti-spamming websites and been interviewed by computing magazines (back in the early days of spamming), so I'm at least somewhat picky about who I do business with.

I hope that SpamCop will work with CC (and vice versa) to find mutually-beneficial solutions to this issue. I've been faithfully feeding the SC database with reports for years, but if this kind of thing can't be resolved, I'll just not bother any more.

DT

[SpamCopAdmin]

I hope that SpamCop will work with CC (and vice versa) to find mutually-beneficial solutions to this issue.

We have been corresponding with CC about the problems. Judging from what I'm seeing, CC is vigorously attacking the problem.

SpamCop is an automatic system. If their servers are sending enough spam, they WILL be put on our list. All they have to do to get their servers off our list is to stop the spam. They don't even have to stop all the spam, just most of it.

I've been faithfully feeding the SC database with reports for years, but if this kind of thing can't be resolved, I'll just not bother any more.

I guess I don't understand. If we don't stop putting CC servers on our list when they send spam, you're going to quit reporting?

- Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin -

- service[at]admin.spamcop.net -

.

[turetzsr]

Yes, of course I could whitelist the senders, but that's not my point. Personally, I have NEVER received a piece of spam sent through Constant Contact.

Hi, DT,

...First, I want to say that your point is understood (I believe I do, anyway). You are understandably frustrated by the SCBL not working the way you wish, which is to stop only your spam and to let through everything you consider to be valid e-mail. I would be equally frustrated were I in your situation (I'm neither a user of the SpamCop e-mail system nor an admin).

...Next, I would like to try to explain others' view, in what I hope is a slightly different way (although I suspect you understand this point, you just feel it's irrelevant and that's also understandable). The SCBL simply isn't intended to be used the way you are using it. It's an early warning system of spam reported by those of us who do so and spam sent to SC spam traps (I am not knowledgeable enough on this last to comment further about your claim that the SC "spamtraps aren't 'pure'" above 78892[/snapback]). As with any tool, if it doesn't meet your needs, you shouldn't use it for the task you want to perform. No one here will (should) think less of you because you so chose.

<snip>

I've been faithfully feeding the SC database with reports for years, but if this kind of thing can't be resolved, I'll just not bother any more.

I guess I don't understand. If we don't stop putting CC servers on our list when they send spam, you're going to quit reporting?

...All I can offer is that if the only reason DT is reporting to SpamCop is to make the SCBL a worthwhile tool for him in his role as a SpamCop e-mail user or an e-mail admin, then there is indeed no reason for him to continue reporting. However, if, like many of the rest of us, he wants to strike back at spammers by reporting them to responsible abuse desks (and, sometimes, actually make things more inconvenient for the spammers) and to add the odd spammer to the SCBL for other admins and SpamCop e-mail users to use, then he will continue reporting. Again, either way, no one should think less of him for his choice IMHO.

[petzl]

Hi, DT,

...First, I want to say that your point is understood (I believe I do, anyway). You are understandably frustrated by the SCBL not working the way you wish,

Nothing to do with the SpamCop email not bloscking country wide IP's

To me the SCBL works perfectly

[DavidT]

I think that Steve T basically understands my issues.

I guess I don't understand. If we don't stop putting CC servers on our list when they send spam, you're going to quit reporting?

I'll try to briefly clarify. I use the services of CC and think they are very responsible when it comes to dealing with spam. When I see that one of their IPs is on the SCBL, I usually look at the nature of the reports on file (last 90 days function) with SC and what I surmise from those observations is that there is false/lazy reporting being done by *some* SC users--I've seen that all too often in the past as well. Church e-newsletters are rarely spam, for example, and yet they get reported.

Even though I have a couple of SC-based email accounts, I don't *need* the SCBL for any of my filtering, either personally or on the servers I administer, as in my experience (based on what I receive--YMMV), it winds up with more false positives than I'm willing to tolerate. I only leave it turned on in my own SC email account to help me detect when there are senders that I trust that have gotten listed. I just searched both the inboxes and the trash on both of my SC email accounts for items with "bl.spamcop.net" in the headers and they were all false positives (of course, I've got some other non-SCBL filtering happening before things reach my inboxes, such as high SA scores).

Keep in mind that it takes way more than just one or two angry recipients to put an IP on our list

Yes, I get that, but IMO, treating all sources in exactly the same manner is rather inflexible. I understand that SCBL listings shouldn't necessarily be used for blocking, but unfortunately, there are a lot of ISPs and sysadmins who are so overwhelmed by the flood of spam that they're willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

...spam friendly countries like Brazil I want blocked and bombed (I hate therm and do all I can to harm them as a nation)

Well....whatever.

DT

[petzl]

I think that Steve T basically understands my issues.

I'll try to briefly clarify. I use the services of CC and think they are very responsible when it comes to dealing with spam. When I see that one of their IPs is on the SCBL, I usually look at the nature of the reports on file (last 90 days function) with SC and what I surmise from those observations is that there is false/lazy reporting being done by *some* SC users--I've seen that all too often in the past as well. Church e-newsletters are rarely spam, for example, and yet they get reported.

DT

Constant Contact (CC) sound like complete idiots to me (would never let them handle my email).

I report Church spam, as well as take their websites down.

To stop spam by "loose cannons", in charities. Church groups or what ever, is easy to do and not rocket science. Just a simple mater to limit the number of email addresses in a send/spam by those unauthorized (and charge those that need to be authorized).

Your Blocklist concerns need to be made in "SCBL Blocklist help" not white-ant me

Still want and need SpamCop email to get countrywide blocklists working!

[JJ27]

As a Constant Contact customer, I have suffered greatly due to Spamcop's listing of their IP addresses. A few things I don't understand.

1) Every e-mail sent from Constant Contact includes an Unsubscribe link. If a recipient clicks on this link, there is no way the Constant Contact customer who sent the earlier e-mail can ever send again to that address again, without the recipient's explicit approval. It does not seem legitimate for people to report these e-mails as spam when they have this easy Unsubscribe link available.

2) As I understand, Spamcop will list an IP based on reporting by third parties. What's to prevent a competitor, or someone else with a grudge against Constant Contact from reporting them as Spammers? While Spamcop says that it takes reports from more than one or two users to cause a listing, do we know how many different people are reporting Constant Contact? Is it always the same few people?

3) I believe that all acknowledge that Constant Contact has no intention to spam or abet Spammers. That being the case, if Constant Contact mail is indeed getting received by some spam traps (whether pure or not), is Spamcop sharing the trap addresses with Constant Contact, to enable them to easily identify which of their customers are sending to these addresses? Constant Contact is certainly a reputable company, and should be trusted to treat this information with the appropriate confidentiality. (They can always be asked to sign an appropriate non-disclosure agreement.)

4) While Spamcop may feel that they are helping protect the innocent by blocking Constant Contact's IP addresses, they are actually hurting, and causing financial loss, to a much greater number of innocent people - Constant Contact's customers, and the people who want to receive mail from them.

[turetzsr]

Hi, JJ27,

...Please see SpamCopAdmin's (Don D'Minion) explanation, above 78902[/snapback]. If you still have questions after reading that post, please post specific questions about that here. I feel confident that the answers to your questions can be found in Don's post and in various other articles and the SpamCop FAQ that are available in the SpamCop Forum, they may just take a bit of searching to find. For example:

1) Every e-mail sent from Constant Contact includes an Unsubscribe link. If a recipient clicks on this link, there is no way the Constant Contact customer who sent the earlier e-mail can ever send again to that address again, without the recipient's explicit approval. It does not seem legitimate for people to report these e-mails as spam when they have this easy Unsubscribe link available.

is discussed in the SpamCop FAQ (to which there are links near the top of each SpamCop Forum page) article "E-Mail Address Removal, Unsubscription, & Listwashing," "On what type of email should I (not) use SpamCop?" and "What if I break the rule(s)?" as well as SCWiki (again, links near the top of each page) articles MainsleazeSpam.

[DavidT]

3) I believe that all acknowledge that Constant Contact has no intention to spam or abet Spammers. That being the case, if Constant Contact mail is indeed getting received by some spam traps (whether pure or not), is Spamcop sharing the trap addresses with Constant Contact, to enable them to easily identify which of their customers are sending to these addresses? Constant Contact is certainly a reputable company, and should be trusted to treat this information with the appropriate confidentiality.

I think that's much too logical and/or practical for SpamCop, which appears to suffer from the dichotomous thinking malady that affects many people these days (black vs. white, no room for "gray areas"). So no, I'm pretty sure that SpamCop is not at all willing to do what you suggest with even the most reputable ESPs. Heck, they apparently won't even allow copies of the spam reports generated by SC reporting system (I'm a reporter myself) to be sent to the abuse address for Constant Contact.

There has supposedly been *some* form of contact between CC and SpamCop, but there doesn't appear to be much progress being made on this issue, as on most days, three or four of CC's outbound email servers are listed on the SCBL. The "Christmas message" email newsletter sent last week by the church organization I work for was rendered less deliverable by the listing of the CC server it happened to be handled by.

David T