1 Billion SPAMs reported?

[Mikey]

Although the news item was on the front page for only a day (I think) apparently the system has processed over 1 Billion spam messages.

I'd be curious how many Billions of messages were blocked at servers due to the SpamCop blacklists. Does anyone in the inner sanctum keep data for DNS queries?

[jseymour]

Although the news item was on the front page for only a day (I think) apparently the system has processed over 1 Billion spam messages.

Actually, the system has sent a billion reports (assuming they started counting with report #1).

Based on my experience, that probably represents "only" around 200 million spams.

[loafman]

Although the news item was on the front page for only a day (I think) apparently the system has processed over 1 Billion spam messages.

Actually, the system has sent a billion reports (assuming they started counting with report #1).

Based on my experience, that probably represents "only" around 200 million spams.

We are a small company and use the SCBL to block email. Out of ~5,000 emails per day, the SCBL blocks ~2,000. That would be 730,000 per year blocked just for this small company. A large ISP probably sees that many blocked per day.

BTW, Over the last year there have only been 3 cases of false positives. Keep up the good work!

...Ken

[dra007]

Keep up the good work!

I second that!

[yourbuddy]

Keep up the good work!

I second that!

Yes, you would

But if those 3 false positives were for 3 billion dollars sales,

then SpamCop has cost this company (and others) lots

[Wazoo]

Well, perhaps .. but noting that e-mail doesn't have much of a legal standing at this point, there's probably not a lot of "billion dollar deals" brokered with e-mail as the only vehicle for contact. Your theory is not that far out, but even toning down the "billion" a bit still usually involves other contact besides e-mail for "making the deal" in most realities.

[Miss Betsy]

But if those 3 false positives were for 3 billion dollars sales,

then SpamCop has cost this company (and others) lots

As Wazoo pointed out, it is unlikely that sales of that magnitude would hinge on the receipt of one email.

However, since spam is a reality, those 3 false positives could be caught by any number of content filters to make incoming email manageable by separating suspected spam from legitimate email. Not one content filter lets the sender know that his email has been a false positive. If the spamcop bl is used to reject email at the server level, then the sender will know that his email has not been received.

It is much more likely that the sender (who,if this is a critical email, will be waiting for a response) will be aware that there is a hitch in communication than it is that the recipient will notice the false positive among all the spam.

Blocklists are much more effective in controlling spam than content filters if they return a non-deliverable message because they not only catch most of the spam, but also notify the sender that there is a problem. spamcop is more effective than other blocklists because spamcop sends a report to the people at that IP address who can fix the problem - if they are responsible. As far as business goes, who wants to do business online with someone who doesn't know how to choose compentent people to conduct their email service?

Miss Betsy

[yourbuddy]

As far as business goes, who wants to do business online

with someone who doesn't know how to choose compentent

people to conduct their email service?

Miss Betsy

Ok, fine - let's make it Thousand Dollar deals/sales

The question, Miss Betsy, is who would use SpamCop - which is too

proactive (based on "if I don't want it, it's spam" reporting by users).

Using SpamCop is not suitable "in a production evironment".

It's ironic (perhaps moronic), that SpamCop (and it's snitches) are

trying to make email more productive/reliable (etc., etc.) and at the

same time users (like yourself) are saying "don't rely on email".

[Merlyn]

The question, Miss Betsy, is who would use SpamCop - which is too

proactive (based on "if I don't want it, it's spam" reporting by users).

Using SpamCop is not suitable "in a production evironment".

It's ironic (perhaps moronic), that SpamCop (and it's snitches) are

trying to make email more productive/reliable (etc., etc.) and at the

same time users (like yourself) are saying "don't rely on email".

I though you said you were leaving this forum.

Please do not feed the Troll.

[yourbuddy]

The question, Miss Betsy, is who would use SpamCop - which is too

proactive (based on "if I don't want it, it's spam" reporting by users).

Using SpamCop is not suitable "in a production evironment".

It's ironic (perhaps moronic), that SpamCop (and it's snitches) are

trying to make email more productive/reliable (etc., etc.) and at the

same time users (like yourself) are saying "don't rely on email".

I though you said you were leaving this forum.

Please do not feed the Troll.

Hi Merlyn ...

No, I said I was back - because too many of you (like yourself

and dra007) were being too rude in the "Help Forum", and you

continue to prove the need. As the "resident troll" it's my job.

I understand why you want to ignore intelligent discussion.

[loafman]

Keep up the good work!

I second that!

Yes, you would

But if those 3 false positives were for 3 billion dollars sales,

then SpamCop has cost this company (and others) lots

All of our public non-employee addresses remain unfiltered and unblocked, especially the RFC required ones. In other words, the box 'sales at ourdomain.com' gets lots of spam. I get lots of spam through postmaster, webmaster, etc. The employees do not get much spam.

...Ken

[yourbuddy]

Keep up the good work!

I second that!

Yes, you would

But if those 3 false positives were for 3 billion dollars sales,

then SpamCop has cost this company (and others) lots

All of our public non-employee addresses remain unfiltered and unblocked, especially the RFC required ones. In other words, the box 'sales at ourdomain.com' gets lots of spam. I get lots of spam through postmaster, webmaster, etc. The employees do not get much spam.

...Ken

Very good thinking ...

All of which proves the point (made by SpamCop) that the SpamCop

system is experimental and not to be used in a production environment

where delivery of email is critical. Glad you understand the warning.

There are "executives" and "sales" people that can't afford the

possible "damage" that unreliable "experimental" systems cause, and

a PC based spam filter (POPFile being best) is much more appropriate.

[dra007]

There are "executives" and "sales" people that can't afford the

possible "damage" that unreliable "experimental" systems cause, and

a PC based spam filter (POPFile being best) is much more appropriate.

Obviously they are using spammy ISPs!

[yourbuddy]

There are "executives" and "sales" people that can't afford the

possible "damage" that unreliable "experimental" systems cause, and

a PC based spam filter (POPFile being best) is much more appropriate.

Obviously they are using spammy ISPs!

For once (maybe it's twice now) I agree with you

That's not saying anything against any ISP in particular.

Some really do seem to specialize in "being friendly to spammers",

while others are just unfortunate enough to have been "reported"

by a SpamCop fanatic because "it's email that I did not want".

It seems nearly every ISP (including the "major providers") have

been (or are) on a DNSbl. So, every ISP seems to be "spammy".

[turetzsr]

<snip>

The question, Miss Betsy, is who would use SpamCop - which is too

proactive (based on "if I don't want it, it's spam" reporting by users).

Using SpamCop is not suitable "in a production evironment".

...Anyone who either wants to filter e-mail so as to direct likely spam to a "check for spam" box rather than an Inbox or who understand and is willing to accept the fact that SpamCop.net's BL occasionally yields a false positive.

It's ironic (perhaps moronic), that SpamCop (and it's snitches) are trying to make email more productive/reliable (etc., etc.) and at the same time users (like yourself) are saying "don't rely on email".

...Ahah, the first usage error I can remember seeing in one of yourbuddy's posts -- that should be "its," not "it's"!

...Personally, I don't use SpamCop.net to try to make e-mail more productive or reliable and I would be surprised if any other knowledgeable user is....

[dra007]

No, we use it to make it less profitable for spammers and anoy them, it would be naive to assume that our reports will stop spammers in their tracks or deter their criminal ways....

[Miss Betsy]

The question, Miss Betsy, is who would use SpamCop - which is too

proactive (based on "if I don't want it, it's spam" reporting by users).

Using SpamCop is not suitable "in a production evironment".

I can understand why some business (especially sales) would not want to use /any/ blocking and rely on filters.

But a user would be more likely to use spamcop so if the business that I were dealing with couldn't reach me because they were using a spammy server (or didn't have a back up plan if it were a temporary glitch), then I don't think that I would have a very high opinion of their internet skills. sometimes the opinion of one area influences the opinion of what kind of quality product you will be getting or what kind of customer service, etc.

It's ironic (perhaps moronic), that SpamCop (and it's snitches) are

trying to make email more productive/reliable (etc., etc.) and at the

same time users (like yourself) are saying "don't rely on email".

There is nothing sure in life except death and taxes. I have not been able to email people because the cable was cut, because their computer burned up, because the electricity was off on my block due to a storm, etc.

When my husband was staying somewhere where the provider was Earthlink, it took hours for my emails to reach him. I don't know why. I always get emails instanteously when I send them between home and work and between web email and home.

None of those 'unreliability' issues have anything to do with spam. My point is that using blocklists (particularly blocklists that return a message to the sender if the email is blocked) is either protecting you against spam or the outage is temporary because it is easily fixed (at least with spamcop).

I really don't have any interest in making email more productive. I just don't want to be forced to receive email that I do not want. The kind of life I live makes it very unlikely that I will receive individual emails that I don't want or that disgust me so it is bulk email that I particularly don't want. And I don't want someone else deciding on the content of the email whether it should be delivered or not. I want the people who send email irresponsibly (whether they are the sender of the spam or just supporting the same email service) to know I don't want their email under those circumstances. I expect both businesses and friends to be horrified that I would have to receive lots of spam because they had chosen an irresponsible provider. OTOH, since nothing is perfect, I don't think a few hours delay in receiving a communication when the problem is fixable is anything to get worked up about. Life's too short to be upset when everything doesn't go exactly according to plan. OTOH, life's too short to have to wade through muck and mire to read your email.

Blocking is the etiquette equivalent of good manners in ignoring behavior that is rude and offensive.

Miss Betsy