xpoint Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.p...ain=spamcop.net will some resolve this url ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 There is an old thread on this very subject here: http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...43&st=0&p=14443 This has been like this for more than 2 years (when I started here) and I don't think that spamcop has any intention of changing it. I have yet to see any problems caused by this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xpoint Posted December 8, 2004 Author Share Posted December 8, 2004 There is an old thread on this very subject here: http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...43&st=0&p=14443This has been like this for more than 2 years (when I started here) and I don't think that spamcop has any intention of changing it. I have yet to see any problems caused by this. 21066[/snapback] thanks for the url, but i will say it needs to be solved better, how many users need to complain before thay ignore spamcop.net ? imho its childise that two rbl lists fight eath other lists that way, grow up all, its time to be friends, if we should get away with spam we our self have to be better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 The terms used in your first post are a bit confusing. "Resolving a URL" is usually indicating that the URL didn't go anywhere. Others apparently went with the assumption that you were talking about the listed status of SpamCop on the RFC-Ignorant BL. Bottom line, there are ton-loads of BLs out there, each run according to its own set of rules. RFC-Ignorant wants a live person responding to e-mail at the Postmaster and Abuse addresses. It shouldn't take more than a second or two to figure out how long that would would work for SpamCop. (Would you want to handle the e-mail headed for either account, knowing that every spammer in the world would be setting aside some machine time to do nothing but make sure those boxes were kept full?) On the other hand, the RFC-Ignorant rule-set doesn't take into account what actually happens if you try to send an e-mail to either of the listed addresses at SpamCop (you get a rejection notice that does include actual address for making contact) Changing the listing for SpamCop would set precedent for others asking for the same leniency, so thus it stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petzl Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 thanks for the url, but i will say it needs to be solved better, how many users need to complain before thay ignore spamcop.net ? imho its childise that two rbl lists fight eath other lists that way, grow up all, its time to be friends, if we should get away with spam we our self have to be better 21067[/snapback] There is nothing to complain about except for the ignorance of RFC-Ignorant BL. Who by the way bounces all email sent from anyone with a legitimate spamcop email addresss? Yet they do not list themselves? SpamCop gives a legitimate reply for and to every "Postmaster<at>spamcop<dot>net" address it recieves via a challenge response.In this response a real persons email contact address is given Most as in major majority ISP's just bit bin messages sent to postmaster I have to ask why do they (RFC-Ignorant BL.) just falsley list fully compliant SpamCop If SpamCop just simply bit binned all email to "Postmaster<at>spamcop<dot>net" you are saying that would be compliant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.