Merlyn Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Putting in my two cents, I think its rediculous to be blocking gmail because of abuse by a few users. We don't (the users of the Spamcop Blocklist). We are only blocking the servers where spam has been reported. Works GREAT! That's like blocking Sprint because a few Sprint users spam. NO, Only the spamming IP's. Your point? I don't think any server admin will willingly block all GMail users using the spamcop list ( I know I wont), so the argument that it's improving the service by blocking spammers is wrong...it's hurting the service by making it unusable. 39658[/snapback] I do and I know or have seen thousands of other admins that do from the spam seminars that I attend. You have taken on a high tech handle(Cyber Dog) maybe it's time you catch up with the cyber community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Dog Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 You have taken on a high tech handle(Cyber Dog) maybe it's time you catch up with the cyber community. 39663[/snapback] Just because my life involves more than reading spamcop boards all day doesn't mean I don't have "high tech" skills. But thanks for the cheap shot anyway. Regardless, I have now read through this thread, and thanks to the mod for merging my hasty post for me. Taking the size and popularity of Gmail these days, I was not expecting the topic to be so old and still unaddressed by Google. I was wrong. I now fully understand the situation, and I would like to at least partially retract my initial statements. I appreciate the problem GMail is presenting. It's simply frustrating on a human level having to decide between a high quality DNSBL, and a large popular ISP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Regardless, I have now read through this thread, and thanks to the mod for merging my hasty post for me. Thanks for taking the time to revisit, and then taking time to look through what has transpired before. Taking the size and popularity of Gmail these days, I was not expecting the topic to be so old and still unaddressed by Google. I was wrong. Well, your post brought it back iinto (the default) view again for new complainants .. though I can tell you that this Topic is viewed numbers of times by folks that don't add a post I now fully understand the situation, and I would like to at least partially retract my initial statements. I appreciate the problem GMail is presenting. It's simply frustrating on a human level having to decide between a high quality DNSBL, and a large popular ISP. 39685[/snapback] And the frustration involved in trying to come up with a "good" answer in this user-to-user support venue. Imagine condensing this entire discussion into a single post that would fir a single screen and that one screen having the power to explain and convince folks of the "true problem" .. I gave up trying .. so this Topic/Discussion remains the "place to be pointed to" ....which in turn gathers the complaints about the time, work, effort needed to wade through it all .... Again, thanks for the return and the time lost wading through it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slwnospam Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 This was found on Gmail's site just now so I am guessing this is a standoff and will not be revisited by them: --------------cut here---------------------------------------------------------------------- Some organizations, like SpamCop and SORBS, keep track of email spam so email providers/ISPs can use it to prevent spam from being delivered to their users. Occasionally, Gmail is listed on SpamCop because we do not reveal the IP address of our users. We don't reveal IP addresses as part of our ongoing effort to protect every user's privacy. Unfortunately, this can cause delivery problems for Gmail messages because some email providers/ISPs reject all messages sent from services listed on SpamCop and SORBS. Neither SpamCop nor SORBS intend for their lists to block all Gmail messages. In fact, both organizations recommend that their lists are not used as 'stand-alone signals' in blocking spam, but unfortunately, this recommendation is sometimes ignored. As a result, some messages sent from Gmail might be delayed, or even bounced back (in which case you would receive a failed delivery notification). We take every measure to make sure that all valid messages are delivered, and we're working hard to keep delivery problems to a minimum. While we continue to address this problem, we ask that Gmail users experiencing delivery delays or Gmail users whose messages are bouncing back to their accounts, to please inform the recipient's mail provider about the issue. --------------cut here---------------------------------------------------------------------- I still need some actual evidence with which to browbeat Gmail's admins (in addition to that fine FAQ Entry (thanks to Wazoo for bringing it to my attention)). If I don't get any evidence in the next 24 hours, I'll advocate considering this issue closed. PM is ok in this case for the paranoid, with the understanding that I will be sending the evidence to Gmail's admins. 34384[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 This was found on Gmail's site just now so I am guessing this is a standoff and will not be revisited by them40151[/snapback] That answer is presented at Why are some of the messages I send [using Gmail] returned to me and marked as spam? (updated 10/18/2005), which references Why [doesn't Gmail] reveal users' IP addresses? Doesn't this encourage spammers? (updated 10/4/2005) and I'm an email administrator. What can I do to make sure Gmail messages are delivered to my email users? (updated 10/13/2005). My response is that if Gmail were doing a better job at policing its spammy users, its mailservers wouldn't be getting listed by the SCBL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 This was found on Gmail's site just now so I am guessing this is a standoff and will not be revisited by them: --------------cut here------------------------------------------------------------- We don't reveal IP addresses as part of our ongoing effort to protect every user's privacy. --------------cut here----------------------------------------------- 40151[/snapback] That's actually kind of a silly stance .. as pointed out elsewhere in this very Topic, this so called "protection" isn't in place in total .. the difference between e-mail sent via the web interface vice using a POP/SMTP connection .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petzl Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 That's actually kind of a silly stance .. as pointed out elsewhere in this very Topic, this so called "protection" isn't in place in total .. the difference between e-mail sent via the web interface vice using a POP/SMTP connection .... 40157[/snapback] I agree Why would gmail conceal the identity of someone sending one email? We don't reveal IP addresses as part of our ongoing effort to protect every user's privacy SpamCop rightly tracks spam to the last traceable IP If an email server is set-up correctly the IP SpamCop adds to it's SCBL is the actual computer sending the spam By concealing the source is an open invitation for gmail to be nothing more than another internet nasty and deserves blocking This is the stance of more uneeded incompetent IT staff spewing bluster instead of fixing their problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadaso Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 If Gmail forged "Received" headers like Hotmail and Yahoo do then spamcop reports about "source of spam" would go to the sender's ISP (or internet cafe or whatever...) that would certainly not close the sender's Gmail account. The way Gmail does it spamcop reports get to Gmail's abuse team that can act on it. And the way Gmail explains it to email admins might make them read spamcop's faq and perhaps use SCBL correctly (through spamassassin or something similar). When I receive spam sent from a Hotmail account and try to report it to Hotmail, I cannot do it using SpamCop because spamcop sends to a connectivity provider that cannot close the sender's email account that they do not control. I have to manually send a report to Hotmail's abuse that can then close the spammer's Hotmail account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 If Gmail forged "Received" headers like Hotmail and Yahoo do then spamcop ... try to report it to Hotmail, I cannot do it using SpamCop because spamcop sends to a connectivity provider that cannot close the sender's email account that they do not control. I have to manually send a report to Hotmail's abuse that can then close the spammer's Hotmail account. 40204[/snapback] I'm thinking that there is something lost in the translation here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petzl Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 If Gmail forged "Received" headers like Hotmail and Yahoo do then spamcop reports about "source of spam" would go to the sender's ISP 40204[/snapback] The problem is that many rouge email servers do not stamp where the email is actually received from and break the IP chain. Usually at the email server itself meaning that SpamCop will block the email server instead of IP of the computer sending the spam (In this case SpamCop would send a great many reports before doing so). All abuse reports (not only those from SpamCop) will also go to the owner of that rouge email server instead of the provider that has control over the IP acually sending the spam a summery If an email server is competently set-up SpamCop's SCBL will only list the *computer* sending the spam and add that IP to the SCBL That is only after SpamCop has tried to notify the email address given for the operator of that IP Example of a properly configured computer you will see that SpamCop identified NO email servers just the IP <203.134.9.119> of my computer that sent the above example email to hotmail (This means if my computer sent enough spam. SpamCop would only block MY computer nothing else) you can go here and put/replace that IP in the box then see the country, city, suburb which that IP belongs to If ANYONE is listed by SpamCop's SCBL it means they have a problem they should fix and need to fix. SpamCop would have made attempts to tell them so The right to have a broken email server and expect customers to pay for this dis-service is idiotic and nothing more than a threat. In this case from Gmail( which is in beta?) The real fix is to get a Proper email service like SpamCop's Email service for the only email address you will ever need If someone is trying to push something "free" on you it will be free till you use it (like advice) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telarin Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 The problem is that many rouge email servers do not stamp where the email is actually received from a bit off topic, but its important to know the difference Rouge and Rogue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 And brought up in the samcop newsgroup today --- SpamCop and GMail (Archived version starts at http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...ary/108765.html ) From: Sofa King Tyred of Lar Ting Newsgroups: spamcop Subject: Spamcop and Gmail Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:50:08 -0500 Message-ID: <dsiqpe$qme$1[at]news.spamcop.net> My Google alerts spotted this article today. I'm not sure how objective it is. Any feedback? http://www.techworld.com/security/news/ind...sID=5337&inkc=0 From: "WazoO" Newsgroups: spamcop Subject: Re: Spamcop and Gmail Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:20:31 -0600 Message-ID: <dsisif$sb1$1[at]news.spamcop.net> This article has a whole lot of wrong information. I don't see a way to contact the author. But one source of information from both sides of the fence can be "publicly" seen at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3973 Seen in that huge Topic/Discussion are snippets of dialog between users and Google "techs" explaining exactly what the issue is. The "privacy" thing to me doesn't fly because it's not a blanket deal, as seen by my testing and demonstrating the differences between GMail sent via the web interface as compared to using the added POP/SMTP access. Only the web-access method fails to identify the "real" source of the e-mail. This the end of the parsing chain when trying to track it down .. can't go any further than the GMail server involved. Even the description offered of the "blocking action" by SpamCop is ass backwards, even if it was close to being correct at all. Yet another "reporter" that has not done his homework before rushing to press. The "lack of an IronPort" response has come up before by folks trying to contact them to "complain about SpamCop" ... The SpamCop "staff" doesn't work "at" IronPort. This doesn't necessarily explain the lack of a response, but ... From: "WazoO" Newsgroups: spamcop Subject: Re: Spamcop and Gmail Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:57:29 -0600 Message-ID: <dsiunp$tnh$1[at]news.spamcop.net> Interestingly enough, one of the "reference" articles listed in this article also points back to the exact Forum discussion I just pointed to. Brian McWilliams spam Kings blog .... http://spamkings.oreilly.com/archives/2006...e_gmail_se.html Posted there as a comment (awaiting 'approval') How SpamCop.net makes the call; http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/297.html Note the math involved. Note also that even SpamCop.net does not recommend using their BL in a blocking fashion, even the SpamCop.net filtered e-mail accounts side of the house uses it as either a Tagging option or part of a filter set which moves suspected spam e-mail to a "Held" folder (option selectable by the user) ... and also pointing out the obvious .. SpamCop.net cannot block any e-mail itself, this "action" being due to the configuration of the ISP using the BL in their e-mail management toolset. As noted, there is a huge discussion at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3973 .. which includes some snippets of dialog with Gmail "techs" ... and the demonstrated issue with their "privacy" stand ... the lack of the appropriate data in the headers only occurs from the web-based interface. Use of the POP/SMTP feature/function results in "correct" headers, which allows the SpamCop.net parser to track beyond the GMail servers for the 'actual' source. Posted as a comment at the other referenced site; (awaiting 'approval') http://www.spamroll.com/blogarch/2006/01/s...p_fills_t_1.php How SpamCop.net makes the call; http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/297.html Note the math involved. Note also that even SpamCop.net does not recommend using their BL in a blocking fashion, even the SpamCop.net filtered e-mail accounts side of the house uses it as either a Tagging option or part of a filter set which moves suspected spam e-mail to a "Held" folder (option selectable by the user) ... and also pointing out the obvious .. SpamCop.net cannot block any e-mail itself, this "action" being due to the configuration of the ISP using the BL in their e-mail management toolset. As Brian McWilliams also noted, there is a huge discussion at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3973 .. which includes some snippets of dialog with Gmail "techs" ... and the demonstrated issue with their "privacy" stand ... the lack of the appropriate data in the headers only occurs from the web-based interface. Use of the POP/SMTP feature/function results in "correct" headers. From: "Mike Easter" Newsgroups: spamcop Subject: Re: Spamcop and Gmail Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:05:53 -0800 Message-ID: <dsiv78$u5o$1[at]news.spamcop.net> // Spamcop and Gmail lock horns again -- 2006 February 09 // The above is the derivative of the derivative of the derivative, where the beginning starts in the forum 9 months ago: http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3973 would someone please enlighten me, how does adding gmail's server to a black list makes any sense at all? -- 2005 Apr 19 http://spamkings.oreilly.com/archives/2006...e_gmail_se.html SpamCop blocking some Gmail servers -- At least three mail systems operated by Google Mail have been placed on the SpamCop blacklist. -- 2006 January 29 http://www.spamroll.com/blogarch/2006/01/s...p_fills_t_1.php SpamCop fills the paddy-wagon - And again, its GMail users in the shackles. SpamCop recently added several Gmail servers to its blacklist. -- 2006 January 30 spam from gmail webmail SC parses to name the gmail server as the source. Considering that the SC blocklisting algorithm uses a formula which includes the number of spam reports as a numerator, and a derivative of the number of nonspam mails which constitutes 'reputation' or 'traffic' based on nonspam queries to the blocklist as the denominator, for busy servers like gmail's to get themselves blocklisted indicates that some significant quantity of spam or whatever causes spam reports by reporters or spamtraps is being generated behind gmail servers. None of the articles do justice to describing the issue comprehensively, which can best be explored in the forum or other spamcop related exchanges such as the archives of news messages. Naturally I prefer to read the discussions which occurred in the newsgroups which you can see here: http://www.google.com/search?as_q=gmail+se..._qdr=all&as_occ t=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=news.spamcop.net&as_rights=&safe=images make oneline or use http://snipurl.com/mfpm which is a search for the terms gmail servers in news.spamcop.net -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From: "WazoO" Newsgroups: spamcop Subject: Re: Spamcop and Gmail Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:43:04 -0600 Message-ID: <dsj8e9$3vc$1[at]news.spamcop.net> "Sofa King Tyred of Lar Ting" <nobody[at]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:dsiqpe$qme$1[at]news.spamcop.net... > My Google alerts spotted this article today. I'm not sure how objective > it is. Any feedback? > > http://www.techworld.com/security/news/ind...sID=5337&inkc=0 And while I was at it, fired off an e-mail to John Dunn, listed as the Security section Editor .... From: "WazoO" To: John Dunn [at] techworld.com Cc: "SpamCop Support - JT" , "SpamCop, Deputies" Subject: Bad reporting Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:31:07 -0600 Either a lack of research or a lack of understanding seems to be involved in the article just read at "Spamcop and Gmail lock horns again" written by Guy Kewney, Techworld http://www.techworld.com/security/news/ind...sID=5337&inkc=0 The leading sentence is obviously some kind of an attempt a simply gathering attention and generating emotion ... yeah, I know, standard fare ... however, pointing to the obvious fact that the SpamCopDNSBL is a very dynamic list, the real 'facts' are a bit different than conjectured. > Several minor incidents of "false positive" spam identification > occurred last year, Not true at all, spam is spam. The fact that Google doesn't build a complete set of headers from the web-based interface causes the SpamCop.net parser to stop chasing the source at the last IP address in the chain, which turns out to be the GMail server. The "last year" and the following "this month" are totally absurd. Based on a mathematical formula, comparing the amount of "total" e-mail traffic seen from a specific server and the amount of user- reported spam tracking back to that source and/or spam-trap hits, those various servers go on and come off the SpamCopDNSBL on a continuing basis, depending on the spam spew. See http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/297.html > but this month, several Google servers have been blacked > completely, shutting all users of those servers off from sending > e-mail to any address monitored by Spamcop. Even if this was close to being correct, it's still ass-backwards. SpamCop.net does not have the power to block anything. It's the providing of a dynamic (and aggressive) Block List that is "the story" ..... Any actual "blocking" is performed by an ISP that has decided to configure his / her e-mail server to user this BL in a blocking mode. This is not the recommended way to use it, stated quite clearly in the associated FAQ. In fact, the SpamCopDNSBL was originally created to be used for folks using a SpamCop.net filtered e-mail account. The use of this BL is to either "TAG" the headers of a suspected spam and delivering that e-mail to the user's InBox, or using the BL as a part of a filtering list (that also includes other BLs) that would then move the suspected spam into the user's "Held Mail" folder, thus keeping it out of the InBox. SpamCop.net does not "monitor" addresses ... the BL is driven by user-submitted spam reports and spam-trap hits, comparing those numeric results to traffic numbers developed by IronPort's SenderBase application. See http://www.ironport.com/company/ > Occasionally, Gmail is listed on SpamCop because we do not reveal > the IP address of our users. Only partially true ... use of the GMail system via the POP/SMTP functions result in "correct" headers. > Brian McWilliams noted that the Gmail servers in question are not > on other big blacklists, "which makes you wonder how SpamCop > is making decisions on their own account," said Spamroll. I've provided a comment on Spamroll's site and the spam King site, both referencing the same link as above which offers some dialog on how the SpamCop.netDNSBL works. There are thousands of public BLs out there, probably millions (?) of personal BLs in use ... each one of them is built to some specification, which explains why there are so many of them. SpamCop.net's is unique in that it is "automatic" ... spam complaints / spam-trap hits come in with sufficient quantity, it gets listed for a maximum of 24 hours (after the spam stops) ... There is even a one-time offer of a "quick delisting" for that ISP/Admin that may have tan into an issue, got it resolved, and is sure that the spew has stopped. Of course, in reality, too many folks hit this page first, then try to troubleshoot the issue. The really embarrassing thing is that one of the articles referenced in this article also includes a pointer to a huge SpamCop.net Forum Topic / Discussion on the "GMail servers are blocked" issue. That discussion also includes snippets of some e-mail dialog with some GMail "techs" ... some work-ups on the actual issue, words from folks on both sides of the fence ... never mind the ovbious information about the on/off situation of various GMail servers. Please see http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3973 That dialog was updated again today based on some traffic in one of the SpamCop.net newsgroups. > Coincidentally, perhaps, Spamcop's owner, IronPort Systems, has > failed to respond to requests for a comment on this issue. This might > indicate that it has nothing to say, or it might indicate that even inside > IronPort, Spamcop implementation is not sensitively set up. I can't speak for anyone, just a volunteer supporter, but have to point out that SpamCop.net has its own staff. Please see a list at; "Section 8 - SpamCop's System & Active Staff" http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=faq&cat=10 For contact points, please see "Where to get Help" at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=faq&article=78 or "How To Get Official SpamCop.Net Customer Support" at; http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...ounce&f=2&id=23 Again, I'm going with the fact that there seems to be a huge lack of actual research and understanding of the actual issues involved in this specific issue. c.w. edwards Yes, I'm showing as the Admin of the SpamCop.net support Forum, but this is a totally volunteer effort on my part. This e-mail will also be added to that Forum discussion so as to inform anyone else following up on this article or either of the referenced links mentioned by the author .. in addition to keeping that Topic 'current' For the record, SpamCop.net has no association with the Domain thieves that offer up samcop.COM and / or spamcop.ORG ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roelant Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Hmm, it looks like the Gmail servers have been removed from the blacklist? Did something change and is the matter somehow resolved, has Gmail silently become an exception or did the listing just expire and is it a matter of time before the Gmail servers will be back on the list? By the way: bad coincidence this had to happen right after I published an item about it on my website (in Dutch). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Hmm, it looks like the Gmail servers have been removed from the blacklist? 41493[/snapback] The SpamCopDNSBL is very dynamic. The SpamCop FAQ entry on "What is on the BL?" offers up some of the math involved. The critical part of all of this is ... the BL lists IP addresses that have met those conditions, delists them when the "math" works "back to null" .... So the specific answer starts with that "the Gmail servers" is a bit broad. This Topic was started a long time ago, and in that time several IP addresses that ended up being a Gmail server have mede it to the list, have been delisted, have found their way back on the list, on and on .. this is one of the unique features of the SpamCopDNSBL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roelant Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 So the specific answer starts with that "the Gmail servers" is a bit broad. Well, you may be right, but there ware several servers on that blacklist until Monday evening, and all of them 'dissapeared'. But the mistery is solved already, this morning the server I used to check on (and again: several others) is listed again. Thank you anyway for taking the time to react. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadaso Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Sometimes outgoing mail from gmail is blocked and tSpamCop is cited as the cause of blocking. SpamCop is not the cause of blocking. Gmail is not the cause of blocking. The cause of blocking are some stupid postmasters at some ISPs that use blocklists without understanding what they mean: SpamCop lists IP addresses that sent some spam. It doesn't list IP addresses that send only spam. So using SpamCop listing as the sole criterion for blocking is very bad and would result in lots of legitimate email being blocked. On the other hand SpamCop BL is an excelent resource when used in conjuction with other methods of filtering spam, as it it constantly updated and never contains old info. Some ISPs happily collect their $2/month for blocking spam and don't care if their users don't get all their email, and most email users don't understand much and would accept that losing some email is a technical problem that cannot be solved unless they want lots of spam. The problem is how to educate these ISPs about correct spam filtering. One way to do it is that if a bounce message contains a link to spamcop as explanation to why the message was blocked, the spamcop page reached would clearly say that this list is not appropriate for direct blocking, and is very good as input of a comprehensive filtering system, such as SpamAssassin or others. This would avoid most complaints about "SpamCop blocks my email" since anyone whose email is blocked would immediately get the explanation that the reason is the ISP that uses SpamCop incorrectly. And this would have another good effect in generating public demand for better spam filtering (as in: "My dearly beloved ISP: I pay you $2/month for spam filtering. Why do you supply me wih only basic and incorrectly implemented blocking when there are better tools that you can download freely and use in your server?"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 SpamCop is not the cause of blocking. Gmail is not the cause of blocking. The cause of blocking are some stupid postmasters at some ISPs that use blocklists without understanding what they mean: SpamCop lists IP addresses that sent some spam. It doesn't list IP addresses that send only spam. So using SpamCop listing as the sole criterion for blocking is very bad and would result in lots of legitimate email being blocked. On the other hand SpamCop BL is an excelent resource when used in conjuction with other methods of filtering spam, as it it constantly updated and never contains old info. 41520[/snapback] A slight correction, SpamCop lists IP addresses that recently sent a significant percentage of spam. It doesn't list IP addresses that send only spam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 The problem is how to educate these ISPs about correct spam filtering. One way to do it is that if a bounce message contains a link to spamcop as explanation to why the message was blocked, the spamcop page reached would clearly say that this list is not appropriate for direct blocking, 41520[/snapback] The problem with this suggestion is that the "message / link" seen is placed there by the ISP involved .... some don't include the IP address, some screw up the BL used and the 'error' message, others don't say much of anything at all .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadaso Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 A slight correction, SpamCop lists IP addresses that recently sent a significant percentage of spam. It doesn't list IP addresses that send only spam. 41521[/snapback] This is becoming dangerously close to language that the average sysadmin of a small ISP (or junior staff at a major ISP) would not understand and does not care about. How about "SpamCop lists IP addresses that recently either sent a predetermined relative amount of email messages to some secret addresses or generated a significant relative amount of complaints about spam received. It doesn't list IP addresses that send only spam."... Simple language that makes every reader understand immediately that the list means that the IP generated email that has some spam but is not all spam, with a link to the details in the faq is best, in that a reader that understands nothing about email should be able to understand immediately upon reading the message that the fault is with the recipient's ISP not doing their homework, and then the reader can learn more if the reader wants to learn more. One problem is that ISPs sell ineffective filtering services. If mosti ISPs would have to learn how to filter spam more effectively (because users learn about it and demand it) then Spammers would have a real problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micaheli Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 I really don't see the big fuss.. It is (for the most part) a free service. If you don't like it.. don't use it. I'm using postfix. What I did was add a check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/exceptions line to the mynetwork = line.. Then, just add "gmail.com OK" to the file, run postmap exceptions, restart postfix.. and voila... you are now making gmail.com an exception to the spamcop rule. The problem with this is that anything claming to be from "gmail.com" will be allowed through. Although, I haven't seen any false positives yet (been running like this for a couple weeks). Just FYI. --Micah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ziegast Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Two observations: 1. According to openrbl.org, SpamCop is the only service listing the IP address of the Gmail server that I lookup. This makes me question whther Spamcop should really be listing it, or whether their filters need to be tuned. It's more important for me to receive email from gmail users than it is for me to block spam, so I need to remove spamcop from my list of RBL servers at least temporarily until this storm passes. 2. The problem is being masked by Gmail. If I send an email to a bad address, I get a bounce message almost immediately. If I send an email to a host blocking using RBL lists, I don't get a bounce message. My mail server blocks with "554 Service Unavailable ...etc...". With a 5xx message, I should get a bounce message. Seems slimey to me. It's causing me support problems becasue my email customers think I'm just dropping their mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadaso Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 ...This makes me question whther Spamcop should really be listing it, or whether their filters need to be tuned. It's more important for me to receive email from gmail users than it is for me to block spam, so I need to remove spamcop from my list of RBL servers at least temporarily until this storm passes. Spamcop listing should not depend on other listings. SpamCop listing is based on different criteria, so there's no reason why anything that is listed on SpamCop should be listed on anther list that employs different criteria, and vice versa. Nobody forces you to refuse all email from sources listed on SpamCop BL. SpamCop doesn't recommend doing it. It recommends using the listing as data to be fed to a more comprehensive solution such as SpamAssassin (that gives it appropriate weight among other criteria used to decide what should be discarded or diverted from users' inboxes). 2. The problem is being masked by Gmail. If I send an email to a bad address, I get a bounce message almost immediately. If I send an email to a host blocking using RBL lists, I don't get a bounce message. My mail server blocks with "554 Service Unavailable ...etc...". With a 5xx message, I should get a bounce message. Seems slimey to me. It's causing me support problems becasue my email customers think I'm just dropping their mail. 42216[/snapback] You mean if you send from a Gmail account to your server and your server bounces? If Gmail can detect that the cause of the "554 Service Unavailable ...etc..." message is a SpamCop listing then they might treat it as a "45x blah blah ..." and reschedule the email to be sent later, as a SpamCop listing is a transient condition (24 hours) and your server would accept the email once the listing is removed after 24 hours or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rurikhan Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Just an intuition I had when I put toguether a couple of facts here, dunno if anyone came up with this or no, hope I'm not repeating anyone's idea and if I am I won't mind the admins deleting my post or something like that, but I honestly do not have the time to read the 14 pages of posts at the moment (I will do so later however). So here's a conclusion I've come to, firstly I've been wondering if Spamcop ever checks the origin of the spam reporters, because from my point of view, if I was Bill Gates, and had a service like Hotmail I would be pretty annoyed at Gmail for ofering a BETTER service then mine and for FREE, and again assuming I was Bill Gates and I had a battallion of programmers, IT Engineers and alot of other ppl at my diposal I imagine it would be pretty easy for me to have them all send an e-mail reporting a few Gmail adresses as spammers, thus incapaciting Gmail to compete with me since they're e-mails would always be blocked and listed as spammers. And since Gmail has a strict policy not to reveal their user's identities (which is from my point of view correct), they are bound by their own policy and can't really do anything to prevent being reported as spammers. Basically, Gmail is by far the BEST e-mail provider, and I can Imagine how that would make other ppl angry (particularly other e-mail providers who have inferior services). I gave you an example from Microsoft's point of view, however this example can easily be transformed to any other company that has an email provider service ... You may see this as a conspiracy theory, but I simply see it as pure logic, it's the law of the jungle in these new technologies and basically anything goes ... Again I apologize myself if I am merely repeating someone else's idea. And also, I would like to ask SpamCop to verify their reporters origins, because I mean, I personally could get about 50 ppl send an e-mail here reporting the same e-mail adress or the same adress, and I could probably get a few ppl blocked by exploiting your block formula ... it's pretty easy to be honest. Bare in mind that with this post I do not mean to insult or in any way demean your endeavour, after all I am one of the first persons to defend it as I now receive less (if any) spam messages, however I find myself being blocked along with it, and find the best e-mail provider being blocked as well so you have to admit there may be a few flaws in your system and that you should check the origin of the spam reporters. Rui Modesto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 You might read the FAQ about what SpamCop does so that you have a better idea of how blocklists work. Basically, your email address is not relevant. It is the IP address. Gmail has problems because they don't reveal the IP address that the spam comes from so their servers get blocked (I think that's correct). IP addresses don't reveal much about most people since many IP addresses (like gmail) have hundreds of email addresses. It's all about netiquette. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadaso Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 ... I honestly do not have the time to read the 14 pages of posts at the moment (I will do so later however).42393[/snapback] Honesty is good! I only had time to read all these posts because it was in portions over several months. ... assuming I was Bill Gates ... it would be pretty easy for me to have them all send an e-mail reporting a few Gmail adresses as spammers, thus incapaciting Gmail to compete with me since they're e-mails would always be blocked and listed as spammers. ... As much as we like to hate M$, they're not that bad, and I don't think they'd stoop so low. ... Gmail is by far the BEST e-mail provider, ... What an exaggeration! What do you compare it to? Hotmail and Yahoo? there's lots of basic email functionality that's unavailable in Gmail, and thaere are lots of email providers that you may never have heard of offering functionality you don't have with Gmail. There is no such thing as a "best e-mail provider" since email is very complex, and what is "good" depends on how you are using it. And also, I would like to ask SpamCop to verify their reporters origins, because I mean, I personally could get about 50 ppl send an e-mail here reporting the same e-mail adress or the same adress, and I could probably get a few ppl blocked by exploiting your block formula ... it's pretty easy to be honest.SpamCop listings are not based on email addresses. They are based on parsing email headers to locate the machine that originally sent the email message. So it's not so easy to get SpamCop to generate false listings, but actually it's probably possible to forge email headers in a way that fools SpamCop into accepting false reports. So it's actually an interesting question: what mechanisms does SpamCop has to detect and avoid false reports? ... I find myself being blocked along with it42393[/snapback] SpamCop blocks no email: SpamCop only publishes a list of IP addresses, and those are IP addresses that sent several email messages that produced complaints by their recipients. Some email providers or users refuse to receive email from these sources so they block them. SpamCop advises against using the list in this way and advises a more subtle approach that uses several parameters to decide what to do with a received message. The main cause of this long thread is not SpamCop or Gmail but rather stupid email admins that apply the SpamCop list without reading the manual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.