meditek Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 For the past week or so I have dutifully reported at least 40 spams a day. It would be considerably more if I didn't have Mailwasher set to delete all the mail from addresses on my blacklist. This, due to lack of automation, takes a fair amount of my time. Out of all these reports I have only had one which stated that action was being taken by the provider or someone. Before abandoning the whole thing I should like to know :- a) what percentage of reports result in effective action? whether action is ever effective against Chinese sourced spam which seems to account for a large proportion of mine? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbiel Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 The most important part of reporting is that of feeding the SpamCop BL. And to answer your question, your reporting is very effective in making the SpamCop BL more effective. The only problem for you personally is, if you are not using the SpamCop BL to deal will your spam problem, then you are not personally benefiting from your reporting efforts. The rest of us who do use the SpamCop BL thank you for your efforts as it does very definitely benefit us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agsteele Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 I entirely agree with dibel's comments. Make use of the SCBL and you'll find a great improvement in the spam load. Similar questions get asked from time to time. You might to take a look at this thread. http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1802 But I add my thanks for your contribution to reducing my spam load by reporting your unwanted spam. Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meditek Posted December 22, 2005 Author Share Posted December 22, 2005 I entirely agree with dibel's comments. Make use of the SCBL and you'll find a great improvement in the spam load. Similar questions get asked from time to time. You might to take a look at this thread. http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1802 But I add my thanks for your contribution to reducing my spam load by reporting your unwanted spam. Andrew 38330[/snapback] In effect then :- 1. Paying to join BL would/might reduce my spam 2. By not paying, my spam will probably not reduce 3. my efforts to report all spam really only help the people that pay for BL It would seem logical that effort that has no personal benefit should be paid for by those that do benefit or am I just a greedy capitalist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telarin Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Use of the SCBL is free. You just need to take advantage of it. If you run your own mail server, its pretty easy to implement a DNSBL. If not, then you will need to find a mail client that can take advantage of a DNSBL for client side filtering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meditek Posted December 22, 2005 Author Share Posted December 22, 2005 Use of the SCBL is free. You just need to take advantage of it. If you run your own mail server, its pretty easy to implement a DNSBL. If not, then you will need to find a mail client that can take advantage of a DNSBL for client side filtering. 38334[/snapback] My apologies, I was confusing the BL with spamcop email which presumably uses it. Unfortunately, I don't have or require a mailserver so apply my comments to SC email. I' also confused about "Add fuel to your account" despite reading the help file. I read is as paying to post reports quicker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telarin Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Yeah, I think that is basically correct. I know there are several programs out there which can utilize the SCBL even if you aren't using the SC paid email. SpamAssasin I believe is one of them? Someone else here correct me if I'm wrong. And in fact you DO require a mail server to receive mail. But it is provided by your ISP. You would probably be more familiar with it along the lines of smtp.yourisp.com or something like that. You could talk to your ISP and ask them to utilize the SCBL for tagging email as spam for later filtering, or as I said above, find an add-in for your current mail program that will utilize a DNS based blocklist like the SCBL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 My apologies, I was confusing the BL with spamcop email which presumably uses it. Unfortunately, I don't have or require a mailserver so apply my comments to SC email. I' also confused about "Add fuel to your account" despite reading the help file. I read is as paying to post reports quicker? 38337[/snapback] There are two parts to SpamCop: 1)the Reporting and Parsing service which includes the blocklist and, 2) a separate company: SpamCop Email Service. The spamcop email service gives you an email account for $30 per year and part of the deal is free reporting privileges. On the Reporting side, one can report spam for free; however, if you buy 'fuel', you get some extras such as no ads and being able to see report histories. It has nothing to do with quicker reporting. As someone else mentioned, there are filters that use the spamcop blocklist as part of the filtering process. I believe Mailwasher does. However, if you use Mailwasher do NOT use the 'bounce' function (if they still have it). It does nothing except send email to innocent users whose addresses were forged by the spammer. I believe spamassassin is for servers to utilize; you would have to ask your ISP to use it. I am not sure about the 'bounce' or 'reject' function that is offered; at one time it also sent emails to the wrong people. The only tool that is offered on the Internet to report spam to the actual source is spamcop. You can learn to read headers yourself and report manually. Spamcop reports are used to stop spammers by responsible ISPs so a certain number of them do some good in that way. However, most of the reports go to irresponsible ISPs and the only benefit is to keep them on the spamcop blocklist. Other people do use the spamvertized web sites reported by spamcop to filter spam. HTH Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 My apologies, I was confusing the BL with spamcop email which presumably uses it. Start Here - before you make your first Post takes one to a page which happens to break out / list the various components of the SpamCop.net system. Sorry you missed the pointer. Unfortunately, I don't have or require a mailserver so apply my comments to SC email. Interestingly enough, there happens to be a FAQ entry entitled How can I use the blocklist without a mailserver? ... Sorry you didn't find this item. I' also confused about "Add fuel to your account" despite reading the help file. I read is as paying to post reports quicker? 38337[/snapback] One could ask you to point out the FAQ entry you found confusing. If it was one of the Forum versions of the SpamCop FAQ, we can work on it. Note: this Topic was moved from the Reporting Help Forum to the Lounge. The only reason it wasn't merged into one of the existing Discussions is because of all the traffic existing before I got here. I'm actually thinking that this should have been merged into the existing discussion at Is it really doing any good?, We keep reporting and reporting, but... as it seems to be a continuation of the theme ... and there is certainly a lot of explanation already in place in that other Topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 On the Reporting side, one can report spam for free; however, if you buy 'fuel', you get some extras such as no ads and being able to see report histories. It has nothing to do with quicker reporting.38342[/snapback] Actually, Paid Reporting is somewhat quicker than Free Reporting due to the lack of the Nag Screen and its associated 6+ second delay for every message Reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 <snip> Note: this Topic was moved from the Reporting Help Forum to the Lounge. The only reason it wasn't merged into one of the existing Discussions is because of all the traffic existing before I got here. I'm actually thinking that this should have been merged into the existing discussion at Is it really doing any good?, We keep reporting and reporting, but... as it seems to be a continuation of the theme ... and there is certainly a lot of explanation already in place in that other Topic. 38343[/snapback] ...FWIW, I would vote to merge it, anyway -- I see no content here that would be confusing if you did a merge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 ...FWIW, I would vote to merge it, anyway -- I see no content here that would be confusing if you did a merge. 38346[/snapback] It was noting of all the PMs I'd have to generate about the Merge action that turned me off .... one of those not enough time at the moment things .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 Actually, Paid Reporting is somewhat quicker than Free Reporting due to the lack of the Nag Screen and its associated 6+ second delay for every message Reported. 38345[/snapback] Would you point me to the FAQ that states that? Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 Would you point me to the FAQ that states that?38364[/snapback] It appears as a "feature" of a "premium member account" called "No advertising or delay (nag) screens" in Upgrade to a premium member account and my quotation of that in SpamCop Account Types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 Actually, Paid Reporting is somewhat quicker than Free Reporting due to the lack of the Nag Screen and its associated 6+ second delay for every message Reported. 38345[/snapback] That would be processing via the paste-in screen where the only "ad" is an invitation to buy some fuel and avoid the nag screen - which has a variable delay, mostly 6 seconds, seldom/never more (can't get to members.spamcop.net at the moment to double-check - 'tis down - but IIRC ... ah, it's back, IRC). There's no discernable delay using email submission (apart from the time anyone would notice while the parser battles with obdurate links to websites). Access to the reporting history of the specific IP addresses reported would be the big selling point for paid reporting IMO, if it does indeed buy that as well. "SpamCop" should add it to the notice. I'd be tempted myself, no doubt being able to fund it from the proceeds for the tip, sent my way by the grateful management Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meditek Posted December 23, 2005 Author Share Posted December 23, 2005 That would be processing via the paste-in screen where the only "ad" is an invitation to buy some fuel and avoid the nag screen - which has a variable delay, mostly 6 seconds, seldom/never more (can't get to members.spamcop.net at the moment to double-check - 'tis down - but IIRC ... ah, it's back, IRC). There's no discernable delay using email submission (apart from the time anyone would notice while the parser battles with obdurate links to websites). Access to the reporting history of the specific IP addresses reported would be the big selling point for paid reporting IMO, if it does indeed buy that as well. "SpamCop" should add it to the notice. I'd be tempted myself, no doubt being able to fund it from the proceeds for the tip, sent my way by the grateful management 38371[/snapback] Thank you all for the explanations. I shall not be sending any more reports for the following reasons which you may or may not agree with :- 1. Sending them is laborious without automation 2. Apart from the very few which may be generally blocked, I do not wish to have to either pay for the benefits of my efforts or have to pay for making it slightly less time consuming to send the reports. 3. I would continue sending reports if I were able to download the BL as a free service. 4. I have considerable doubt as to the real world effectiveness of SC as an effective service of benefit to all internet users. 5. my present system of filtering OE and Trend anti-virus consigns 98% of spam to the deleted folder All of which I find rather sad because I really felt I was doing a service for all internet users by sending my spam to SC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 Thank you all for the explanations. I shall not be sending any more reports for the following reasons which you may or may not agree with :- 1. Sending them is laborious without automation There is a way called Quick Reporting which, after you have reported for a while, is an option. 2. Apart from the very few which may be generally blocked, I do not wish to have to either pay for the benefits of my efforts or have to pay for making it slightly less time consuming to send the reports. I can understand not wanting to pay for spam control. It feels like giving in. However, free reporting is available and reporting the last 10 or only those that escape the filters is an option that many reporters take 3. I would continue sending reports if I were able to download the BL as a free service. 4. I have considerable doubt as to the real world effectiveness of SC as an effective service of benefit to all internet users. To clarify, the reason you can't use the bl as a free service is that you are not a server admin, but an end user. The scbl is widely known and respected public blocklist. There are many ISPs who are prompt to act on sc reports. I don't know how you got the idea that it is not beneficial to all internet users. It is beneficial in a community service sort of way, just as picking up trash that is not in your own yard benefits the whole community, but not you directly. 5. my present system of filtering OE and Trend anti-virus consigns 98% of spam to the deleted folder All of which I find rather sad because I really felt I was doing a service for all internet users by sending my spam to SC. 38373[/snapback] Just Hit Delete (JHD) is an acceptable level of spam control. I don't know why you would feel sad. It is your choice not to use the spamcop tool to report spam. I am not sure whether you think that it is not worthwhile because you can't benefit by it or whether you think that reporting spam is not worthwhile because some ignore the reports. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agsteele Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 1. Sending them is laborious without automation38373[/snapback] I'm sorry that you won't be reporting any longer but understand your thinking. But, as Miss Betsy has said, you can report using Quick Reporting which is about as quick as it gets. 3. I would continue sending reports if I were able to download the BL as a free service.38373[/snapback] I suspect your feeling is that you get no benefit from reporting the spam so why spend the time. Your ISP may well already filter spam based on the SCBL in which case you are getting that benefit. All of which I find rather sad because I really felt I was doing a service for all internet users by sending my spam to SC.38373[/snapback] Please be assured you were helping a great many Internet users. All those who knowingly use the SCBL and many thousands (perhaps millions) more who benefitted because their ISP/MSP uses the SCBL without making a big deal to their customers. But we all have to judge whether time is worthwhile spending on reporting. Thanks for the reports you have sent in the past. Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meditek Posted December 23, 2005 Author Share Posted December 23, 2005 I should have said that I do use Mailwasher and keep a careful eye on what is in the blacklist. Mail on this is set to delete at source. I would have liked to have added the SCBL to it by direct edit. My ISP is Fast24 and it doesn't block spam unfortunately. Thanks for all the helpful input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telarin Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 I should have said that I do use Mailwasher and keep a careful eye on what is in the blacklist. Mail on this is set to delete at source. I would have liked to have added the SCBL to it by direct edit. 38381[/snapback] I thought mailwasher allowed you to add DNS based blocklists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agsteele Posted December 24, 2005 Share Posted December 24, 2005 I thought mailwasher allowed you to add DNS based blocklists? 38382[/snapback] If that is the case then the OP could use the SCBL whether or not he/she chooses to report. Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted December 24, 2005 Share Posted December 24, 2005 If that is the case then the OP could use the SCBL whether or not he/she chooses to report. 38403[/snapback] Kind of 'suggested' in Linear Post #9 of this Topic .... reference and pointer offered to How can I use the blocklist without a mailserver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGTips91 Posted December 25, 2005 Share Posted December 25, 2005 For the past week or so I have dutifully reported at least 40 spams a day. It would be considerably more if I didn't have Mailwasher set to delete all the mail from addresses on my blacklist. This, due to lack of automation, takes a fair amount of my time. Out of all these reports I have only had one which stated that action was being taken by the provider or someone. Before abandoning the whole thing I should like to know :- a) what percentage of reports result in effective action? whether action is ever effective against Chinese sourced spam which seems to account for a large proportion of mine? Thanks 38328[/snapback] I don't think that these questions have been answered by anyone directly. It seems to me that SpamCop restricts its activities to maintaining a blocklist of sending IP addresses only. The bulk of these are in the USA itself, followed by Canada with China well down the list. With respect to Spamvertised sites, however, the situation is reverse, with many of them hosted in China. However SpamCop does not concern itself with these other than to record the information and make it available to interested parties. How effective is this in stopping the flood of spam? Well, according to the charts, spam is increasing at a much faster rate than regular email traffic, so I do not consider this to be a very effective method. It definitely needs to be augmented in some ways. I have posted some ideas how, elsewhere but the interest in my topic seems low. I wonder if SpamCop, and those working with it, have lost the wider picture and are busying themselves in a private 'war' but without a good strategy for winning and creating a 'Pax Romanae' for the Internet. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted December 25, 2005 Share Posted December 25, 2005 I don't think that these questions have been answered by anyone directly. The percentages have not been listed. the spamcop bl is but one method in assorted methods that server admins use to stop spam from ENTERing their systems. One server admin said that he thought about 25% was stopped by using the spamvertized site bl; others have stated that about 90 - 98% of spam is stopped by their methods. The ONLY way that the spam flow will stop increasing is to stop spam from being SENT. That means that at some time the income from customers who are either spamming themselves or who are ignorant about safe internet practice and support spammers by opening spam or allowing themselves to get infected will not be as useful to ISPs because of some other factor. Since there are laws already on the books that apply to many spammers - especially the criminal ones and they can't seem to be enforced, it is unlikely that any new laws would decrease the flow of spam. The major reason that spam has not been controlled is that many ISPs don't use blocklists - which, if they did, would cut a long way into the spammer profits. Any other method that is proposed is going to have the same problem. Other people are content to reject at the server level their 98% of spam; others (like businesses) hire people to sort through the spam after acceptance. You haven't proposed any new ideas on how to control spam that haven't already been proposed and for one reason or other have been found to be not feasible. I wonder if SpamCop, and those working with it, have lost the wider picture and are busying themselves in a private 'war' but without a good strategy for winning and creating a 'Pax Romanae' for the Internet. There is no way to 'force' people to use the internet the way you want them to. There is no 'we' (tinw). The use of blocklists is not 'warring' - they are simply defending themselves as best they can. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGTips91 Posted December 25, 2005 Share Posted December 25, 2005 Miss Betsy 38419[/snapback] The percentages have not been listed. the spamcop bl is but one method in assorted methods that server admins use to stop spam from ENTERing their systems. One server admin said that he thought about 25% was stopped by using the spamvertized site bl; others have stated that about 90 - 98% of spam is stopped by their methods. I don't think that he was asking the question you answered but was asking how many Spamvertised sites were shut down after being reported. My answer to that would be close to nil as they are hosted in China or Korea or some other non-cooperating country. The ONLY way that the spam flow will stop increasing is to stop spam from being SENT. That is exactly what I am contending for. Can't you see that I am asking for help to draw out the existing knowledge to implement a secure email system that does just that. Prevention is better than cure, and in the case of spam it is imperative. spam is costing billions of dollars world-wide, most of which cost would be saved if it was stopped at the point of sending rather than at the point of final delivery. That means that at some time the income from customers who are either spamming themselves or who are ignorant about safe internet practice and support spammers by opening spam or allowing themselves to get infected will not be as useful to ISPs because of some other factor. Since there are laws already on the books that apply to many spammers - especially the criminal ones and they can't seem to be enforced, it is unlikely that any new laws would decrease the flow of spam. I am not suggesting any new laws. I am suggesting a commercial agreement that people can voluntarily enter into, under which spam would be forbidden and deterrent penalties would apply if the agreement was broken. Other sanctions could apply if penalties are not met. The major reason that spam has not been controlled is that many ISPs don't use blocklists - which, if they did, would cut a long way into the spammer profits. Any other method that is proposed is going to have the same problem. The method I am proposing would exist along side of the existing system, initially, and would be entirely voluntary. However its advantage over blocklists would be so great that most commercial entities, including most ISPs would quickly gravitate to it. The cost of participation would be much less than that of using blocklists which need to be constantly maintained and are always out of date [or out of hour!] letting vast amounts of spam through. Therefore my proposal would not suffer from the same inertia problem that the current blocklisting system does. Other people are content to reject at the server level their 98% of spam; others (like businesses) hire people to sort through the spam after acceptance. 100% of spam blocked and 0% of good emails as 'false positives' would certainly attract more compliance than experienced now. You haven't proposed any new ideas on how to control spam that haven't already been proposed and for one reason or other have been found to be not feasible. I have proposed a new way of putting all that has been developed to date in the battle against spam, in conjunction with a new 'secure protocol' and backed by commercial agreements that can be legally enforced. I have looked at all the current methods and none of them exhibit all the features of what I have proposed and none of them can block spam at source as my proposal would. I wish that some of the technically competent people would respond to my question. Maybe they don't want spam to stop being sent as they would be out of their jobs! Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.