Yes, an IP could be delisted within a few hours.
John T
eServices For You
Seek, and ye shall find!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Panda
Consulting S.A. Luis Alberto Arango
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:20 PM
To:
Yes, servers can be removed from Spamcop pretty quick depending on various
factors. FWIW IMO Spamcop tends to list known legit mailservers fairly
often (gmail, aol, earthlink, etc). I use it, but I also counter weight
revdns for some of those big providers mailservers to counter spamcop hits.
Septiembre de 2006 07:45 a.m.
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop blocked message but
not blocked
Yes, servers can be removed from Spamcop pretty quick
depending on various factors. FWIW IMO Spamcop tends to list
known legit mailservers fairly often (gmail
You can follow the link in the text that the SpamCop RBL returns, and
then follow a link there for further information:
http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=blcheckip=216.9.248.51
Which shows that this Blackberry server is listed again and will be for
the next 16 hours. It also shows the recent
- Original Message -
From: Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop
gmail has many outbound servers - chances are one of the messages went via
a server listed in spamcop
:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop
gmail has many outbound servers - chances are one of the messages
went via a server listed in spamcop. Spamcop these days has been
proving to be less and less reliable - I can't tell you how often
AOL, Earthlink, Gmail, Attbi, and other big ISP's
For me this month spamcop has been correct 99.3% of the time.
It has detected about 45% of all spams.
- Original Message -
From: Richard Farris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop
I have
: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop
gmail has many outbound servers - chances are one of the messages went
via a server listed in spamcop. Spamcop these days has been proving to
be less and less reliable - I can't tell you how often AOL, Earthlink,
Gmail, Attbi, and other big ISP's get listed...
Darrell
is held.
Removing spamcop from your testing would be a mistake IMHO.
Travis
- Original Message -
From: Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop
Richard,
Last I checked, SpamCop was tagging
gmail has many outbound servers - chances are one of the messages went via a
server listed in spamcop. Spamcop these days has been proving to be less
and less reliable - I can't tell you how often AOL, Earthlink, Gmail, Attbi,
and other big ISP's get listed...
Darrell
I noticed that Spamcop is catching email from GMAIL.COM
Is there another real-time black list to use that is as good Spamcop was.
Gmail is slow on their TOS reports. I have sent in 30 so far and it
normally takes 5 working days for them to kill the account and reply.
However, I have
Richard,
This is a common complaint of a lot of people about Spamcop including
myself. They have no issues listing AOL, Hotmail, etc. It's just the way
their system works. It takes in really no consideration that yes they may
leak some spam - but all in all they are legit servers.
Do you have an example, Richard?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Farris
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 9:48 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop catching gmail
I am finding several legitimate
Also, all of a sudden I am catching a lot of seemingly lagitimate mail from
yahoo with ..
Subject
To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
Headers
Received: from spamwall.apid.com [63.238.52.89] by ethixs.com with ESMTP
(SMTPD32-7.11) id A86D12EA0280; Fri, 08 Jul
- Original Message -
From: Colbeck, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 11:58 AM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop catching gmail
Do you have an example, Richard?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Let me guess, you are using the evil
BOUNCEIFYOUMUST action in Declude JM?
John T
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Technical Support
Sent: Tuesday, April
12, 2005 11:34 AM
To:
on 4/12/05 2:33 PM, Technical Support wrote:
Has anyone else had this issue before,
and if so, what can be done to fix it?
Yes, one of my servers is listed somewhere (sorbs I think).
Setup an outbound rule in IMail, any message from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of undeliverable mail gets
.
- Original Message -
From:
John Tolmachoff (Lists)
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 2:58
PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop
blacklist "Misdirected bounces"
Let me guess, you
are using the evil BOUNCEIFYOUM
Well, John. I'm sure that's a rhetorical question, but I'm feeling a
little chatty while I listen to hold music.
SpamCop and pretty well every other blacklisting service make no
allowance for how much good mail is coming from an IP address. They
only do blacklisting.
The funny thing is that
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darrell
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 11:02 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing AOL webmail servers
SpamCop and pretty well every other blacklisting service make no
allowance for how much good mail
Of Colbeck, Andrew
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 9:37 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing AOL webmail servers
Well, John. I'm sure that's a rhetorical question, but I'm feeling a
little chatty while I listen to hold music.
SpamCop and pretty
I do the same.
-d
- Original Message -
From: Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing AOL webmail servers
SpamCop and pretty well every other blacklisting
: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?
Ernesto,
I am not sure if anyone else has covered this or even if this is
applicable,
but some ISP's like ATT will deny DNS queries for known spam lists like
SPAMCOP while allowing other ones to go
settings, how can I check to make sure that I do
have it correct.
thanks
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?
Has there been a change
It is important to note that you should only have one DNS
server listed in the IMail SMTP settings (IMail has a known
sporadic issue if there are multiple DNS servers listed).
Really?
I've listed 3 DNS for over 4 years now without any problem. Is there any KB
article?
Markus
---
[This
It is important to note that you should only have one DNS
server listed in the IMail SMTP settings (IMail has a known
sporadic issue if there are multiple DNS servers listed).
Really?
I've listed 3 DNS for over 4 years now without any problem. Is there any KB
article?
I'm not sure if they have
: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?
Thanks for the reply. I have checked my DNS settings, but everything
is
fine.
It is important to note that you should only have one DNS server listed in
the IMail SMTP settings (IMail has a known sporadic issue if there are
multiple DNS servers listed
Scott:
Do you have do you have any further information about this statement - what
type of errors, etc.
It is important to note that you should only have one DNS server listed in
the IMail SMTP settings (IMail has a known sporadic issue if there are
multiple DNS servers listed).
We have used
Do you have do you have any further information about this statement - what
type of errors, etc.
It is important to note that you should only have one DNS server listed in
the IMail SMTP settings (IMail has a known sporadic issue if there are
multiple DNS servers listed).
The issue I am aware of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?
Has there been a change in the cfg files lately, or something?
I've seen a few domains/IPs that Spamcop does have listed,
yet, they don't appear
Has there been a change in the cfg files lately, or something?
I've seen a few domains/IPs that Spamcop does have listed,
yet, they don't appear to have failed the spamcop test.
This is the line I have in my cfg file:
SPAMCOP ip4r bl.spamcop.net 127.0.0.2 5 0
Is there something I should notice
Serge,
If you want to use the list manually, or from custom
software, you should instruct your system to do a dns query for the information.
For example, if you want to check if 1.2.3.4 is on the blacklist, you might type
this at the command-line:
nslookup
I noticed that several RBL's have not been triggered off one of our backup
mail servers over the last 24 hours. For example SPAMCOP hasn't. I turned
on DEBUG mode and noticed that it was reporting this
04/01/2004 10:56:53.296 Q3bbb215802381bda Test #18 [ORDB] is same as Test
#18 [ORDB=*].
: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP
I noticed that several RBL's have not been triggered off one of our backup
mail servers over the last 24 hours. For example SPAMCOP hasn't. I turned
on DEBUG mode and noticed that it was reporting this
04/01/2004 10:56:53.296 Q3bbb215802381bda Test #18 [ORDB] is same
I noticed this about a year ago on some of the other DNSBL's; they are trying to
reduce DNS load by making these types of queries fail.
Scott,
It's ATT's DNS servers. I wonder if they are doing something to block
those kinds of lookup's.
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP
Scott,
It's ATT's DNS servers. I wonder if they are doing something to block
those kinds of lookup's.
Darrell
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Thursday
Well I'm getting spam from aol too.. And we are a small small (62 ip's).. So
shut them off.. Easy concept since they are the ones that force the rest of
us email admins to mush have a rDNS in order for them to accept our legit
mail..
~Rick
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matt,
Did you ever consider that they tagged 2 different AOL mail servers because
they were sending spam?
Dan Geiser
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 4:03 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop
I'm quite sure that they were relaying spam from zombies, however, you
shouldn't be listing the world's largest ISP's mail servers in the same
group as direct sources of spam. When they list AOL's mail servers,
they wind up tagging probably 99.9% or more of the E-mail coming from
those servers
SpamCop is a very important test, and I would imagine that with a week's
work, they could correct all issues with tagging mail servers that handle
over 50% of legitimate E-mail traffic in the US.
For years, I have thought that they should return the spam/total ratio for
mailservers (which they
Sounds like something that would be easy for them to improve. I hope
that you've given them the recommendation of exposing the data in TXT
records.
I just started building some spamtraps myself, and before I can make use
of them, I'm going to have to weed out at least the large ISP and
SpamCop and MailPolice both got demoted on my system by a point today,
and I hope to bring them down another point soon (after measuring the
effect on my system).
When I see ISP mail servers listed, it is generally due to one of two
things...they either have no controls on someone doing a bulk
I was looking at the headers and saw SPAMCOP : Blocked
Is that how it should be - what it's returning? If not, ideas on what
could be wrong?
That is what it is returning:
X-RBL-Warning: SPAMCOP: Blocked - see
Doug,
I don't think anything is wrong. SpamC. is returning a TXT record with
that information.
The link says that's experimental.
Burzin
At 12:22 PM 12/19/2003, you wrote:
I was looking at the headers and saw SPAMCOP : Blocked
Is that how it should be - what it's returning? If not, ideas on
Dan:
We made a decision a long time ago to whitelist REVDNS of all the folks you
had listed.
We now have two REVDNS negative files.
1: Whitelist as entered in the Global.cfg (I only hope one day Scott moves
these entries to their own files).
2: Negative reverseDNS files that adds negative
: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:24 AM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses
Dan:
We made a decision a long time ago to whitelist REVDNS of all the folks
you
had listed.
We now have two REVDNS negative files.
1: Whitelist as entered in the Global.cfg (I only hope one
Am I correct that you can only add 100 WHITELIST entries to the GLOBAL.CFG
file? Is that 100 each for REVDNS and HELO or 100 total? Is there anyway
to go past that limit and/or else offload those into a separate file?
Actually, it's a limit of 200.
The WHITELIST FROM entries can be offloaded
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses
Kami:
I've been taking a look at your configuration files every few weeks and
based on what I saw there a couple of months ago, I also started
WHITELISTing based on Reverse
Hi Dan,
I've only seen one FP from SpamCop in the last week. I routinely see email
sent by legitimate firms get tagged as spam, but usually
these firms are using third party mailers to send information.
Burzin
At 09:10 AM 12/5/2003, you wrote:
Hello, All,
Has anyone noticed in the last few
. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses
Am I correct that you can only add 100 WHITELIST entries to the
GLOBAL.CFG
file? Is that 100 each for REVDNS and HELO or 100 total
Yes...
Like a filter file:
REVDNS -20 ENDSWITH .amazon.com
I put the period before Amazon to just make sure no funky
domain like .spamamazon.com can get through.
Hmmpfff
I hoped already that that could be a reason for unlimited IPBYPASS
entries... ;-)
Markus
Kami,
What is the name of the filter file that you have entries of those type in?
Thanks,
Dan
- Original Message -
From: Kami Razvan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:51 AM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses
Yes
Scott,
Do you have plans to offer offloading for WHITELIST HELO and WHITELIST
REVDNS?
Thanks,
Dan
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses
I'm not sure if everyone has heard, but IronPort bought SpamCop. It's
likely that they're fiddling with it. There's an article on Slashdot from
Wednesday about it.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/03/2016218mode=threadtid=111tid=126tid=137tid=187
Personally, After seeing so many
Do you have plans to offer offloading for WHITELIST HELO and WHITELIST
REVDNS?
Not at this time, simply because we can't envision there being a need for
200 such entries. :)
However, the WHITELIST limit is something that comes up frequently, so it
is quite possible that more changes will be
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses
Kami,
What is the name of the filter file that you have entries of those type in?
Thanks,
Dan
- Original Message -
From: Kami Razvan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:51 AM
Even though they say that it will remain free, it seems like good
business sense for them. The value of SpamCop, imperfect as it is,
still is immense and only MailPolice would seem to be able to carry on
that torch. Hopefully with just a little more effort, they can clean up
some of their
IronPort owns the bondedsender.com whitelist service, as well, and I have
had good results using their ip4r service. So this sounds like it could be
a good combination of services.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Colbeck, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday,
Sure... if all they do is provide cash such that the spamcop services
provides don't go down due to lack of funding, that will be a good thing.
If they also take over some of the operations, then Matt would get his wish
and they could afford to put in place some filters to make their service
less
May be a commercial enterprise will be more open to adding a hands-off
reporting system. Manually confirming every spam that I already determined
as spam makes the system not practical.
What they need is a commercial (for fee) account which includes the
(revocable) right to submit directly into
and verification process, and like Mark said, an inaccurate
system is worse than no system.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Andy Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 6:49 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop news
May be a commercial enterprise
I don't see the reasoning behind sending SPAMCOP thousands of e-mails per
day that are already stopped by your system.
Presence in SPAMCOP is temporary. To REMAIN listed, you need to keep
submitting SPAM so that the senders keep getting listed.
Best Regards
Andy Schmidt
HM Systems Software,
Dan..
BE VERY CAREFUL IF YOU DO THIS...
We were doing this and once someone from the list sent me an email with
bunch of keywords in it.. The system automatically forwarded it to the
SPAMCop account.
If you do this make sure you review every spam that goes into your account
and approve them
on the SpamSource button, and it submits to SPAMCOP.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kami Razvan
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 4:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account
Dan..
BE VERY
I understand what you are saying here. If there's any chance whatsoever
that I would send a legit e-mail to Spamcop as spam then I won't set it up.
I think the real problem is that the idea behind Spamcop is people
reporting unsolicted E-mail. The failure of enough Declude tests *should*
other 2 questions?
Thanks,
Dan
- Original Message -
From: Jason Newland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 5:17 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account
Typically I only send SPAMCOP e-mails that pass through our Declude
filters
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account
I understand what you are saying here. If there's any chance whatsoever
that I would send a legit e-mail to Spamcop as spam then I won't set it
up.
I think the real problem
Lately a reputable Listserv I belong to has begun failing the Spamcop
test. I've whitelisted the domain, but it's got me wondering...is Spamcop
a reliable source of spam, or would I do better by downgrading their
weight. Currently I have Spamcop fails set to label subject as Spam
regardless
DM Any (subjective g ) suggestions?
I've seen spamcop get way to aggressive over the past 6 months. They
used to be pretty accurate. We were listed for a while because our
domain name was in an MX record (for backup store and forward) for a
client ISP who had 1 user get reported to spamcop.
Has spamcop stopped working? I'm not seeing any reference to it in my
logs now (set to mid) or headers.
It still seems to be working fine from here (see
http://www.declude.com/spamtrap.htm ).
Could you post the longer line that begins with SPAMCOP from your
\IMail\Declude\global.cfg file?
, 2003 12:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop?
Has spamcop stopped working? I'm not seeing any reference to it in my
logs now (set to mid) or headers.
It still seems to be working fine from here (see
http://www.declude.com/spamtrap.htm ).
Could you post
Qa9930eca013e736e Test 4-MONKEYPROXIES didn't get a
response.
-Original Message-
From: R. Scott Perry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 12:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop?
Has spamcop stopped working? I'm not seeing any reference
Good call, Scott. I don't think any of these tests are showing up right
now. I'm going to bump up the logging and take a better look.
If none of them are showing up, did you make any major changes recently
(such as adding a gateway in front of your IMail server)? I'm guessing
that Declude
Debug gives me these lines:
07/07/2003 13:10:54 Qa9930eca013e736e Test 1-SPAMCOP didn't get a response.
07/07/2003 13:10:54 Qa9930eca013e736e Test 2-JAPAN didn't get a response.
07/07/2003 13:10:54 Qa9930eca013e736e Test 3-MONKEYFORMMAIL didn't get a
response.
07/07/2003 13:10:54
it has occurred, can be made to appear inevitable by a competent
historian.
-Original Message-
From: R. Scott Perry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 1:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop?
Debug gives me these lines:
07/07/2003 13:10
We're using our internet provider's DNS server. It seems to work, but I
don't know how to test it for the types of queries declude uses.
nslookup works fine.
Does nslookup work fine using the DNS servers listed in the OS, or are you
using set server=192.0.2.53 (entering the IP of the first
I can get there now with my reporting code.
Hirthe, Alexander wrote:
Hello,
what happened to Spamcop.net? I cannot http them?
Alex
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
I have adjusted the spamcop weight from 7 to 10 in the global.cfg file but
messages are still coming thru that have spamcop marked as 7. Any ideas?
Example:
X-Spam-Tests-Failed: SPAMCOP [7]
Were they coming through as X-Spam-Tests-Failed: SPAMCOP [7] before? I'm
guessing they were coming
To: Ron Harris
Subject:Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop, OSSRC, and OSSOFT Tests
Ron,
Tuesday, November 12, 2002 you wrote:
RH I currently Hold a lot of e-mail failing a lot of the open relay tests.
The only two tests I hold directly are ORDB and SNIFFER. ORDB is
about 99% for me
I currently give a weight of 16 to SpamCop, forcing the message to either
fail 2 minor tests or one other major test. (Subject modification 15-19,
hold at 20.)
Here is what Declude has to say about OSSRC:
Osirusoft's Confirmed Spam Source list. These are sites that continually
spam and have been
Ron,
Tuesday, November 12, 2002 you wrote:
RH I currently Hold a lot of e-mail failing a lot of the open relay tests.
The only two tests I hold directly are ORDB and SNIFFER. ORDB is
about 99% for me and SNIFFER is less but still very high. Mainly
SNIFFER fails on lists and
I have given this test a weight of 2. My thinking is that although they are
known to produce SPAM, they have not been shown very in-effective in Scott's
monthly log.
Darn keyboard virus. Let me try that again.
...they have not been shown to be very effective in...
John Tolmachoff MCSE, CSSA
IT
Next month we plan to release a version that includes compound heuristics.
At that time we will begin adding white-rule to the database to match
well
known legitimate lists. We expect this will reduce the problem.
Yippee!!!
Sheldon
Sheldon Koehler, Owner/Partner
Instead of whitelisting, try giving those names a negative value. That
way if you do get some real spam from that domain, you will still have
other values or weights to use to catch it. If you whitelist, nothing
is even checked and it goes through regardless.
Jim Rooth
Klotron, Inc.
For now, you will want to whitelist these. The trouble is that many lists
append advertising content to their messages. Sniffer tends to get triggered
by the advertising content.
Next month we plan to release a version that includes compound heuristics.
At that time we will begin adding
Some one else may have a better idea, but that may not be from SpamCop.
There was a discussion yesterday on the Imail forum about some one
sending out fake notices pretending to be from SpamCop.
http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/msg57757.htm
l
Notice this in the
No specific idea, but I did just watch a HUGE network instability pass
through the UUNet network... Took the last half hour or so to stabilize
(knock wood). Maybe that's part of it.
_M
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chuck Schick
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop Dead.
No specific idea, but I did just watch a HUGE network instability pass
through the UUNet network... Took the last half hour or so to stabilize
(knock wood). Maybe that's part of it.
_M
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED
EG My only concern is that after doing some checking myself with just
EG warn on weight10 is that someone that fail revdns and badheaders will
EG have a weight of 13 and thusely get held/deleted.
I've been using the weight10 and it's been working fine for me.
Here is an example of my
After careful consideration to everyone's views, I have elected
to use the weight10 test to help define spam. I have been looking
through thousands of messages and logs to figure out what the best
method would be for cutting down spam. Most spam will fail more
than one test. Usually a
90 matches
Mail list logo
