Andrew: How do you have your counterweight test set up in your global file? I would be very interest in something like that.
Chuck Schick Warp 8, Inc. 303-421-5140 www.warp8.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Colbeck, Andrew > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 12:12 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] What's wrong with SpamCop? > > > Well, it's important to remember that SpamCop is user-driven. > > The man behind it, Julian Haight, and his Spam Cop deputies > focus on parsing > the messages well, holding off the DoS attacks, juggling the > expiry and the > weight of the IP & subnet based on reports, and getting the > right abuse > addresses and that's about it. Who gets listed really isn't > their deal. > > In that way, it's a lot like CloudMark, only it doesn't have > a counterweight > system. The only safety valve is the expiry time, or users like us > complaining in their newsgroup about unwarranted listings. > > As Chuck says, it simply can't be used by itself reliably. > As for AOL mail, > I think they've come a long way. I used to counterweight mail from > .mx.aol.com to counteract the IPNOTINMX and NOABUSE and > NOPOSTMASTER weights > it would always fail, and I recently found that they've > gotten much better > at containing spam; they still host reply mailboxes, but are > sending out > very little to us, so I've increased my counterweight for > mail coming from > their mail servers. > > Andrew 8) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Bramble [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 8:12 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] What's wrong with SpamCop? > > > Is it me, or did SpamCop suddenly become awful when it comes to false > positives with almost anything that is sent in bulk? I've > recently seen > them tag PayPal, ActivePDF newsletters, Match.com and even the local > chamber of commerce (which only sends to members w/opt-out). If they > ever start crossing FP's with MailPolice, two very important > RBL's will > suddenly become greatly diminished in value on my server. > > So the question is, does SpamCop care about this problem? Are they > going to make fundamental changes in how they determine what to block > based on their clearly impure input? Anyone have a scoop? > > Matt > > --- > [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 > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. > --- > [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 unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [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 unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
