Re: spamcop problems-more on SPAM/SPAMCOP
Hello David! On Saturday, October 5, 2002 at 4:55:39 AM you wrote: You will not notice a reduction in SPAM if you only report it to spamcop. I doubt that you will notice a reduction at all, not so much because I doubt SpamCop but because of the vast increase in junk mail that is foreseen by various studies for the next few months/years. Some of them even think that we will see as much spam in the future to render e-mail practically unusable. -- Dierk Haasis http://www.Write4U.de http://Zoo.Write4U.de PGP keys available: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=SendMyPGPkeys The Bat 1.61 on Windows 95 4.0 1212 C Don't punish others for their lack of insight. (Derek Leveret) Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: spamcop problems-more on SPAM/SPAMCOP
Hello Dierk, On Sat, 5 Oct 2002 10:57:51 +0200 GMT (05/10/02, 15:57 +0700 GMT), Dierk Haasis wrote: You will not notice a reduction in SPAM if you only report it to spamcop. DH I doubt that you will notice a reduction at all, not so much DH because I doubt SpamCop but because of the vast increase in junk DH mail There are two factors here: Using SpamCop should reduce the amount of spam, because they report to the ISP. Responsible ISP's will close their open relays, or the account in question, and irresposnsible ISP's will be blacklisted by ORBL. On the other hand, as you correctly pointed out, the amount of spam is steadly increasing. Also, new ISP's come up all the time and may have new open relays. So it's an uphill struggle. But is is worth it. If we don't take action via SpamCop (or otherwise), we will be flooded with spam until the prediction comes true: DH Some of them even think that we will see as much spam in the DH future to render e-mail practically unusable. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta1 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: spamcop problems-more on SPAM/SPAMCOP
Hi Thomas, On Friday, 4 October 2002, at 13:23:54 [GMT +0700] you wrote: TF On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:58:29 -0400 GMT (04/10/02, 02:58 +0700 GMT), TF Paul Cartwright wrote: PC well, I have noticed a LOT more Porn and SPAM in my yahoo account PC lately, it does seem to have escalated since I joined spamcop, BUT it PC could just be the fact that my Yahoo account is ancient and I use it on PC the web for STUFF... TF I do not confirm that the number of spam has increased since I report TF to SpamCop. I cannot confirm either that is has decreased though... You will not notice a reduction in SPAM if you only report it to spamcop. If you use their fixed priced _filtered_email_ service then you will get a 90%+ reduction in spam. The reporting sends LARTs, and populates the blocking list, but won't go anyway to reduce the amount of SPAM you get. BTW SpamCop has made my email useable again, it is an excellent service. cheers, davidp. -- David Pascoe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Western Australia Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: spamcop problems-more on SPAM/SPAMCOP
Hello Paul, Saturday, September 28, 2002, 12:57:09 PM, you wrote: PC On Friday, September 27, 2002, 3:09 PM, you wrote: PC Unfortunately, the folks at SpamCop aren't listening. They believe they PC are on the side of Righteousness And Good, and thus are above reproach; PC they also seem to have total faith in their technology. But consider: PC I have recently been getting spam addressed to a disposable PC address that I have ONLY ever used when submitting spam to PC SpamCop. The address consists of a string of 12 random letters PC at the given domain, so it is not likely from a dictionary PC list. Kinda makes you want to go Hmmm. --- Glenn Wolf You know, I'm not sure how this happens. I created an email address for my paypal account called [EMAIL PROTECTED] anyhow, about 6 months ago, i started receiving porn SPAM addresssed to that address so i wonder, did someone at paypal sell a mailing list or did paypal? It's been bugging me ever since. -- Best regards, Laura mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: spamcop problems-more on SPAM/SPAMCOP
Hello, PC Unfortunately, the folks at SpamCop aren't listening. They believe they PC are on the side of Righteousness And Good, and thus are above reproach; PC they also seem to have total faith in their technology. But consider: PC I have recently been getting spam addressed to a disposable PC address that I have ONLY ever used when submitting spam to PC SpamCop. The address consists of a string of 12 random letters PC at the given domain, so it is not likely from a dictionary PC list. Kinda makes you want to go Hmmm. --- Glenn Wolf I haven't followed the entire thread about this, but thought I'd throw in my $.02 :) I believe SpamCop actually warns you that that could happen. If I read the warning/notice correctly, it's possible for spammmers to get the new email address when SpamCop sends a complaint to the spammer's listed (via dns) ISP. Sometimes the spammer is also set up as their own ISP so the spammer himself receives all the complaints instead of an upstream ISP that would terminate the account. Spammers, being the sarcasm scrupulous /sarcasm people that they are, take the complaint, harvest all the email addresses out of it and add them to their database. Great family fun, eh? :) --James Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: spamcop problems-more on SPAM/SPAMCOP
On Thursday, October 3, 2002, 1:37 PM, you wrote: JO I believe SpamCop actually warns you that that could happen. JO If I read the warning/notice correctly, it's possible for spammmers to JO get the new email address when SpamCop sends a complaint to the JO spammer's listed (via dns) ISP. Sometimes the spammer is also set up JO as their own ISP so the spammer himself receives all the complaints JO instead of an upstream ISP that would terminate the account. Spammers, JO being the sarcasm scrupulous /sarcasm people that they are, take JO the complaint, harvest all the email addresses out of it and add them JO to their database. well, I have noticed a LOT more Porn and SPAM in my yahoo account lately, it does seem to have escalated since I joined spamcop, BUT it could just be the fact that my Yahoo account is ancient and I use it on the web for STUFF... -- Paul Using The Bat! v1.62/Beta5 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: spamcop problems-more on SPAM/SPAMCOP
Hello Paul, On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:58:29 -0400 GMT (04/10/02, 02:58 +0700 GMT), Paul Cartwright wrote: PC well, I have noticed a LOT more Porn and SPAM in my yahoo account PC lately, it does seem to have escalated since I joined spamcop, BUT it PC could just be the fact that my Yahoo account is ancient and I use it on PC the web for STUFF... I do not confirm that the number of spam has increased since I report to SpamCop. I cannot confirm either that is has decreased though... -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Why do psychics have to ask you for your name? Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta1 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: spamcop problems-more on SPAM/SPAMCOP
Hello Tom, On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 14:00:40 -0700 GMT (29/09/02, 04:00 +0700 GMT), Tom Geldner wrote: TG SpamCop does have one serious shortcoming. It does NOT reduce your TG spam by reporting through it. 90% of the junk mail comes from about 10 TG major sources in China and a few in Brazil. They could care less who TG reports them and their upstream feeds to the backbone don't either. I agree with this. However, there are some other ISP's and open relays involved as well, as I get a feedback sometimes that they have closed account or spam-proofed their SMTP server. For those it is important to let them know where the problem is. If we don't report them, they will never know, and the amount of spam will increase without bounds. For those ISP's in China and Brazil, they are probably rightfully on many organisation's blacklist, and they will wise up once their customers complain that they cannot send mail anywhere anymore. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. How come we choose from just two people for president and 50 for Miss America? Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta1 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: spamcop problems-more on SPAM/SPAMCOP
Hello Paul, On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 15:57:09 -0400 GMT (29/09/02, 02:57 +0700 GMT), Paul Cartwright wrote: PC Since then I have had first-hand experience with SpamCop's PC heavy-handed, across-the-board, Self-Appointed Gestapo tactics PC about blocking ALL email from a server used by several ISP's, even PC though the offending email did NOT originate from a subscriber of PC my ISP! Has the author of this part communicated the problem to Julian Haight? He is the last one who wants to block legit mail. PC I was then blocked from sending email to my brother, whose ISP had PC just contracted with a company to set up their filtering- MX PC server, who (unknown to the ISP) used SpamCop. This sounds like a US-style testimonial: purely anecdotal - if true at all. PC As I firmly believe that my First Amendment Right to Free Speech PC was violated by this action Sure. US problem. Spammers argue with the same thing, or say that their spam is not spam because the US Congress has made a law 501. I couldn't care less about US laws, sorry. If their domestic law allows spam to be sent under certain circumstances, they should send it only domestically, and not to me. PC The problem with Spamcop's external blacklist (offered to ISPs and PC others) is that there's no corresponding whitelist of known good PC mailers. SpamCop does offer a whitelist function to its own internal PC customers, but outsiders have access to only half the solution--- a PC blacklist. Wait a minute... there is a whitelist, but you have to pay for it? Which irresponsible ISP will use the blacklist but be too stingy to pay for the whitelist? PC A blacklist without a whitelist means that ...that you should change your ISP. PC Unfortunately, the folks at SpamCop aren't listening. They believe they PC are on the side of Righteousness And Good, I am very sure that it was the Orgnaisation of American Spammers that started the thread you are referring to. Before you get blacklisted with SpamCop, they will test your relays, send messages to your postmaster, and thus contacting you several times before blacklisting you. If you are blacklisted because you have not taken action upon their notifications, you can still close your open relay, contact SpamCop (and the other blacklist services), they will re-test and then take your IP address off their blacklist (been there, done that). PC I have recently been getting spam addressed to a disposable PC address that I have ONLY ever used when submitting spam to PC SpamCop. The address consists of a string of 12 random letters at PC the given domain, so it is not likely from a dictionary list. PC Kinda makes you want to go Hmmm. --- Glenn Wolf The thing is that when I report a spam to spamcops, the headers are reported and sent to the originating ISP as well. Some of these ISP's are spammers themselves and it is no problem for them to harvest email addresses from the headers in spam reported back to them. It is like clicking on the remove button. PC Interestingly, even some SpamCop users are getting fed up: PC I finally quit my SpamCop newsgroup subscription over what is PC described in the newsgroup as a programming bug in their PC system. Submitting a spam to the SpamCop system elicited a PC screen requesting that the user either subscribe for the paid PC service or stay connected for *three hours* to complete the PC reporting process for EACH spam submission. PC There is no doubt in my mind that this was a let's scare you PC into paying for the service tactic. But the loyalists claimed PC that it was just a programming error. I agree that I think it was pushing; they want people to pay for a good service. I whined about it on TBOT. They have now corrected what they claimed was a programming error. So this problem does not exist any more; they have reacted quickly to a valid complaint. Why is that bad? PC EITHER of these explanations is a disgrace to an organization that PC claims to be so righteous and perfect. I disagree with this statement, though. It was worth a try. Didn't the same author say something about freedom of communication somewhere further up? If I don't want to wait 3 hours, I either discontinue using SpamCop or pay five or ten dollars or what for 2 years. They are no public service, Julian does this in his own time, why do you think you have a right to use his service for free? PC Again, I believe the SpamCop folks are truly well intentioned; I'm PC willing to give them the benefit of any doubt. Alas, that's a PC courtesy they don't extend to others. Just ask any of the PC thousands of totally innocent users who have had their mail PC blocked by SpamCop's poorly- implemented, halfway-solution PC blacklist. Comlain to their ISP's with their half-hearted (and half-brained) implementation of spam-blocking without subscribing to the whitelist, combined with having no clue how to close all of their relays. And being incapable of
Re[2]: spamcop problems-more on SPAM/SPAMCOP
Hi Thomas, TF The thing is that when I report a spam to spamcops, the headers are TF reported and sent to the originating ISP as well. Some of these ISP's TF are spammers themselves and it is no problem for them to harvest email TF addresses from the headers in spam reported back to them. It is like TF clicking on the remove button. BZZZT. Wrong. The headers are munged by SpamCop to disguise the reporting address UNLESS the ISP doesn't accept munged headers AND you click to report to that ISP anyway AND you say OK to SpamCop's warning about revealing personal information. -- Tom G. http://blarp.com -- Free tech support The Bat 1.61 - Windows 2000 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: spamcop problems-more on SPAM/SPAMCOP
On Sunday, September 29, 2002, 2:53 AM, you wrote: PC Since then I have had first-hand experience with SpamCop's PC heavy-handed, across-the-board, Self-Appointed Gestapo tactics PC about blocking ALL email from a server used by several ISP's, even PC though the offending email did NOT originate from a subscriber of PC my ISP! TF Has the author of this part communicated the problem to Julian Haight? TF He is the last one who wants to block legit mail. well, if it comes to the point of a class action suit, I'm sure spamcop has been asked about it, don't you think ? PC I was then blocked from sending email to my brother, whose ISP had PC just contracted with a company to set up their filtering- MX PC server, who (unknown to the ISP) used SpamCop. TF This sounds like a US-style testimonial: purely anecdotal - if true TF at all. well, remember, this WAS an article in a regular weekly email list. PC As I firmly believe that my First Amendment Right to Free Speech PC was violated by this action TF Sure. US problem. Spammers argue with the same thing, or say that TF their spam is not spam because the US Congress has made a law 501. I TF couldn't care less about US laws, sorry. If their domestic law allows TF spam to be sent under certain circumstances, they should send it only TF domestically, and not to me. I'm not sure there IS a law501, I think that is one of those... legends? there is a law barring faxing UCE to businesses, but I don't believe there is any law ( except Washington state) that bars emails in the US. PC The problem with Spamcop's external blacklist (offered to ISPs and PC others) is that there's no corresponding whitelist of known good PC mailers. SpamCop does offer a whitelist function to its own internal PC customers, but outsiders have access to only half the solution--- a PC blacklist. TF Wait a minute... there is a whitelist, but you have to pay for it? TF Which irresponsible ISP will use the blacklist but be too stingy to TF pay for the whitelist? PC A blacklist without a whitelist means that TF ...that you should change your ISP. I have a broadband connection, the only fast NON-dialup connection I can get where I am, I can't change. But I can put up my own POP and SMTP servers and use my own black white lists:) PC Unfortunately, the folks at SpamCop aren't listening. They believe they PC are on the side of Righteousness And Good, TF I am very sure that it was the Orgnaisation of American Spammers that TF started the thread you are referring to. Before you get blacklisted TF with SpamCop, they will test your relays, send messages to your TF postmaster, and thus contacting you several times before blacklisting TF you. If you are blacklisted because you have not taken action upon TF their notifications, you can still close your open relay, contact TF SpamCop (and the other blacklist services), they will re-test and then TF take your IP address off their blacklist (been there, done that). sounds like a great plan and a good system!! TF The thing is that when I report a spam to spamcops, the headers are TF reported and sent to the originating ISP as well. Some of these ISP's TF are spammers themselves and it is no problem for them to harvest email TF addresses from the headers in spam reported back to them. It is like TF clicking on the remove button. well, doesn't spamcop send each of us a special email to send the headers to, so they don't include our original email info?? PC Interestingly, even some SpamCop users are getting fed up: PC There is no doubt in my mind that this was a let's scare you PC into paying for the service tactic. But the loyalists claimed PC that it was just a programming error. TF I agree that I think it was pushing; they want people to pay for a TF good service. I whined about it on TBOT. They have now corrected what TF they claimed was a programming error. So this problem does not exist TF any more; they have reacted quickly to a valid complaint. Why is that TF bad? programming error or business decisions can both be changed, at least they did change/fix this issue. PC EITHER of these explanations is a disgrace to an organization that PC claims to be so righteous and perfect. TF I disagree with this statement, though. It was worth a try. Didn't the TF same author say something about freedom of communication somewhere TF further up? If I don't want to wait 3 hours, I either discontinue TF using SpamCop or pay five or ten dollars or what for 2 years. They are TF no public service, Julian does this in his own time, why do you think TF you have a right to use his service for free? I don't! I pay for services that work. I pay for ad-aware, so I can be sure my PC is free of spyware. I pay for web2pop so I can get my free email from yahoo on my PC using TB. I use spamcops free service, they didn't ask me to pay for anything yet. TF Comlain to their ISP's with their half-hearted (and half-brained) TF implementation of
Re: spamcop problems-more on SPAM/SPAMCOP
Sh'mae tbudl-bounces, On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, at 15:57:09 [GMT -0400] (or 20:57 in Wales) regarding 'spamcop problems-more on SPAM/SPAMCOP' you wrote: PC On Friday, September 27, 2002, 3:09 PM, you wrote: spammer supporter style rant Sorry but no sympathy from me, and my domain has been in SPEWS cause of other people. If there is a lawsuit against anyone for blocking lists, they'll get a hefty contribution from me for their defense fund... (a mail admin whose heard it all before) a -- pgp key: [EMAIL PROTECTED] O I'd rather play guitar [EMAIL PROTECTED] /|\ 13:02, 29 September 2002 (o--¬ http://new-wales.net / \ Adam Rykala The opinions above are solely those of a 12 year old hacker who has broken into my account, and not those of my employer or any other organization. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: spamcop problems-more on SPAM/SPAMCOP
Hi all! If you are so interested in anti-spam, you should join an anti-spam mailing list. There are several, mostly populated by folks who run blacklists or are sysadmins, and the discussions tend to be on the technical side. Go to www.abuse.net to find out about one list. -- --Scott. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! 1.61 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 on an AMD Athlon XP 1900 (1.6G real, 1.9G effective) with 512MB. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
spamcop problems-more on SPAM/SPAMCOP
On Friday, September 27, 2002, 3:09 PM, you wrote: I subscribe to the Langalist, and there was a great article in it today about spamcop. I know this has been talked about on TBUDL some, but I didn't follow it ;) Here is the langalist article for your reading pleasure. 7) More On Spam, And SpamCop There's a class-action lawsuit brewing against SpamCop and other purveyors of blacklists. It's too bad, because I believe most of these folks are trying to do the right thing--- to help stop spam. But they're doing it the wrong way, both in concept and execution. For example: As a LangaList Plus subscriber I learned about your recent ordeal with SpamCop Blacklisting the delivery of your newsletters. Since then I have had first-hand experience with SpamCop's heavy-handed, across-the-board, Self-Appointed Gestapo tactics about blocking ALL email from a server used by several ISP's, even though the offending email did NOT originate from a subscriber of my ISP! I was then blocked from sending email to my brother, whose ISP had just contracted with a company to set up their filtering- MX server, who (unknown to the ISP) used SpamCop. As I firmly believe that my First Amendment Right to Free Speech was violated by this action (contrary to so-called established opinions that state otherwise), I went looking for any others that share my belief, and, BOY!, did I ever find them!!! Apparently I am not (nearly) alone in the belief that SpamCop and MAPS (Mail Abuse Prevention System) both use tactics that DO violate the rights of the rest of us, as there is currently a Class Action Lawsuit being formed to fight these overzealous vigilantes. Since your newsletter was blocked, you should check [it] out Ken Walters The problem with Spamcop's external blacklist (offered to ISPs and others) is that there's no corresponding whitelist of known good mailers. SpamCop does offer a whitelist function to its own internal customers, but outsiders have access to only half the solution--- a blacklist. A blacklist without a whitelist means that good emails will be blocked along with the bad: ALL mail from any given mail source will be treated as spam, even if there's only one spammer among thousands of totally legitimate, non-spamming mailers. That includes *private* mailers, too, like Ken, whose personal one-to-one emails have also gotten caught up in SpamCop's crude blacklists. That's the basic conceptual problem with this blacklist-only approach: Totally legitimate emailers get taken out along with spammers. That's bad--- and it may even prove to be legally actionable. Unfortunately, the folks at SpamCop aren't listening. They believe they are on the side of Righteousness And Good, and thus are above reproach; they also seem to have total faith in their technology. But consider: I have recently been getting spam addressed to a disposable address that I have ONLY ever used when submitting spam to SpamCop. The address consists of a string of 12 random letters at the given domain, so it is not likely from a dictionary list. Kinda makes you want to go Hmmm. --- Glenn Wolf Hmmm indeed, Glenn. I don't believe that SpamCop is guilty of spamming; but no secret name or address can ever be 100% safe--- addresses can be guessed or cracked or harvested or stolen or Klez-ed (etc.) or otherwise gotten to. That's probably what happened to Glenn's, and it's probably happened to SpamCop's own spamtrap addresses, too. Thus, Glenn getting spam at his SpamCop-only address doesn't necessarily mean that SpamCop is engaged in spamming him; SpamCop getting email at their spamtrap addresses isn't definitive proof that someone is spamming them. But SpamCop takes it as such--- after all, their spamtrap technology is perfect and infallible, right? Sure it is. Interestingly, even some SpamCop users are getting fed up: Thanks for your newsletter. I subscribed to see what it was after seeing you getting trashed out for days on SpamCop. I finally quit my SpamCop newsgroup subscription over what is described in the newsgroup as a programming bug in their system. Submitting a spam to the SpamCop system elicited a screen requesting that the user either subscribe for the paid service or stay connected for *three hours* to complete the reporting process for EACH spam submission. There is no doubt in my mind that this was a let's scare you into paying for the service tactic. But the loyalists claimed that it was just a programming error. EITHER of these explanations is a disgrace to an organization that claims to be so righteous and perfect. Thanks to them, however, I now am receiving your newsletter and have something more interesting to read!--- Robert S. Owen, Ph.D. Again, I believe the SpamCop folks are truly well intentioned;
Re: spamcop problems-more on SPAM/SPAMCOP
Hi Paul, PC I subscribe to the Langalist, and there was a great article in it today PC about spamcop. I know this has been talked about on TBUDL some, but I PC didn't follow it ;) Here is the langalist article for your reading PC pleasure. The one point on which I disagree with the article is that DNSable blacklists are somehow actionable in court. That seems like pure nonsense to me. Nobody HAS to use a blacklist. It is the ISP's or individual customer's choice. They are services and nothing more. I use SpamPal and have it set to check almost all DNSable blacklists including SpamCop's. So far, I have only had 2 e-mails that have been trapped that shouldn't have. The rest have all been SPAM. SpamCop does have one serious shortcoming. It does NOT reduce your spam by reporting through it. 90% of the junk mail comes from about 10 major sources in China and a few in Brazil. They could care less who reports them and their upstream feeds to the backbone don't either. I think my ISP has the right approach. They offer 2 types of e-mail accounts. One is spam-filtered and the other isn't. You get 5 e-mail addresses with them and can pick your server for any. So if you're on their unfiltered server, you get everything including potential spam. I have accounts on both. -- Tom G. http://blarp.com -- Free tech support The Bat 1.61 - Windows 2000 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: spamcop problems-more on SPAM/SPAMCOP
On Saturday, September 28, 2002, 5:00 PM, you wrote: TG SpamCop does have one serious shortcoming. It does NOT reduce your TG spam by reporting through it. 90% of the junk mail comes from about 10 TG major sources in China and a few in Brazil. They could care less who TG reports them and their upstream feeds to the backbone don't either. I have multiple email accounts, and I use my ISP's filtering system ( Spaminator). I get lots of spam in my yahoo email, which is where the TB templates come in handy. I realize spamcop doesn't reduce the spam, but when you are talking about a free account, I just live with it. TG I think my ISP has the right approach. They offer 2 types of TG e-mail accounts. One is spam-filtered and the other isn't. You get 5 TG e-mail addresses with them and can pick your server for any. So if TG you're on their unfiltered server, you get everything including TG potential spam. I have accounts on both. Earthlink lets you turn on the filters if you want them, another nice option. I remember when I had a free netzero account, I was getting spam before I ever sent out the first email!! -- Paul Using The Bat! v1.62/Beta5 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: spamcop problems-more on SPAM/SPAMCOP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Tom Geldner [TG] wrote:' TG The one point on which I disagree with the article is that DNSable TG blacklists are somehow actionable in court. That seems like pure TG nonsense to me. Nobody HAS to use a blacklist. It is the ISP's or TG individual customer's choice. They are services and nothing more. This is the crux of the matter and I agree. MDaemon on my server here has spam filtering functionality that uses blacklist servers but I've explicitly disabled this because I can't tolerate false innocent mail getting caught. This was happening to me when I was using a domain mail forwarding service offered by my DNS host for free. I'm glad that's behind me. TG SpamCop does have one serious shortcoming. It does NOT reduce TG your spam by reporting through it. 90% of the junk mail comes TG from about 10 major sources in China and a few in Brazil. They TG could care less who reports them and their upstream feeds to the TG backbone don't either. Reporting spam is one of the services offered by SpamCop. The other is a paid service where you're given an e-mail address which spamcop will keep free of spam using it's spam filtering service. It's this service that the article is referring to. I haven't read any of the terms of service but I'm pretty sure it should contain something that covers their responsibility for inadvertent filtering of legitimate mail sent via blacklisted servers. There are various ways to configure the filtering system anyway. - -- Allie C Martin \ TB! v1.62/Beta5 WinXP Pro (SP1) List Moderator/ PGP Key - http://pub-key.ac-martin.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (Win32) - GPGshell v2.60 iD8DBQE9lkPcV8nrYCsHF+IRAgsbAKDUfvSoEa/069M+Dc4UzDZXeqj6zwCg+G3l LXKthjnovnu7acuNa2fySZ4= =XvZQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
