From: "Bob Apthorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:36:12 -0700 "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From: "Dan Wilder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > No sympathy for Mr. Richter.
> > >
> > > However.
> > >
> > > Speaking as an operator of several double-opt-in mailing lists who
takes
> > > abundant care to remove anybody at even a hint of difficulty, I'll
> > > attest SpamCop's anonymity policy is a pain in some part of the
anatomy.
> > >
> > > A typical incident.
> > >
> > > [ typical incident of anonymous SpamCop user abusing it's anonymity
redacted ]
> > >
> > > Maybe they've cleaned up their act. It's been quite a long time since
> > > I've heard from SpamCop.
> >
> > Dan, you are in an industry that is dominated by people who harvest
optout
> > as a means of obtaining new addresses to spam. [...] Of course, if
> > you can show a very distinct mailing-list structure with protections
against
> > forged signups and quick removal upon request, such as yahoogroups or
the
> > RedHat mailing lists, it should be far easier to get off SpamCop's lists
> > than if you automatically opt people in and require them to opt out.
>
> Bear with me because this goes against everything you have probably
> experienced dealing with spam and mailing lists.
>
> If you run clean lists and do the right thing, you will get complaints.
That is a given. I have a friend who runs a verified opt in list that
gets popped onto one or more black list sites when some goof-off wants
off the list and can't be bothered to read headers or footers to find
out how to get off.
Now, if you send off to SpamCop a note to send to the spammer that
includes a note about the verification procedure when joining and a
means to get off the list, even using an alternate throw-away address,
then SpamCop SHOULD send that note back to the complainer and not black
list the list owner. SpamCop and other BLs should maintain a list of
such lists and never black list them on one or two complaints per week.
That would get to be a brutal amount of work for the BL maintainers.
So they get lazy and don't bother. SpamCop serves a function. But I
for one would not contribute a single red cent to their defense unless
I was fully convinced of the "inherent spamminess" of the complainant.
{^_^}
