Cisco owns IronPort, who owns spamcop, but neither provide any money to
spamcop. Spamcop used to be partially supported by CES, but they bailed.
Spamhaus is a different company, and is arguably evil.
--dave
On 17/08/17 08:48 PM, Stewart Russell via talk wrote:
On 17 August 2017 at 19:30, David Collier-Brown via talk
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Spamcop.net should not be compared to the extortionist sites, nor
the email vendors. It's honest, and living on a shoestring.
On a shoestring? They're part of Cisco. They run an RBL, so they can
still block shared servers. I still put them on the evil side.
And note that it's the _corporate email providers_ who charge
money to anyone who gets reported for spamming: that's why I used
that particular example.
The RBL that blocked my former employer asked for money to get a
faster resolution. That's extortion. And there's a precedent for
considering RBLs tortous interference: Spamhaus vs E360, which from
reading Wikipedia and Spamhaus's own coverage, you'd think Spamhaus
won. They lost: the $3 symbolic damages remained.
Stewart
---
Talk Mailing List
[email protected]
https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
[email protected] | -- Mark Twain
---
Talk Mailing List
[email protected]
https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
