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 "Hmmmmmmm". --- 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 replying to the SpamCop warnings. And having no clue how to get off the blacklist, even though the URL is given in each automated SpamCop report they receive. IMO SpamCop is not at fault. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. The next time you feel like complaining, remember: Your garbage disposal probably eats better than thirty percent of the people in this world. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta1 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 2222 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
