On Saturday, December 30, 2006, 10:40:21 AM, Jason Faulkner wrote: > I will completely concur with the statement about spamcop being too > aggressive -- I work with a company that sends out ~10 million messages > per month per ip (we're an ESP) and we can get listed on Spamcop for as > few as 20 complaints on one of those IPs, and there's absolutely no > feedback mechanism that they'll listen to us with.
> Spamhaus is fair. DULs are a great idea. But please, please don't > support SpamCop. Their policies are not fair and you /will/ lose some > legitimate email in the process. While I agree that the SpamCop BL is too aggressive for use as MTA blocking, it's unfair to say that SpamCop or their blacklist are unfair. The SpamCop BL is a fair representation of the sending IPs of the messages that its users are reporting as spam. One of your goals as an ESP should be to not get perceived as spam in the mailboxes of those users. If the users get your messages and report them as spam (via SpamCop, AOL, etc.), then you may be doing something inappropriate that's worth reviewing and correcting. Frankly if I were an ESP, I'd be grateful for the feedback that something may be wrong. That feedback is valuable and gives you a chance to review your practices before you become more widely viewed as spammers. Presumably that's something you would want to avoid. In contrast to outright blocking at the MTA level, SpamAssassin uses the SpamCop BL and many other BLs to create a score to tag messages as spammy or not. For a list that's a bit too aggressive like SCBL, the score is lower. For a list that's more accurate like xbl.spamhaus.org, SpamAssassin gives it a higher score. Etc. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
