On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
somewhat hesitant to use spamcop as our own servers once had a brief
listing with them (and it wasn't due to spam).
Got more info?
Sadly, we're dealing with my aging memory. :)
While I cannot remember precisely, categorically it was a situation like:
1) A piece of junk that one of our users had forwarded to another server
and then THE USER 'reported' the spam (which naturally had *our* IP at
the top), or,
2) Someone 'reported as spam' a bounce from our server that had their
address forged as sender (for some condition like 'full mailbox' which
even now still sometimes generates a DSN rather than being rejected at
the SMTP gateway).
Admittedly we've made massive improvements to our systems since that time.
We now filter at SMTP time, rather than have the filter in procmail which
is bypassed by .forward, and I've put in extra mechanisms to catch as many
of the 'full mailbox' type of conditions as possible at SMTP time.
But whichever the case was, it still bothered me that this major
blocklist seemed to have added our IP for a singular incident/report.
I would expect there to be a minimal threshold for accidental or false
reporting.
Mind you, there is every chance that spamcop has upgraded their systems in
the intervening years. All I have to go on is my experience. :)
Anyways, there's what 'info' I have. I won't be surprised if it's not
'good enough' for anyone. If someone knows something improvements to their
spam reporting, I would be interested..... Thanks.
- Charles
