nanog mailing list archives
Re: Spamcop
From: chuck goolsbee <chucklist () forest net>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 16:45:21 -0700
I would agree with your analogy if Spamcop limited automatic reporting to subset of the community. The problem is they do not.
In Spamcop's defence, it seems that their systems were never designed to handle the wide variety of 'attack vectors" that spam uses today.
Spamcop also operates on the assumption that the user is exercising some judgement when *directly* reporting spam, which is universally the case with mailing list traffic. No matter how foolproof your system, the world creates a better fool.
Thankfully, all my interactions - as a web host, network operator, and mailing list manager- with Spamcop and their staff have been professional, and productive. I for one appreciate the "just the facts" style of reporting, and useful mechanisms for interacting with the complainers. It is a refreshing change from the usual ALL-CAPS threats and exclamation point filled diatribes, usually mailed to the wrong abuse@* addresses.
--chuck
Current thread:
- Re: Spamcop, (continued)
- Re: Spamcop Christopher McCrory (May 11)
- Re: Spamcop Robert E. Seastrom (May 12)
- Re: Spamcop Eric Brunner-Williams (May 11)
- Re: Spamcop Guðbjörn S . Hreinsson (May 11)
- Message not available
- Re: Spamcop Guðbjörn S . Hreinsson (May 11)
- Re: Spamcop Valdis . Kletnieks (May 11)
- Message not available
- Re: Spamcop Chris Brenton (May 11)
- Re: Spamcop Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. (May 11)
- Re: Spamcop Chris Brenton (May 11)
- Re: Spamcop Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. (May 11)
- Re: Spamcop chuck goolsbee (May 11)
- Re: Spamcop Christopher McCrory (May 11)
- Re: Spamcop Jared Mauch (May 11)
- Re: Spamcop JC Dill (May 11)
- Re: Spamcop Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. (May 11)