Let's be careful about going to SpamCop, maybe

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Y'all

Spam is a real pain. And list mining is a lousy part of our world. But
here's a response from the owner of a legitimate, excellent, balanced
mailing list about Windows.

>>
>>5) Mike's List, Spam, and SpamCop
>>
>>
>>
>>Those of you who remember Mike Elgan from the late, lamented Windows
>>Magazine may be glad to note that he's resumed publication of his free
>>newsletter, "Mike's List," available at
>><http://www.mikeslist.com/>http://www.mikeslist.com/ .The lead item in a
>>recent issue is "How to Stop Spam," a subject near and dear to all our
>>inboxes. Worth a look!
>>
>>Relatedly, SpamCop has again "blacklisted" me as a spammer (see "The
>>Crude Hand Of SpamCop" in
>><http://www.langa.com/newsletters/2002/2002-08-22.htm#7>http://www.langa.com/newsletters/2002/2002-08-22.htm#7
>>), so a number of readers haven't been getting their issues again. (Sigh.)
>>
>>Amazingly, some of my supposed "spam" was nothing more nefarious than
>>administrative messages from the Lyris server that mails out this
>>newsletter: In one case, a reader sent a malformed request to the Lyris
>>server, which wouldn't figure out what the reader was trying to do---
>>subscribe, unsubscribe, whatever. The server then sent out a polite admin
>>message to help the reader accomplish whatever it was he or she was
>>attempting. But--- who knows why?--- the reader then notified SpamCop
>>that that innocent (and utterly noncommercial) message was spam. It
>>wasn't spam, of course; in fact  the reader's own error had triggered the
>>server's reply! But SpamCop blindly tallied it as spam, and used it as
>>part of the justification for blacklisting me; evil spammer that I am.
>>
>>Around the same time, I heard from an ISP owner whose list-mailing
>>services also had been steamrollered by SpamCop;  I'll protect her
>>identity so the folks at SpamCop won't take revenge on her, but she said
>>this:
>>Hi Fred, We identified two (or perhaps three) lists on which the Klez
>>virus [on a subscriber's PC] subscribed a spamcop spamtrap address.
>>Spamcop refuses to confirm which list(s) the spamtraps are on or tell us
>>the spamtrap address so we can remove them, leaving us with little choice
>>other than to tell the list owners involved to re-confirm their entire
>>lists..... I have already disabled their lists to prevent any future
>>mailings until this is done. To put this into perspective, those two
>>lists comprise 2.2 million subscribers and we are looking for about 2 or
>>3 spamtrap addresses....
>>FWIW, I agree with block listing and use several block lists for my ISP
>>customers here.... We don't use the spamcop block list because they play
>>fast and loose with reports (as you have noted in your newsletter) and as
>>a result have way too much collateral damage. Few ISPs actually use the
>>spamcop list and many drop it as soon as they realize that it is very
>>flawed. Spamcop does have a lot of individual users that pay for the
>>service and these users have the option to whitelist mailers that are
>>blocked by their own block list. (I have an account there so I can keep
>>an eye on what they are doing). Sincerely, [Name withheld]
>>This shows why I've come to regard SpamCop as worse than useless: Imagine
>>treating utterly benign and reader-triggered administrative help messages
>>as spam; imagine having to make 2.2 million valid subscribers jump
>>through reconfirmation hoops because SpamCop thinks it found problem
>>emails at two or three mystery addresses... "collateral damage" indeed.
>>
>>My own list is far smaller than the ones mentioned above, but the effects
>>of being on SpamCop's broad-brush blacklist are the same. So: If you've
>>missed issues recently due to SpamCop's
>>cure-the-mosquito-bite-by-chopping-off-the-leg approach to stopping spam,
>>I apologize, but there's not a thing I can do about it. I suggest you
>>talk to your ISP or IT department to let them know that the SpamCop
>>blacklist is an unfinished beta product; that it's deeply flawed; and
>>that is wide open to both accidental and deliberate misuse.

This is by Fred Langa, check him out at www.langalist.com

Vern Hamberg

Would you like to see a challenging little arithmetic puzzle
that might get you or your kids or grandkids more interested
in math? Go to <http://cgi.wff-n-proof.com/MSQ-Ind/I-1E.htm>

Sillygism--

Something is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than a ham sandwich.
Ergo
Something is better than a ham sandwich.
--