Spamcop
in [UK Linux]
|
From: Simon Dean on 21 Nov 2006 11:20 It's probably wildly off topic this one... But there you go... I've been getting into some heated exchanges it would seem over on the Spamcop forums. You see, they're putting in place a "Mailhosts" system. I understand it's designed to see what mail servers are used in the relaying of mail to you. Now, Spamcop for me is a fine service, much respected, and I don't have a problem with it. But being a Linux geek with his own DNS, FTP, DHCP, Asterisk, Web, SMTP, POP3, IMAP, Samba servers etc, who is also a Computer Programmer and an anal retentive genealogist, some of the things I've seen from this Mailhosts system is a little surprising. It's supposed to strip out the name of the servers between Spamcop and yourself and tags them to either an existing mailhost record, or, it will create one. Me being with Plusnet, I have my own PrimaryMX! Mail delivered straight to my server. So, Im the only one using my mail server. Sounds straight forward. But for some reason it's linked me with someone else. So I think it must be linking to records based on the Backup MX as well. So then when people leave their ISP and go elsewhere, the new mail server IP's manage to get attached to the Mailhost. So this Mailhost, now has 4 or 5 different ISP's mail servers linked. Everythings sort of ambiguously linked together, and therefore, doesn't make any sense to the user. I point out that I have my own domain name, simtext.plus.com and have an MX record pointing to my mail server on an ADSL line on a static IP address, and Im told, no, it's not a domain name, it's a host! All mail comes from my isp! Administrators and Moderators then start arguing with bullshit and suggesting that a subdomain IS linked to a domain (of course, we should all know it isn't really, it only shares part of a name, in the same way that microsoft.com is not actually related to novell.com even though they have the same .com... or the way something.uk.com isn't related to somethingelse.uk.com... but try pointing this out, and it's you who's got the problem. Then when all else fails, you get told "Well it does what it says on the tin". Which as a programmer, really pisses me off. Yes the system works. But they present meaningless, irrelevent, redundant and ambiguous arbitrary data to the user. Ambiguous data that's cross linked under an arbitrary user defined name that has no relevence on their setup anymore... It's bad database design... blah blah blah "Oh well, it works." Cya Simon
From: MJ Ray on 22 Nov 2006 12:16 Simon Dean <sjdean(a)simtext.plus.com> > Now, Spamcop for me is a fine service, much respected, and I don't have > a problem with it. Nonsense. I'm an admin on one of the gnu.org lists and spamcop puts lists.gnu.org onto bl.spamcop.net with depressing frequency. I don't even use spamcop to trigger countermeasures. Anyone using it to filter their mail needs their bumps read. The Mailhosts nonsense described is roughly the sort of broken service I'd expect from spamcop. -- MJR/slef http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
From: Simon Dean on 22 Nov 2006 14:53 MJ Ray wrote: > Simon Dean <sjdean(a)simtext.plus.com> > >>Now, Spamcop for me is a fine service, much respected, and I don't have >>a problem with it. > > > Nonsense. I'm an admin on one of the gnu.org lists and spamcop puts > lists.gnu.org onto bl.spamcop.net with depressing frequency. I don't > even use spamcop to trigger countermeasures. Anyone using it to > filter their mail needs their bumps read. > > The Mailhosts nonsense described is roughly the sort of broken > service I'd expect from spamcop. > Ahh. The truth... erm... there's a phrase. But thank you for bringing this broken functionality to my attention. I thought it was a fine service, doing a splendid job, just a problem with their "Mailhosts" extension. You've highlighted another flaw in it's operating... I'll rethink my position on spending half my life submitting spam messages to spamcop! Im just gosh darn so reluctant to tell my MailScanner to "delete all spam". Sometimes, legitimate email gets marked as spam. But that's only sometimes. Cheers Simon
From: Andrzej Adam Filip on 22 Nov 2006 12:45 MJ Ray <mjr(a)phonecoop.coop> writes: > Simon Dean <sjdean(a)simtext.plus.com> >> Now, Spamcop for me is a fine service, much respected, and I don't have >> a problem with it. > > Nonsense. I'm an admin on one of the gnu.org lists and spamcop puts > lists.gnu.org onto bl.spamcop.net with depressing frequency. I don't > even use spamcop to trigger countermeasures. Anyone using it to > filter their mail needs their bumps read. > > The Mailhosts nonsense described is roughly the sort of broken > service I'd expect from spamcop. Spamcop.net can be used for three purposes: a) "binary blocking" (blocking based on spamcop.net listing *ONLY*) you and I "discourage+" it :-) b) as part of "cumulative" blocking score spamassassin uses it for this purpose with the following scores in version 3.1.7: score RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET 0 1.332 0 1.558 c) as a tool to ease sending abuse reports [ *every* spam received constitutes solicitation for abuse@* report :-) ] *"a" is brave/stupid but "b" and "c" do make sense*. I wrote myself a perl script to automate part "C" (automatic via www acknowledgments after via SMTP submissions by "spamcop -r") -- [pl2en: Andrew] Andrzej Adam Filip : anfi(a)priv.onet.pl : anfi(a)xl.wp.pl
From: MJ Ray on 23 Nov 2006 04:45
Andrzej Adam Filip <anfi(a)onet.eu> wrote: > Spamcop.net can be used for three purposes: > a) "binary blocking" (blocking based on spamcop.net listing *ONLY*) > you and I "discourage+" it :-) > b) as part of "cumulative" blocking score > spamassassin uses it for this purpose with the following scores in > version 3.1.7: > score RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET 0 1.332 0 1.558 > c) as a tool to ease sending abuse reports > [ *every* spam received constitutes solicitation for abuse@* report :-) ] > > *"a" is brave/stupid but "b" and "c" do make sense*. I disagree. b is just adding a random number to your spamassassin score and c is better done with whois.abuse.net directly - spamcop abuse reports are pretty hopeless IMO and often seem to go to the wrong postmaster. Another use of spamcop is to activate extra countermeasures, such as greylisting, tarpitting, extra DNS checks or whatever, but other DNSBLs are a more robust indicator. Another flaw in using spamcop for blocking is that unless someone is sufficiently annoyed (by someone calling it a fine service in ucol, for example), most spamcop blockers probably won't ever hear about its problems, because 1. the senders of false positives are probably blocked by spamcop too and 2. most people who understand the meaning of 'rejected due to bl.spamcop.net' or similar in a mailserver error will shrug, mutter 'morons,' note not to deal with them if possible, and move on. In one way, I'm happy when bl.spamcop.net lists gnu.org, as it saves me the trouble of dealing with complaints about those people posting from invalid email addresses, after conversations are taken off-list. Regards, -- MJR/slef http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ |