[linux-elitists] Haha, SpamCop lists Debian
Fri Jul 5 09:59:22 PDT 2002
On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 11:25:27AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > Okay, so, I agree that SpamCop and its users are boneheads, *but* the
> I'm not convinced. SpamCop does an awesome job of tracking down spam
> sources, and users *should* be submitting spam that they get.
But many do it badly
> I think that if you host a public list, and let spam through, you should
> be prepared to a) be hated by SpamCop and those that listen to them or
Spamcop's policy is that mailing lists with 3 way handshake subscriptions
should _not_ to reported
I've gotten more than one spamcop "user" quicked out as a result of not
following that rule:
> b) explain the situation to the SpamCop admins and get them to make a
> special case (there are at least thousands of these, and the procedure
> is pretty standard for becoming "special").
And that's where the problem is. I've told Julian over and over that SC
should disable spamvertized reporting and any reporting that could go to a
secondary MX or mailing list (by default) to make sure that bonehead users
don't bother innocent mail admins
> There really isn't any other way to do this reasonably without letting
> spammers have a loop-hole the size of Dallas. It's too easy to make an
> open relay look like a "mailing list" and visa versa.
Yeah, that's probably a problem.
Sourceforge.net eventually got whitelisted after I resend all the bogus
reports to email@example.com.
If you don't want to just firewall them off, you should send all the bogus
reports to firstname.lastname@example.org, they'll get tired of it eventually.
"A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R.
Microsoft is to operating systems & security ....
.... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ | Finger email@example.com for PGP key
More information about the linux-elitists