[linux-elitists] Haha, SpamCop lists Debian
Fri Jul 5 10:28:30 PDT 2002
On Fri, 2002-07-05 at 12:59, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 11:25:27AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > 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
> Absolutely not.
> 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:
Good point. I didn't know if the debian list was a proper list in that
respect or not, sorry.
> > 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
Not sure what you mean here. Could you explain that point? Why would a
secondary MX cause problems here?
Blacklists will always be controversial, but I'm quite happy with
SpamCop's service for now. I score them as a 2 and set my threshold to 4
in SpamAssassin, so you still have to cross the other half of that
particular Rubicon before I'll spam-box your message. Of course, a good
deal of spam never makes it far enough to hit the DNS tests (I use the
More information about the linux-elitists