>From the LangaList Standard Edition 2002-09-26
----------------------------------------------
There's a class-action lawsuit brewing against SpamCop and other
purveyors of "blacklists." It's too bad, because I believe most of these
folks are trying to do the right thing--- to help stop spam. But
they're doing it the wrong way, both in concept and execution. For
example:
As a LangaList Plus subscriber I learned about your recent
ordeal with SpamCop "Blacklisting" the delivery of your
newsletters.
Since then I have had first-hand experience with SpamCop's
heavy-handed, across-the-board, "Self-Appointed Gestapo"
tactics about blocking ALL email from a server used by several
ISP's, even though the offending email did NOT originate from
a subscriber of my ISP!
I was then blocked from sending email to my brother, whose ISP
had just contracted with a company to set up their "filtering-
MX server", who (unknown to the ISP) used SpamCop.
As I firmly believe that my First Amendment Right to Free
Speech was violated by this action (contrary to so-called
"established opinions" that state otherwise), I "went looking"
for any others that share my belief, and, BOY!, did I ever
find them!!!
Apparently I am not (nearly) alone in the belief that SpamCop
and MAPS (Mail Abuse Prevention System) both use tactics that
DO violate the rights of "the rest of us", as there is
currently a Class Action Lawsuit being formed to fight these
overzealous vigilantes. Since your newsletter was blocked, you
should check [it] out.... Ken Walters
The problem with Spamcop's external blacklist (offered to ISPs and
others) is that there's no corresponding whitelist of "known good
mailers." SpamCop does offer a whitelist function to its own internal
customers, but outsiders have access to only half the solution--- a
blacklist.
A blacklist without a whitelist means that good emails will be blocked
along with the bad: ALL mail from any given mail source will be treated
as spam, even if there's only one spammer among thousands of totally
legitimate, non-spamming mailers. That includes *private* mailers, too,
like Ken, whose personal one-to-one emails have also gotten caught up in
SpamCop's crude blacklists.
That's the basic conceptual problem with this blacklist-only approach:
Totally legitimate emailers get taken out along with spammers. That's
bad--- and it may even prove to be legally actionable.
Unfortunately, the folks at SpamCop aren't listening. They believe they
are on the side of Righteousness And Good, and thus are above reproach;
they also seem to have total faith in their technology. But consider:
I have recently been getting spam addressed to a disposable
address that I have ONLY ever used when submitting spam to
SpamCop. The address consists of a string of 12 random letters
at the given domain, so it is not likely from a dictionary
list. Kinda makes you want to go "Hmmmmmmm". --- Glenn Wolf
Hmmm indeed, Glenn. I don't believe that SpamCop is guilty of spamming;
but no secret name or address can ever be 100% safe--- addresses can be
guessed or cracked or harvested or stolen or Klez-ed (etc.) or otherwise
gotten to. That's probably what happened to Glenn's, and it's probably
happened to SpamCop's own spamtrap addresses, too.
Thus, Glenn getting spam at his SpamCop-only address doesn't necessarily
mean that SpamCop is engaged in spamming him; SpamCop getting email at
their spamtrap addresses isn't definitive proof that someone is spamming
them. But SpamCop takes it as such--- after all, their spamtrap
technology is perfect and infallible, right? Sure it is.
Interestingly, even some SpamCop users are getting fed up:
Thanks for your newsletter. I subscribed to see what it was
after seeing you getting trashed out for days on SpamCop.
I finally quit my SpamCop newsgroup subscription over what is
described in the newsgroup as a programming "bug" in their
system. Submitting a "spam" to the SpamCop system elicited a
screen requesting that the user either subscribe for the paid
service or stay connected for *three hours* to complete the
reporting process for EACH spam submission.
There is no doubt in my mind that this was a "let's scare you
into paying for the service" tactic. But the loyalists claimed
that it was just a "programming error." EITHER of these
explanations is a disgrace to an organization that claims to
be so righteous and perfect.
Thanks to them, however, I now am receiving your newsletter
and have something more interesting to read!--- Robert S.
Owen, Ph.D.
Again, I believe the SpamCop folks are truly well intentioned; I'm
willing to give them the benefit of any doubt. Alas, that's a courtesy
they don't extend to others. Just ask any of the thousands of totally
innocent users who have had their mail blocked by SpamCop's poorly-
implemented, halfway-solution blacklist.
BTW: I'm gathering reader feedback on many better *user-controlled* spam
filtering solutions, and will present that in a future issue. Stay
tuned!
Click to email this item to a friend
http://www.langa.com/sendit2.htm
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.
