I would say its extremely likely. Thanks for posting your experiences. I'm sure it shed some like on the confusing problem for a lot of people who arent familiar with the way many spam trap-based DNSBLs operate.
Spamcop will require multiple reports. But if a spammer decides to hit an address via repeatedly-sent multiple-faked senders (a common tactic), inclusion can be easy to achieve. The problem stems from the truly amazing way some of the upper-echelon spammers operate. They employ tactics that not only tell when a message they try to send is rejected from a particular target, but they will have that same message sent from another host IP with a different sender address, to see if it will get through that way. I occasionally monitor my spam trap, and I see this targeted systematic approach happen more and more. On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Mike Trittipo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Stu Sjouwerman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For some reason our list server got listed in spamcop. > > I run a Lyris server, too. Twice in the past year and a half it's been > listed for 24 hours in a UK-based blacklist. The reason has been either the > "please confirm that you're a human who really does want to subscribe" > message or the "sorry, you aren't a member of the list so you can't post to > it" message. A couple of the forged addresses being used by spammers are -- > surprise, surprise -- spamtrap addresses. > > So when Lyris does its "we don't put you on unless you confirm and we don't > let lists be sent to by non-members" thing, every once in a while the > resulting message goes to a spamtrap address. Examining the message would > show that it's not spam (although obviously it's unsolicited). But a couple > of the blacklist outfits figure that anything at all that's unsolicited and > to a spamtrap address is reason to blacklist. They say that receipt is proof > that a list is NOT opt-in, because there's not even an existing person at > that address who ever could opt in. Granted, receiving a substantive message > to such an address would be proof. But receiving a "please confirm" message > is the opposite. Still, I haven't bothered arguing with the two times it > happened to our server, because the blacklist was in the UK, so few of our > members were likely to use it. If it starts happening too often, maybe it'll > become worth arguing. > > Don't know if that's what happened here, but it's possible. > > Michael Trittipo > Minnesota State Bar Association > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (612) 278-6339 direct dial > (612) 333-1183 receptionist > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ -- ME2 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
