Hello, On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 10:07:21AM -0700, Jay Hennigan via mailop wrote: > On 8/27/19 03:54, Andy Smith via mailop wrote: > >Last week or so I noticed that I can no longer send SpamCop reports > >to a large hosting provider. The option now shows up as: > > > >abuse#example....@devnull.spamcop.net > > > >with no explanatory text. > > Spamcop doesn't send reports to well known spammers because it doesn't cause > them to alter their behavior in a good way (such as stopping the spam). > Often they alter their behavior in a bad way such as listwashing, or they do > nothing.
I think it's my decision whether the report is worth it or not, as it's my or my users' addresses that may be listwashed. By disabling the reporting I now can't report it (without a lot more effort) and I also don't know why I can't report it. I don't really understand how me NOT reporting it leaves anyone in a better position so while I can appreciate that SpamCop is at the end of its tether with this provider, it would be immensely more useful for SpamCop to tell me that its at the end of its tether with this one, rather than to tell me nothing and just not let me report. Worst case scenario of me reporting it against SpamCop advice: Their customer removes the recipient and carry on spamming. Worst case scenario of me not reporting it because it is too much effort: Their customer carries on spamming and my recipient still gets that. I'm not seeing where SpamCop has facilitated anything bad in either of the worst cases there, unless we would argue that SpamCop users need to be protected from [the hosts of] rampant listwashers. But then there are so much other things that SpamCop users need to be protected from in the course of reporting that I would have to ask, is that worth doing? The main disagreement appears to be over what the best case is, with me thinking it possibly could do some good, and SpamCop thinking that it is a lost cause. I don't mind if SpamCop wants to tell me that it's a lost cause, I'll certainly bear that in mind and appreciate it, but does SpamCop really need to just not allow me to report and not tell me why? > There are different errors where the spam source refuses munged reports or > user-defined reports, or indeed no functional reporting address can be > found. Would be nice to add actual information in the case where reporting is disabled because SpamCop doesn't like the provider, then. > >Since… > > > >a) I know this used to work, and > >b) this is a pretty big provider that I am often sending reports to, and > > So you're receiving spam from them, you're often sending reports to them > about it, and the spam keeps coming. That's a hint. Come on now. Do I really need to point out that this is a huge provider, and that I am also receiving lots of spam from gmail, hotmail, OVH, linode, digitalocean, sendgrid, mailchimp, … ? Again, it should be my decision. You currently can't report spam from sendgrid or mailchimp through SpamCop either. Is that because they don't accept those reports (my prior assumption) or because SpamCop doesn't like them? (As an aside, in the past I've asked both SendGrid and Mailchimp many times why they don't accept SpamCop reports and they've never replied to that portion of the abuse reports. In the past I've assumed it's because they just want everything going through their reporting web page, but now I don't know. With them I only bother going direct because at least I do know they will action it.) > >c) I know that provider is represented on this list > > There are lots of providers on this list, and a recurring theme from some of > them is, "Help, I'm on $BLOCKLIST, how do I get off of it?" Being > represented on this list doesn't preclude someone from being a spammer. Can you show me where I said it did? I bothered contacting them because I've seen them active on this list, meaning I felt it was possible I would get some interaction. I am not cheerleading for them not being a source of spam. You know how you can tell I'm not cheerleading for them not being a source of spam? Because I have some spam from their network that I want to report! Who's making that hard to do here? If YOU don't think spam should be reported to such providers that is absolutely fine with me, but you appear to be quite hostile to MY desire to, for some reason. > The fact that said provider still is taking money from those customers and > sending mail on their behalf despite multiple complaints from Spamcop is > another hint. Just like a lot of other huge companies that I should have the choice to send reports to or not, then? > Are you still seeing spam from this provider? Despite their occasional > responses that they're "dealing with stuff" does the spam continue? That's > another hint. Funnily enough I don't drop all email from linode, hotmail, gmail, … yet spam still comes from them. I'm not looking for a debate on whether provider X is spammier than provider Y or not; I'm happy for you to have your opinion and me to have mine and I thought that in this SpamCop was a provider of technical details, not a means to escalate someone else's blocking decisions. I can use anti-spam techniques. I'd still like to be able to send reports *as well*. > >Given the choice of either not reporting or risking listwashing, I > >think I would rather risk the listwash. I can do my own analysis to > >decide whether to stop reporting and start blocking more > >aggressively. > > Don't use Spamcop then. Send your complaints directly to the abuse desk. Let > us know if it does any good. That's most likely not going to happen because of the higher work load, so I will never know. My main interest in opening this discussion was what people's opinions were on whether SpamCop should be merely a way to match up reporters and providers, or whether it is acceptable for them to be selective in what they allow to be reported. (Obviously they can do whatever they like and people can choose to use it or not, but it is not clear why some reports are disabled.) I get it that you find the listwashing so bad that the decision needs to be taken out of my hands. Thank you. > Or take the chance and hit the "Unsubscribe" link on something to which you > never subscribed. This risks the possibility that your address will be sold > to other spammers as "one who has responded to similar offers". The spammer > knows that you took the time to read the message, and you did in fact > respond. That is the chance you take whenever you report and I would like to be the one in control of that. > >If SpamCop really wants to take a stance on listwashing then I would > >much rather they gave an option on their reporting page. At the > >moment there are some providers who do not accept the anonymised > >SpamCop reports and for these SpamCop leaves the checkbox unchecked. > > Spamcop reports really aren't very thoroughly anonymized. Most bulk senders > embed tracking bug spyware in the message that Spamcop doesn't redact. > Spamcop cleans the headers but leaves the body intact. Yes, I am aware. Otherwise listwashing wouldn't be possible. But it's always going to be possible, I am merely reporting what SpamCop does about another kind of perceived danger to reporters. I would actually argue that SpamCop in general does not make it obvious *enough* that *any* report could result in the recipient's identity being leaked, which was obvious to me but may not be to many of SpamCop's users. But that's a whole other thing. Personally I would still use SpamCop even if an actual real email address of mine was passed along every time. > To me it's pretty obvious. When you see a valid abuse reporting address > modified to @devnull.spamcop.net it's an indication that the provider > doesn't care. It doesn't make any real difference whether they refuse > reports entirely or continue spamming despite receiving reports, they're > going to keep spamming. Fair enough if that was obvious to you, but it wasn't obvious to me. For many years I have honestly thought that reporting addresses are only disabled when they bounce or the providers ask for reports to stop. I didn't know that sometimes SpamCop makes a value judgement about who it is a good idea for me to send reports to. I do argue that I should be the one making that decision. I get it that I still CAN make that decision by sending the report directly, but in reality that is much harder work and that alters the value proposition of me doing it. I'd like for SpamCop to be a service that does the work to find out who it should be reported to, and then lets me do it, no more. (warnings would be fine though, if SpamCop thinks it's a bad idea to proceed) If that is not what SpamCop wants to be, as it seems is the case and I was simply unaware, that seems a shame. I think there is a lot of potential for confusion there and that at the very least they should make their objections more transparent in the report form. > Are you seeing any ham from that source? Yes, they are a very large provider. > Would you have bothered to send spam reports to Sanford Wallace > back in the day? I might not have used a service that didn't give me the option and wasn't clear about why they weren't giving me the option. It's already the case that whether I send the report depends on who it says it is going to and the headers, which I do peruse before sending once we get to that point. There are providers that SpamCop will let me report to today that I don't report to because I know it's utterly pointless. And of course the only option there is to be more aggressive with anti-spam for them, so a lot more of that will be rejected at SMTP time and it won't come up for reporting again later. Thanks, Andy _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
