On Friday, September 27, 2002, 3:09 PM, you wrote:
I subscribe to the Langalist, and there was a great article in it today
about spamcop. I know this has been talked about on TBUDL some, but I
didn't follow it ;) Here is the langalist article for your reading
pleasure.
7) More On Spam, And SpamC
Hi Paul,
PC> I subscribe to the Langalist, and there was a great article in it today
PC> about spamcop. I know this has been talked about on TBUDL some, but I
PC> didn't follow it ;) Here is the langalist article for your reading
PC> pleasure.
The one point on which I disagree with the article i
On Saturday, September 28, 2002, 5:00 PM, you wrote:
TG> SpamCop does have one serious shortcoming. It does NOT reduce your
TG> spam by reporting through it. 90% of the junk mail comes from about 10
TG> major sources in China and a few in Brazil. They could care less who
TG> reports them and the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tom Geldner [TG] wrote:'
TG> The one point on which I disagree with the article is that DNSable
TG> blacklists are somehow actionable in court. That seems like pure
TG> nonsense to me. Nobody HAS to use
Hello Tom,
On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 14:00:40 -0700 GMT (29/09/02, 04:00 +0700 GMT),
Tom Geldner wrote:
TG> SpamCop does have one serious shortcoming. It does NOT reduce your
TG> spam by reporting through it. 90% of the junk mail comes from about 10
TG> major sources in China and a few in Brazil. They
Hello Paul,
On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 15:57:09 -0400 GMT (29/09/02, 02:57 +0700 GMT),
Paul Cartwright wrote:
PC> Since then I have had first-hand experience with SpamCop's
PC> heavy-handed, across-the-board, "Self-Appointed Gestapo" tactics
PC> about blocking ALL email from a server used by several IS
On Sunday, September 29, 2002, 2:53 AM, you wrote:
PC>> Since then I have had first-hand experience with SpamCop's
PC>> heavy-handed, across-the-board, "Self-Appointed Gestapo" tactics
PC>> about blocking ALL email from a server used by several ISP's, even
PC>> though the offending email did NO
Sh'mae tbudl-bounces,
On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, at 15:57:09 [GMT -0400] (or 20:57 in Wales)
regarding 'spamcop problems-more on SPAM/SPAMCOP' you wrote:
PC> On Friday, September 27, 2002, 3:09 PM, you wrote:
Sorry but no sympathy from me, and my domain has been in SPEWS cau
Hi all!
If you are so interested in anti-spam, you should join an anti-spam
mailing list. There are several, mostly populated by folks who run
blacklists or are sysadmins, and the discussions tend to be on the
technical side. Go to www.abuse.net to find out about one list.
--
--Scott.
mailto:
Hello Paul,
Saturday, September 28, 2002, 12:57:09 PM, you wrote:
PC> On Friday, September 27, 2002, 3:09 PM, you wrote:
PC> Unfortunately, the folks at SpamCop aren't listening. They believe they
PC> are on the side of Righteousness And Good, and thus are above reproach;
PC> they also seem to
On Thursday, October 3, 2002, 1:37 PM, you wrote:
JO> I believe SpamCop actually warns you that that could happen.
JO> If I read the warning/notice correctly, it's possible for spammmers to
JO> get the new email address when SpamCop sends a complaint to the
JO> spammer's listed (via dns) "ISP".
Hello Paul,
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:58:29 -0400 GMT (04/10/02, 02:58 +0700 GMT),
Paul Cartwright wrote:
PC> well, I have noticed a LOT more Porn and SPAM in my yahoo account
PC> lately, it does seem to have escalated since I joined spamcop, BUT it
PC> could just be the fact that my Yahoo accou
Hi Thomas,
On Friday, 4 October 2002, at 13:23:54 [GMT +0700] you wrote:
TF> On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:58:29 -0400 GMT (04/10/02, 02:58 +0700 GMT),
TF> Paul Cartwright wrote:
PC>> well, I have noticed a LOT more Porn and SPAM in my yahoo account
PC>> lately, it does seem to have escalated since
Hello David!
On Saturday, October 5, 2002 at 4:55:39 AM you wrote:
> You will not notice a reduction in SPAM if you only report it to spamcop.
I doubt that you will notice a reduction at all, not so much because I
doubt SpamCop but because of the vast increase in junk mail that is
foreseen by v
Hello Dierk,
On Sat, 5 Oct 2002 10:57:51 +0200 GMT (05/10/02, 15:57 +0700 GMT),
Dierk Haasis wrote:
>> You will not notice a reduction in SPAM if you only report it to spamcop.
DH> I doubt that you will notice a reduction at all, not so much
DH> because I doubt SpamCop but because of the vast i
Hi Thomas,
TF> The thing is that when I report a spam to spamcops, the headers are
TF> reported and sent to the originating ISP as well. Some of these ISP's
TF> are spammers themselves and it is no problem for them to harvest email
TF> addresses from the headers in spam reported back to them. It
Hello,
PC>> Unfortunately, the folks at SpamCop aren't listening. They believe they
PC>> are on the side of Righteousness And Good, and thus are above reproach;
PC>> they also seem to have total faith in their technology. But consider:
PC>> I have recently been getting spam addressed to a d
17 matches
Mail list logo
