RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop blocked message but not blocked

[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Panda Consulting S.A. Luis Alberto Arango > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:20 PM > To: declude.junkmail@declude.com > Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop blocked message but not blocked > > > Today I found this in a message (declude logs

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop blocked message but not blocked

coles, 20 de Septiembre de 2006 07:45 a.m. > To: declude.junkmail@declude.com > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop blocked message but > not blocked > > Yes, servers can be removed from Spamcop pretty quick > depending on various factors. FWIW IMO Spamcop tends to list &g

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop blocked message but not blocked

: "Panda Consulting S.A. Luis Alberto Arango" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:20 PM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop blocked message but not blocked Today I found this in a message (declude logs) Msg failed SPAMCOP ("Blocked - see http://www

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop blocked message but not blocked

19, 2006 8:20 PM > To: declude.junkmail@declude.com > Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop blocked message but not blocked > > > Today I found this in a message (declude logs) > > Msg failed SPAMCOP ("Blocked - see > http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?216.9.248.51"; > &

[Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop blocked message but not blocked

Today I found this in a message (declude logs) Msg failed SPAMCOP ("Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?216.9.248.51"; I verified why was this address blocked and found out that Spamcop site says "216.9.248.51 not listed in bl.spamcop.net" Verification was done 5 hours after the block

[Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop listing google's IPs

Check http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=blcheck&ip=66.249.82.224 So.. Be careful if you are giving spamcop high scores. Luis Arango --- 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

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop

il is held. Removing spamcop from your testing would be a mistake IMHO. Travis - Original Message - From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop Richard, Last I checked, SpamCop was tagging a

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop

nyway... Richard Farris Ethixs Online 1.270.247. Office 1.800.548.3877 Tech Support "Crossroads to a Cleaner Internet" - Original Message - From: "Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED])" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [Decl

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop

For me this month spamcop has been correct 99.3% of the time. It has detected about 45% of all spams. - Original Message - From: "Richard Farris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop I have alr

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop

Monday, November 21, 2005 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop gmail has many outbound servers - chances are one of the messages went via a server listed in spamcop. Spamcop these days has been proving to be less and less reliable - I can't tell you how often AOL, Earthlink, Gmail

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop

ernet" - Original Message - From: "Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED])" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop gmail has many outbound servers - chances are one of the messages went via a server listed in spamcop. S

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop

gmail has many outbound servers - chances are one of the messages went via a server listed in spamcop. Spamcop these days has been proving to be less and less reliable - I can't tell you how often AOL, Earthlink, Gmail, Attbi, and other big ISP's get listed... Darrell -

[Declude.JunkMail] spamcop

I just sent myself 4 messages all the same from my gmail to my ethixs.com account and 3 came thru and one got caught in the filter because of spamcop? 3 of the messages had a weight of 0 and the one that was caught had a weight of 33does this make any sense...all the messages were the same e

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop catching Gmail

I noticed that Spamcop is catching email from GMAIL.COM Is there another real-time black list to use that is as good Spamcop was. Gmail is slow on their TOS reports. I have sent in 30 so far and it normally takes 5 working days for them to kill the account and reply. However, I have spamcop

[Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop catching Gmail

I noticed that Spamcop is catching email from GMAIL.COM Is there another real-time black list to use that is as good Spamcop was. Fred --- 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"

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop catching gmail

ernet" - Original Message - From: "Colbeck, Andrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 11:58 AM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop catching gmail Do you have an example, Richard? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTE

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop catching gmail

hard Farris Ethixs Online 1.270.247. Office 1.800.548.3877 Tech Support "Crossroads to a Cleaner Internet" - Original Message - From: "Richard Farris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 11:48 AM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop catching gm

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop catching gmail

Do you have an example, Richard? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Farris Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 9:48 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop catching gmail I am finding several legitimate

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop catching gmail

Richard, This is a common complaint of a lot of people about Spamcop including myself. They have no issues listing AOL, Hotmail, etc. It's just the way their system works. It takes in really no consideration that yes they may leak some spam - but all in all they are legit servers. Darrel

[Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop catching gmail

I am finding several legitimate emails held by spamcop...why would they list gmail.. Richard Farris Ethixs Online 1.270.247. Office 1.800.548.3877 Tech Support "Crossroads to a Cleaner Internet" --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mai

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop blacklist "Misdirected bounces"

 Skywaves, Inc.       - Original Message - From: John Tolmachoff (Lists) To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 2:58 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop blacklist "Misdirected bounces" Let me guess, you are using

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop blacklist "Misdirected bounces"

on 4/12/05 2:33 PM, Technical Support wrote: > Has anyone else had this issue before, > and if so, what can be done to fix it? Yes, one of my servers is listed somewhere (sorbs I think). Setup an outbound rule in IMail, any message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "undeliverable mail" ge

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop blacklist "Misdirected bounces"

@declude.com Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop blacklist "Misdirected bounces"   I just found out that our mail server has been blacklisted by spamcop, apparently for "Misdirected bounces" which seems to be nothing more than bouncing a message after first accepting it  (I pasted S

[Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop blacklist "Misdirected bounces"

I just found out that our mail server has been blacklisted by spamcop, apparently for "Misdirected bounces" which seems to be nothing more than bouncing a message after first accepting it  (I pasted Spamcop's explanation below).  I'm running Imail v8.05 with declude v1.82, and I'm not sure

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing AOL webmail servers

I do the same. -d - Original Message - From: "Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED])" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing AOL webmail servers SpamCop and pretty well every other blacklisting service make

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing AOL webmail servers

Behalf Of Colbeck, Andrew > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 9:37 AM > To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing AOL webmail servers > > Well, John. I'm sure that's a rhetorical question, but I'm feeling a > little chatty whil

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing AOL webmail servers

EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 11:02 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing AOL webmail servers > SpamCop and pretty well every other blacklisting service make no > allowance for how much g

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing AOL webmail servers

SpamCop and pretty well every other blacklisting service make no allowance for how much good mail is coming from an IP address. They only do blacklisting. I am not sure how many people actually do this, but I give a small weight back to the message if it was truely sent from an AOL MX. This help

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing AOL webmail servers

too (but I'm not there yet). Andrew 8) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff (Lists) Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 7:10 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing AOL webmail se

[Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing AOL webmail servers

http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?205.188.139.132 WHY? (grumble mumble grumble &^%&^$^*(&^%^%&^&^&) John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail maili

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 5:02 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing? > Ernesto, > > I am not sure if anyone else has covered this or even if this is applicable, > but some ISP's like AT&T will deny DNS queries for known spam lists like > SPAMCOP while a

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

rom: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing? >Has there been a change in the cfg files lately, or something? >I've seen a few domains/IPs that Spamcop does have listed, >yet,

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

Do you have do you have any further information about this statement - what type of errors, etc. "It is important to note that you should only have one DNS server listed in the IMail SMTP settings (IMail has a known sporadic issue if there are multiple DNS servers listed)." The issue I am aware of

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

Scott: Do you have do you have any further information about this statement - what type of errors, etc. "It is important to note that you should only have one DNS server listed in the IMail SMTP settings (IMail has a known sporadic issue if there are multiple DNS servers listed)." We have used

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

That did it! I completely forgot to look in the SMTP dns settings. Once I changed that, bang...lot's o' Spam being caught. Thanks! - Original Message - From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [Dec

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

> It is important to note that you should only have one DNS > server listed in the IMail SMTP settings (IMail has a known > sporadic issue if there are multiple DNS servers listed). Really? I've listed 3 DNS for over 4 years now without any problem. Is there any KB article? I'm not sure if they ha

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

Thanks for the reply. I have checked my DNS settings, but everything is fine. It is important to note that you should only have one DNS server listed in the IMail SMTP settings (IMail has a known sporadic issue if there are multiple DNS servers listed). I've checked again, and nothing is be

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

> It is important to note that you should only have one DNS > server listed in the IMail SMTP settings (IMail has a known > sporadic issue if there are multiple DNS servers listed). Really? I've listed 3 DNS for over 4 years now without any problem. Is there any KB article? Markus --- [This

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

y DNS settings, how can I check to make sure that I do have it correct. thanks - Original Message - From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing? > > >Has there been a

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

Has there been a change in the cfg files lately, or something? I've seen a few domains/IPs that Spamcop does have listed, yet, they don't appear to have failed the spamcop test. This is the line I have in my cfg file: SPAMCOP ip4r bl.spamcop.net 127.0.0.2 5 0 Is there something I should notice so

[Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

Has there been a change in the cfg files lately, or something? I've seen a few domains/IPs that Spamcop does have listed, yet, they don't appear to have failed the spamcop test. This is the line I have in my cfg file: SPAMCOP ip4r bl.spamcop.net 127.0.0.2 5 0 Is there something I should notice

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop Listed

lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2004 7:53 PM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop Listed > Hi all> > DNSStuff shows my server listed in spamcop:> >   SPAMCOP  LISTED (127.0.0.2)  TXT= "Blocked - see> http://www.spamcop.ne

[Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop Listed

Hi all DNSStuff shows my server listed in spamcop: SPAMCOP LISTED (127.0.0.2) TXT= "Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?208.154.200.6"; 1745 seconds 0 ms But spamcop.net showing it as not listed: 208.154.200.6 not listed in bl.spamcop.net What is going on ? --- [This E-m

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP

ril 01, 2004 8:41 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP > > > Scott, > > It's AT&T's DNS servers. I wonder if they are doing something to block > those kinds of lookup's. > > Darrell > > -Original Message-

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP

I noticed this about a year ago on some of the other DNSBL's; they are trying to reduce DNS load by making these types of queries fail. > Scott, > > It's AT&T's DNS servers. I wonder if they are doing something to block > those kinds of lookup's. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Dec

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP

TECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP >I noticed that several RBL's have not been triggered off one of our backup >mail servers over the last 24 hours. For example SPAMCOP hasn't. I turned >on "DEBUG" mode and noticed that it was reporting this > >04/01/

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP

I noticed that several RBL's have not been triggered off one of our backup mail servers over the last 24 hours. For example SPAMCOP hasn't. I turned on "DEBUG" mode and noticed that it was reporting this 04/01/2004 10:56:53.296 Q3bbb215802381bda Test #18 [ORDB] is same as Test #18 [ORDB=*]. Answ

[Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP

I noticed that several RBL's have not been triggered off one of our backup mail servers over the last 24 hours. For example SPAMCOP hasn't. I turned on "DEBUG" mode and noticed that it was reporting this 04/01/2004 10:56:53.296 Q3bbb215802381bda Test #18 [ORDB] is same as Test #18 [ORDB=*]. Answ

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop acting up

Sounds like something that would be easy for them to improve. I hope that you've given them the recommendation of exposing the data in TXT records. I just started building some spamtraps myself, and before I can make use of them, I'm going to have to weed out at least the large ISP and broadb

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop acting up

SpamCop is a very important test, and I would imagine that with a week's work, they could correct all issues with tagging mail servers that handle over 50% of legitimate E-mail traffic in the US. For years, I have thought that they should return the spam/total ratio for mailservers (which they

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop acting up

Original Message - From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 4:03 PM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop acting up Earlier this week, SpamCop tagged at least two different AOL mail s

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop acting up

Matt, Did you ever consider that they tagged 2 different AOL mail servers because they were sending spam? Dan Geiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 4:03 PM Subj

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop acting up

[EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 3:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop acting up > > > Earlier this week, SpamCop tagged at least two different AOL mail > servers. I don

[Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop acting up

Earlier this week, SpamCop tagged at least two different AOL mail servers. I don't get it. Minus one more point for SpamCop... Matt -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ =

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing Webtv.net IP

SpamCop and MailPolice both got demoted on my system by a point today, and I hope to bring them down another point soon (after measuring the effect on my system). When I see ISP mail servers listed, it is generally due to one of two things...they either have no controls on someone doing a bulk

[Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing Webtv.net IP

Great, SpamCop is listing WebTV.net mail server IP falsely. Looking at the samples, they look legit to me. Has anyone actually seen spam come from a WebTV.net server? John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://ww

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Question

Doug, I don't think anything is wrong. SpamC. is returning a TXT record with that information. The link says that's experimental. Burzin At 12:22 PM 12/19/2003, you wrote: I was looking at the headers and saw SPAMCOP : Blocked Is that how it should be - what it's returning? If not, ideas on w

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Question

I was looking at the headers and saw SPAMCOP : Blocked Is that how it should be - what it's returning? If not, ideas on what could be wrong? That is what it is returning: X-RBL-Warning: SPAMCOP: Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?66.111

[Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Question

I was looking at the headers and saw SPAMCOP : Blocked   Is that how it should be - what it's returning? If not, ideas on what could be wrong?     X-RBL-Warning: SORBS-SPAM: Spam Received See: http://www.dnsbl.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/lookup?IP=66.111.254.21X-RBL-Warning: SPAMCOP: Blocked - see http

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses Kami, What is the name of the filter file that you have entries of those type in? Thanks, Dan - Original Message - From: "Kami Razvan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, D

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

Do you have plans to offer offloading for WHITELIST HELO and WHITELIST REVDNS? Not at this time, simply because we can't envision there being a need for 200 such entries. :) However, the WHITELIST limit is something that comes up frequently, so it is quite possible that more changes will be ma

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

amp;tid=187 Personally, After seeing so many FPs as a result of SpamCop weighting, I stopped using it a year ago. Darin. - Original Message - From: "Dan Geiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:10 AM Subject: [Declude

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

Scott, Do you have plans to offer offloading for WHITELIST HELO and WHITELIST REVDNS? Thanks, Dan - Original Message - From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 11:07 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] S

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

Kami, What is the name of the filter file that you have entries of those type in? Thanks, Dan - Original Message - From: "Kami Razvan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:51 AM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Hav

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

> Yes... > > Like a filter file: > > REVDNS -20 ENDSWITH .amazon.com > > I put the period before Amazon to just make sure no funky > domain like .spamamazon.com can get through. Hmmpfff I hoped already that that could be a reason for unlimited IPBYPASS entries... ;-) Marku

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

Or does it just apply to WHITELIST FROM entries contained in GLOBAL.CFG? Only the WHITELIST FROM lines can be moved out of the global.cfg file. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers. Declude Virus: Cat

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

uot;R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:46 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses > > >Am I correct that you can only add 100 WHITELIST entries to the GLOBAL.CFG > >file? Is tha

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

Hi Dan, I've only seen one FP from SpamCop in the last week. I routinely see email sent by legitimate firms get tagged as spam, but usually these firms are using third party mailers to send information. Burzin At 09:10 AM 12/5/2003, you wrote: Hello, All, Has anyone noticed in the last few day

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses Kami: I've been taking a look at your configuration files every few weeks and based on what I saw there a couple of months ago, I also started WHITELISTing based on Re

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

Am I correct that you can only add 100 WHITELIST entries to the GLOBAL.CFG file? Is that 100 each for REVDNS and HELO or 100 total? Is there anyway to go past that limit and/or else offload those into a separate file? Actually, it's a limit of 200. The WHITELIST FROM entries can be offloaded to

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:24 AM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses > Dan: > > We made a decision a long time ago to whitelist REVDNS of all the folks you > had listed. > > We now have two REVDNS negat

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses Hello, All, Has anyone noticed in the last few days that the IP addresses of a lot of legitimate e-mailers are showing up on SPAMCOP's blocklists? Specifically I've seen IP addresses for NYTIMES.COM, MICROSOFT.COM and MACROMEDIA.COM and a few oth

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

er 05, 2003 9:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses Hello, All, Has anyone noticed in the last few days that the IP addresses of a lot of legitimate e-mailers are showing up on SPAMCOP's blocklists? Specifically I've seen IP addr

[Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

Hello, All, Has anyone noticed in the last few days that the IP addresses of a lot of legitimate e-mailers are showing up on SPAMCOP's blocklists? Specifically I've seen IP addresses for NYTIMES.COM, MICROSOFT.COM and MACROMEDIA.COM and a few others. Does anyone think it's possible that SPAMCOP's

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop news

lack of personal involvement in the validation and verification process, and like Mark said, "an inaccurate system is worse than no system." Bill - Original Message - From: "Andy Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop news

May be a commercial enterprise will be more open to adding a "hands-off" reporting system. Manually confirming every spam that I already determined as spam makes the system not practical. What they need is a commercial (for fee) account which includes the (revocable) right to submit directly int

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop news

Sure... if all they do is provide cash such that the spamcop services provides don't go down due to lack of funding, that will be a good thing. If they also take over some of the operations, then Matt would get his wish and they could afford to put in place some filters to make their service less

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop news

IL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:45 PM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop news > Check out: > > http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/19/HNironport_1.html > > SpamCop is neither confirming nor denying the report, but has put an > announcement of an announcement (f

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop news

Even though they say that it will remain free, it seems like good business sense for them. The value of SpamCop, imperfect as it is, still is immense and only MailPolice would seem to be able to carry on that torch. Hopefully with just a little more effort, they can clean up some of their iss

[Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop news

Check out: http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/19/HNironport_1.html SpamCop is neither confirming nor denying the report, but has put an announcement of an announcement (for November 24, 2003) on their news page which links to this URL. Form your own conclusions... I think it's a good thing.

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop

://www.wpa.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Smart Business Lists Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 7:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop SpamCop's dns is probably hacked: Your NS records at the parent se

[Declude.JunkMail] spamcop

SpamCop's dns is probably hacked: Your NS records at the parent servers are: invalid-address.joker.com. [194.176.0.5] [TTL=172800] [These were obtained from b.gtld-servers.net] Must have been down since sometime yesterday evening. Terry Fritts --- [This E-mail was scanned for viru

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account

>> I don't see the reasoning behind sending SPAMCOP thousands of e-mails per day that are already stopped by your system. << Presence in SPAMCOP is temporary. To REMAIN listed, you need to keep submitting SPAM so that the senders keep getting listed. Best Regards Andy Schmidt H&M Systems Softwa

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account

: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account Scott, I understand what you are saying. But I am only going to be forwarding High Weight spam to SPAMCOP. This is just the spam that I would normally delete. I'm talking about mail that is scored like 55 or higher in my current setup. A message which scores 55 typically h

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account

Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 5:36 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account > > >I understand what you are saying here. If there's any chance whatsoever > >that I would send a legit e-mail t

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account

eedback on my other 2 questions? Thanks, Dan - Original Message - From: "Jason Newland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 5:17 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account > Typically I only send SPAMCOP e-mails t

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account

I understand what you are saying here. If there's any chance whatsoever that I would send a legit e-mail to Spamcop as spam then I won't set it up. I think the real problem is that the idea behind Spamcop is people reporting unsolicted E-mail. The failure of enough Declude tests *should* indic

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account

on the content of messages. Do you have any feedback re: my other 2 questions? Thanks, Dan - Original Message - From: "Kami Razvan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 5:00 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account

t spam is click on the SpamSource button, and it submits to SPAMCOP. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kami Razvan Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 4:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account

: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account Hello, All, I signed up for a free Spamcop account a few weeks ago and I've been using it to submit spam via their web-based form. In addition to allowing spam submittal via a web-based form they also give you a unique e-mail address which you can forward spam to.

[Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account

Hello, All, I signed up for a free Spamcop account a few weeks ago and I've been using it to submit spam via their web-based form. In addition to allowing spam submittal via a web-based form they also give you a unique e-mail address which you can forward spam to. I was thinking about setting up

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop as reliable source?

Lately a reputable Listserv I belong to has begun failing the Spamcop test. I've whitelisted the domain, but it's got me wondering...is Spamcop a reliable source of spam, or would I do better by downgrading their weight. Currently I have Spamcop fails set to label subject as Spam regardless of

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop as reliable source?

DM> Any (subjective ) suggestions? I've seen spamcop get way to aggressive over the past 6 months. They used to be pretty accurate. We were listed for a while because our domain name was in an MX record (for backup store and forward) for a client ISP who had 1 user get reported to spamcop. We

[Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop as reliable source?

Hello... Lately a reputable Listserv I belong to has begun failing the Spamcop test. I've whitelisted the domain, but it's got me wondering...is Spamcop a reliable source of spam, or would I do better by downgrading their weight. Currently I have Spamcop fails set to label subject as Spam regar

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop?

We're using our internet provider's DNS server. It seems to work, but I don't know how to test it for the types of queries declude uses. nslookup works fine. Does nslookup work fine using the DNS servers listed in the OS, or are you using "set server=192.0.2.53" (entering the IP of the first D

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop?

event, once it has occurred, can be made to appear inevitable by a competent historian. -Original Message- From: R. Scott Perry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 1:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop? >Debug gives me these lines

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop?

Debug gives me these lines: 07/07/2003 13:10:54 Qa9930eca013e736e Test 1-SPAMCOP didn't get a response. 07/07/2003 13:10:54 Qa9930eca013e736e Test 2-JAPAN didn't get a response. 07/07/2003 13:10:54 Qa9930eca013e736e Test 3-MONKEYFORMMAIL didn't get a response. 07/07/2003 13:10:54 Qa9930eca013e73

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop?

Good call, Scott. I don't think any of these tests are showing up right now. I'm going to bump up the logging and take a better look. If none of them are showing up, did you make any major changes recently (such as adding a gateway in front of your IMail server)? I'm guessing that Declude isn'

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop?

7/2003 13:10:54 Qa9930eca013e736e Test 4-MONKEYPROXIES didn't get a response. -Original Message- From: R. Scott Perry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 12:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop? >Has spamcop stopped working? I'm

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop?

y, July 07, 2003 12:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop? >Has spamcop stopped working? I'm not seeing any reference to it in my >logs now (set to mid) or headers. It still seems to be working fine from here (see http://www.declude.com/spamtrap.htm )

  1   2   >