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 NOT originate from a subscriber of PC>> my ISP! TF> Has the author of this part communicated the problem to Julian Haight? TF> He is the last one who wants to block legit mail. well, if it comes to the point of a class action suit, I'm sure spamcop has been asked about it, don't you think ? PC>> I was then blocked from sending email to my brother, whose ISP had PC>> just contracted with a company to set up their "filtering- MX PC>> server", who (unknown to the ISP) used SpamCop. TF> This sounds like a US-style "testimonial": purely anecdotal - if true TF> at all. well, remember, this WAS an article in a regular weekly email list. PC>> As I firmly believe that my First Amendment Right to Free Speech PC>> was violated by this action TF> Sure. US problem. Spammers argue with the same thing, or say that TF> their spam is not spam because the US Congress has made a law "501". I TF> couldn't care less about US laws, sorry. If their domestic law allows TF> spam to be sent under certain circumstances, they should send it only TF> domestically, and not to me. I'm not sure there IS a law501, I think that is one of those... legends? there is a law barring faxing UCE to businesses, but I don't believe there is any law ( except Washington state) that bars emails in the US. PC>> The problem with Spamcop's external blacklist (offered to ISPs and PC>> others) is that there's no corresponding whitelist of "known good PC>> mailers." SpamCop does offer a whitelist function to its own internal PC>> customers, but outsiders have access to only half the solution--- a PC>> blacklist. TF> Wait a minute... there is a whitelist, but you have to pay for it? TF> Which irresponsible ISP will use the blacklist but be too stingy to TF> pay for the whitelist? PC>> A blacklist without a whitelist means that TF> ...that you should change your ISP. I have a broadband connection, the only fast NON-dialup connection I can get where I am, I can't change. But I can put up my own POP and SMTP servers and use my own black & white lists:) PC>> Unfortunately, the folks at SpamCop aren't listening. They believe they PC>> are on the side of Righteousness And Good, TF> I am very sure that it was the Orgnaisation of American Spammers that TF> started the thread you are referring to. Before you get blacklisted TF> with SpamCop, they will test your relays, send messages to your TF> postmaster, and thus contacting you several times before blacklisting TF> you. If you are blacklisted because you have not taken action upon TF> their notifications, you can still close your open relay, contact TF> SpamCop (and the other blacklist services), they will re-test and then TF> take your IP address off their blacklist (been there, done that). sounds like a great plan and a good system!! 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 is like TF> clicking on the "remove" button. well, doesn't spamcop send each of us a "special" email to send the headers to, so they don't include our original email info?? PC>> Interestingly, even some SpamCop users are getting fed up: PC>> There is no doubt in my mind that this was a "let's scare you PC>> into paying for the service" tactic. But the loyalists claimed PC>> that it was just a "programming error." TF> I agree that I think it was "pushing"; they want people to pay for a TF> good service. I whined about it on TBOT. They have now corrected what TF> they claimed was a programming error. So this problem does not exist TF> any more; they have reacted quickly to a valid complaint. Why is that TF> bad? programming error or business decisions can both be changed, at least they did change/fix this issue. PC>> EITHER of these explanations is a disgrace to an organization that PC>> claims to be so righteous and perfect. TF> I disagree with this statement, though. It was worth a try. Didn't the TF> same author say something about freedom of communication somewhere TF> further up? If I don't want to wait 3 hours, I either discontinue TF> using SpamCop or pay five or ten dollars or what for 2 years. They are TF> no public service, Julian does this in his own time, why do you think TF> you have a right to use his service for free? I don't! I pay for services that work. I pay for ad-aware, so I can be sure my PC is free of spyware. I pay for web2pop so I can get my "free" email from yahoo on my PC using TB. I use spamcops free service, they didn't ask me to pay for anything yet. TF> Comlain to their ISP's with their half-hearted (and half-brained) TF> implementation of spam-blocking without subscribing to the whitelist, TF> combined with having no clue how to close all of their relays. And TF> being incapable of replying to the SpamCop warnings. And having no TF> clue how to get off the blacklist, even though the URL is given in TF> each automated SpamCop report they receive. it is truly scary some of the things that are out there, but still I think what is needed is larger fines and jail time for people that abuse the systems and cause pain and grief by sending out SPAM and UCE. I don't like getting it and I don't think they should get away with using an ISPs relays, be they open or not, to send out JUNK. that's like me borrowing your car to go for a joy ride! you weren't using it and it was just sitting there, right? no harm no foul. WRONG! They are abusing a system because they can get away with it without a sever enough penalty to keep them from doing it again. TF> IMO SpamCop is not at fault. I'm not sure who is at fault or if there is a fault. we need an international campaign to stop this stuff, and we need penalties to keep them from doing it again. If everyone was on the same page with their black & white lists, maybe we could get somewhere, who knows! -- Paul Using The Bat! v1.62/Beta5 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
