On 11/7/06, Derek Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is this not part of the problem? That many of these people who 'deserve whatever they don't get' are operating under the mistaken belief that these spam vigilantes are protecting them from spam and allowing legitimate mail through? We can enter into a pointless argument about whether this is due to the stupidity of their administrators or the arrogance of the knowldgeable administrators, but the fact is that this is happening. This is evidenced by the number of complaints from people claiming either not to have received legitimate email or to have it bounced by spamcop or some such site.
Gary W. Smith wrote:
>
> Was the SA group listed by spamcop last month? I just now received
> this for messages from October 26th.
>
Who cares?
> < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> 209.209.82.24 does not like recipient.
>
> Remote host said: 554 5.7.1 Service unavailable; Client host
> [ 140.211.11.2] blocked using bl.spamcop.net; Blocked - see
> _http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?140.211.11.2_
>
> Giving up on 209.209.82.24 .
>
> Gary Wayne Smith
>
Anyone dumb enough to block outright on the spamcop BL deserves whatever
they don't get.
Derek
Blocking mail base soley on the IP address (whether because it is a dynamic address or has at some time in the past sent a mail to a spamtrap) is akin to shooting the postman because yesterday you received an advertisement.
The only way to kill spam is to inspect the mail using a tool such as SA and then reach an intelligent decision based on the results (the interpretation of the results will vary from site to site). Blocking IP addresses will not kill spam, it kills the mail system.The spammer will move to anotehr IP, the poor innocent user doesn't know what to do and either accepts that his mail may not reach all recipients or reverts to licking stamps.
mike
