So what you're saying is that the rule that people running
listservers should maintain valid recipients who want to receive messages from
the list shouldn't be followed just because it's a list about an antispam
product? The last time I checked, the most common reason for spamcop lists
is due to messages being sent to their spam traps. What's the point of
even having rules in SA for spamcop and other DNSBLs if you don't have a certain
level of trust in them. SA is more resource intensive that an MTA block
which is why so many still use it. I know that over 20k a day trip the
SORBs DUL rule here and around 10k trip spamhaus. You can pretty much
bet it's all spam so I can understand why people would rather use those lists at
their MTAs based on their observations of the mail flow for their
domains.
There have been messages posted to this list that can have
very positive SA scores simply due to the content. So based of that, I
guess everyone should whitelist users@spamassassin.apache.org and
spammers reading the list can just turn around and use that as their return
address because then the argument could be made that anyone who doesn't deserves
not to get mail from the SA lists.
I believe the correct process here is that the moderators
of the SA listserver investigate why the listserver got listed on Spamcop.
If it is a case where there are addresses to spamtraps in the list, then maybe
the list needs to send out opt-in verification messages to weed them
out.
-=B
From: Mike Kenny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 3:15 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: mail bounce warning for the list
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]>:
>
> MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious: 209.209.82.24 does not like recipient.
>
> Remote host said: 554 5.7.1 Service unavailable; Client host
> [MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious: 140.211.11.2] blocked using bl.spamcop.net; Blocked - see
> _http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?140.211.11.2_
>
> Giving up on MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious: 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
