Re: [Fwd: Re: Spamassasin over RBL, was Re: rblsmtpd -t?]
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 11:16:58AM +1000, Jason Lim wrote:
> > On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 10:29:41AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > Have you sent an email to the administrators of spamcop informing them
> > > of the sizes of the ISPs in question?
> >
> > why the hell should I, or anyone else, have to go out of my way to
> > inform some third party how large the ISP i work for is? or how much
> > mail volume passes through the mail server. even ignoring the fact that
> > that could be commercial in-confidence information, isn't the act of
> > demanding that just as bad as "reply with REMOVE to unsubscribe"?
>
> Well, what happens when you are listed in OTHER RBLs then? In those cases,
> you would have an even more interesting time. Let us see:
>
> >From the BLARS RBL (http://www.blars.org/errors/block.html):
yes, you quoted this before. who gives a shit? who's even heard of
"BLARS RBL" before? there are hundreds of crappy little RBLs around,
most of them run by complete morons.
your argument seems to be that because BLARS RBL has arsehole policies,
that spamcop can do whatever it likes.
> >From SPEWS RBL (http://www.spews.org/faq.html):
> -------------------------------
> Q41: How does one contact SPEWS?
> A41: One does not. SPEWS does not receive email - it's just an automated
> system and website, SPEWS and other blocklist issues can be discussed in
> the public forums mentioned above... Note that posting messages in these
> newsgroups & lists will not have any effect on SPEWS listings
the fact is that SPEWS lists known spam sources. this is good. i
*WANT* known spam sources to be blocked. I don't want to receive mail
from known spam sources. you seem to think that there's something wrong
with this.
i've been using SPEWS-enabled RBLs for over a year now, with no
noticable(*) collateral damage from them. i've been using them on my home
mail server which handles about 3000-5000 messages/day. i've been using
it on my main work mail server which handles over 75000 messages/day.
i've been using it on several other mail servers. SPEWS does *NOT*
represent a collateral damage problem.
so, for all your whining about SPEWS, there's actually no real problem.
hard to believe, considering the amount of noise you've been making
about it.
(*) meaning: I examine my mail logs closely every day and I haven't
noticed any; and none of my users has ever complained about legitimate
mail being rejected due to false positives from SPEWS.
> > what happens next week when rival company spampig starts up,
> > followed by spambusters inc, and a dozen more competitors over as
> > many weeks. should i have to submit my details to all of them just
> > because they want to run a business?
>
> Um... no... because many RBLs say that they don't care how large an
you miss the point and head off on an irrelevant tangent. never mind,
your tangent is easily dismissed too.
> ISP is (eg. Sprint), they will still block them. In Spamcop's case, it
> won't ban large ISPs, because if you tell them a general figure for
> the mail volume, it will take that into consideration.
why the hell should an RBL care how big an ISP is? it's not relevant -
they're either part of the spam problem or they're not. size doesn't
come into it.
that's one of the problems with spamcop. if a host deserves to be
listed in an RBL, then it should be listed regardless of how large the
ISP is. otherwise you end up with notorious spam-havens like uunet
being immune to listing no matter how many pink contracts they sign,
while small ISPs get listed just because some vermin spammer forged
their IP address in a Received line.
> > at least the other RBLs have technical criteria for being listed -
> > i.e. running an open relay or proof of being a repeat spam source.
> > by contrast, even forged Received: headers can get you listed in
> > spamcop's RBL.
>
> Spamcop also has clearly defined policy.
so? their policy is still moronic, whether it's clearly defined or not.
> Forged headers? I report spam to spamcop almost daily when I have the
> time, and rarely does it have a problem.
rarely is not the same as never. rarely just means that there is a
fundamental flaw in their method but that nobody has decided to use
spamcop to attack a third party's ability to communicate yet. it would
be trivial to write a script to do so.
it's also obvious just from looking at headers in spam that spammers are
definitely aware of how spamcop works and are deliberately forging IP
addresses and domain names belonging to anti-spammers.
> You are underestimating Spamcop's ability...
not at all. i've seen the results of spamcop's ability.
> Go sign up for a free reporting account, and you will soon see what
> Spamcop can really do.
i don't want an account from spamcop. i think they are incompetent
morons. all my encounters with them so far confirm that opinion.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
-- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: