[SC-Help] Re: roving.com spammers stay out of spamcop

[Merlyn]

"D.Diaz" <gospamming at yourdomain.invalid> wrote in message 
news:Xns95DBBFC891AE3xnddmxn at 216.154.195.61...
>
> No deal, but just the way the weighting algorithm works, I think.
>
> http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/297.html
>
> [quoting relevant part: "How the SCBL Works"]
>
> The SCBL weights the number of reports referencing an IP against a
> sample of the total amount of email sent by that IP. This method is not
> perfect. For example, some IPs which send a significant amount of
> reported mail may rarely or never be listed in the SCBL because those
> IPs also send a lot of non-reported mail.
>
> [/quote]
>
>
> Let's have a look at the SenderBase stats for the 63.251.135.0/24 block:
>
> http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=map;mask=65535;net=1073414144;sort=ipsort
>

[snipped]

IMHO ask yourself a few questions:

Is Senderbase is owned by Ironport?

What does Senderbase say about Optinrealbig or any of Scotty's domains?

If you report spam from Roving does it go into the bit bucket just like 
Snotty Scotty's?

We get spam from Roving or I should say we block spam from Roving and have 
for a very long time now. There are many sightings in Google if you search 
other ways and other IP addresses they had or have.

The point is, "many" reputible blocking lists currently block Roving for 
spamming directly. It is only logicical that you shouldn't be in the Bonded 
Sender program while you reside on all those lists for spamming.

-- 

Regards,
Merlyn

A Spamcop advocate
No emails this account is for newsgroups only
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which 
they avoided