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

[Merlyn]

"D.Diaz" <gospamming at yourdomain.invalid> wrote in message 
news:Xns95DBD1C74937Axnddmxn at 216.154.195.61...
> "Merlyn" <Merlyn at Spamcop.net> wrote in
> news:cs15bh$6h0$1 at news.spamcop.net:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I agree with you and Mc.  As I said, I'm just pointing out the way the
> listing algorithm works; and not trying to argue about its "fairness".
> If they spam, they are spammers; there's no argument there.
>
> I also noticed that 63.251.135.69 seems to be the only IP address
> roving.com has put in the Bonded Sender Program, and they seem to be
> spamming mainly from other addresses in their /26 block, trying to keep
> that one "clean".
>
> Now, another question I'm asking myself is... how many of those spams
> emanating from the "bonded" IP address have been reported to
> abuse at bondedsender.com so they get fined as per BondedSender's policy?
>

Good point, but would they get fined? Only Ironport would know :-)

-- 

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