[SC-Help] Re: They're varying their shields, captain!

[WazoO]

"Lane" <lane at joeandlane.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.27.1118009823.169.spamcop-help at news.spamcop.net...
>
> Over here at http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/297.html I find,

As I stated, both FAQ "question lists" end up pointing to the same
FAQ entry.  The point being that it could actually be found from
either entrance pont.

> "What is the SCBL?
>  The SCBL is a list of IP addresses which have transmitted reported email
to
> SpamCop users, which in turn is used to block and filter unwanted email.
The
> SCBL is a fast and automatic list of sites sending reported mail, with a
> number of report sources, including automated reports and SpamCop user
> submissions."
>
> So I'm led to believe that "list of IP addresses which have transmitted
> reported email to SpamCop users ... fast and automatic ..." means that
when I
> report to SpamCop and SpamCop shows me the IP address of the sender, then,
> barring some internal conflict, the ip address should be listed.

The FAQ entry identified has a large portion of text devoted to
a mathematical model delaing with listing/de-listing.  Why did you
chose to stop reading/citing at the first paragraph?

> regardless of listing or not listing, the action (or inaction) should
> probably be corroborated with other RBL's

Huh? All the zillions of other BLs have their own requirements and
specifications .. that's why there are so many of them.

> I understand that a single report doesn't warrant blocking the ip. But
when
> SenderBase (which SpamCop refers me to) shows a thousand or more percent
> increase in traffic with magnitudes in full digits over the last 24 hours,
> I'm curious as to why SpamCop doesn't block the site.  That's all.
Curious.

There's a difference between "total traffic" and "traffic that gets
reported" ....

> Next question: is it absolutely necessary to "talk" down to someone who is
> clearly participating?

Talk down?  Pointing out that someone has already spent the time
to type up an entry that does in fact answer the question you posed
(and as you pointed out, posed repeatedly) is hardly "talking down"
to someone, other than pointing out that there was no sign of attempted
research prior to posting and making the additional remark that you
had posted exactly the same query before ...

> Please don't blow a gasket.  Don't respond if it is going to get your
blood
> pressure up.  Matter of fact, I'll just unsubscribe myself so you won't be
> troubled by my questions.

Rather than "subscribing" .. fire up an actual NNTP tool and point
it to news://news.spamcop.net/spamcop.help (for the newsgroup
your posts are currently showing up in)

> Thank you for participating in whatever capacity.  I guess I don't
> really need to know, anyway.

I find this to be pretty confusing.  As I stated, the publically released
details on how the SpamCopDNSBL works is in fact explained
in the very FAQ you cited.