[SC-Help] Re: spamvertisement reporting & a question...

[Jeff G.]

On 6/8/2005 9:21 PM Mike Easter scribbled:

>>Mike, could you elaborate once more why going into the body and
>>digging out the spamadverts is a waste for most?
> 
> 
> I didn't say that.  What I sed or implied was that SC has a standard
> protocol for spamvertisers.  The standard protocol is that it finds the
> url and resolves it [unless it doesn't] and then the resolved url's
> provider's contacts are notified.
> 
> SC doesn't use any tools to determine if that spamvertiser provider is
> unresponsive, such as checking and seeing if the IP is spews or
> spamhaused.  The only mechanism there is for an IP to have an alternate
> notify than the mechanism I described above is if there has been enough
> routing attention that a deputy has intervened and created a special
> routing entry so that something else is notified instead of the protocol
> notify.
> 
> So, very often the SC derived spamvertiser notify isn't a responsive
> one.  In which case the notify isn't really good for anything.  The only
> thing which is good for anything is that the reported url gets put on
> the spamvertiser page where sc-surbl scrapes it and it contributes to
> that db.
> 
> I say you could do that with a lot less trouble and resource expenditure
> on the part of SC and the reporter if you did it another way.

> What someone may have been saying is that if the options for notifying
> about a spam were to result in 'squashing' the cause of the source or/vs
> squashing the spamvertiser, squashing the spamvertiser would be much
> much better than squashing the source problem.
> 
> What I said in alt.spam the other day is that unfortunately, neither of
> those squashes takes place.  Given that nothing happens as a result of
> the notifies, then almost the only thing that happens is that the source
> IP gets listed on the SCbl, which is a plus because it helps us filter
> spam;  and the spamvertised url could possibly get put into the
> sc-surbl, which would also help us filter spam.
> 
> The notifies aren't doing us any good [to exaggerate this point for the
> sake of emphasis] -- the only thing that is doing us any good is to try
> to help us get the spam filtered.
> 
I was actually thinking of a post of a couple weeks ago where you said
one shouldn't be opening spam for any reason - I may has misconscrewed
something in that post - no matter now, we're all together here, farting
into the wind...