[SpamCop-List] Re: SpamCop auto ignored

[Argyle]

gK wrote:
> 
> above.net is VERY white-hat, but just doesn't like munged headers from
> SpamCop users. I trust them completely. I have no qualms about sending
> in a manual LART the very few times that I get spam from them (and it
> doesn't tame that much longer to do than a SpamCop report). I do wonder
> a little if my email address is being passed onto large commercial
> customers for the couple of mainsleeze spams that I've gotten over the
> years that have come from above.net, but I doubt they do even that.

I'm not so sure.  Above.net has said as much themselves.  Their
rationale for requireing the recipient email address is so they can
challenge the sender - i.e. "show me the opt-in for X".  What they do if
the customer is unable to show that opt-in is somewhat unclear to me and
seems to depend on how big a customer it is.  They are pretty
tight-lipped when it comes to the details on how they "deal" with any
specific complaint.  I am not 100% convinced they aren't at least
partially complicit with "list-washing".

Not that other ISPs aren't much worse..

On this subject, I want to provide a new 'double-blind' type of report,
whereby spamcop accepts auto-larts from registered sources (spam traps)
and compiles stats on them without revealing *any* information to the
sending ISP.  So no report is filed, but no information is revealed
either.  It will be statistical only.  Then we'll see how useful those
stats are.

-=Julian=-