[SpamCop-List] Re: SpamCop auto ignored

[Brett]

EXCELLENT IDEA - can't wait so see that.  Even though no reports will be
files will this still update the "right now spamcop would detain this
message" engine?

"Argyle" <service> wrote in message
news:3A79C47C.EA57C635
> 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=-