[SpamCop-List] Re: SpamCop auto ignored

[Argyle]

Huey wrote:
> 
> Argyle wrote:
> 
> >  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.
> 
> What they do at that point is enforce their Terms of Service, regardless of
> how big a customer it is. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please
> provide it.

I don't have evidence on hand, but I'm sure they would admit they have
had large customers who have made mistakes in the past (aka spammed) and
who are still customers.  Perhaps that's a good thing, perhaps not.  I'm
not trying to say that they shouldn't be showing some reports to their
downstream customers.  If they can educate a customer and prevent them
from spamming again, that's better than simply kicking them off your
network.

If I send a report to above.net and they respond asking if they may see
the unmunged header so that they can challenge their user, I'm 99% happy
to comply.  However, that is not the default behaviour I want for
spamcop!  Most spam does not require that type of information, and I
don't want to give it out unless there is a good reason for it. 
Moreover, I want the spamcop *user* whoever they might be to be in
control of that data.

> >  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".
> 
> ARGH! Julian- not three posts up of this, you were a rock star, providing
> supporting evidence for an RBL nomination for Telodigm, and I thought "Hey,
> that's great." Now _this_? Above.net is 'partially complicit with
> "list-washing"'???

I stand by those words.  There are no hard-and-fast rules here.  List
washing is not always a bad thing.  Perhaps you got spammed because
someone else owned your address 3 months ago.  It's no-fault spam, and
it's OK to 'just remove' you.  I'm not accusing them of being complicit
in spamming.

> This bothers me a _lot_. SpamCop and above.net are two of the primary players
> in the anti-spam movement. Everybody is trying to do the same thing here: to
> stop the spam. Everybody has a personality, yeah sure- and some people are
> bound to not get along regardless of how common their motives are- by way of
> an example I can point at my own current feelings towards Steve Sobol.

Well, regardless of your conflict with Steve, I like to think I am
pretty reasonable, and I am working on some new features specifically to
address some of the concerns that above.net has raised.  For me at
least, this has nothing to do with personality and everything to do with
policy.  above.net may be the gretest thing since sliced bread, but they
don't get a free pass.  It sounds to me like *you* are the one turning
this into a holy war.

If someone from above.net really disagrees with me here and wants me to
prove some of this stuff, I'll be happy to discuss it with them. 
However, I think I'm on the same page with above.net.  It's everyone who
is outside of that conversation who is making this into a huge issue.

> And making hazy unfounded allegations such as this doesn't help any.
> PLEASE wise up a little.

These are not allegations.  I'm not accusing anyone of anything
nefarious.  I'm just trying to point out where spamcop and abovenet
differ.  This is not about blame.  It's just a difference of opinion
about how spamcop should operate.

-=Julian=-