[SpamCop-List] Re: GoDaddy listed in scbl
michael.spamcop at michaellefevre.com
Wed Jan 21 23:09:40 EST 2004
Spam Hater wrote:
> At 03:22 PM 1/21/2004 -0600, Spambo typed:
>>Please show evidence that SC does nothing when informed of the
> Please show evidence that SC does *anything* when informed of the
> false reports...
I just posted some!
> That's the point I was making! There is no public
> evidence one way or another. There are way more people posting
> that they inadvertently reported legitimate email than those whining
> that their reporting privileges were revoked.
Yes, but the fact that the latter exists is evidence that it happens.
I'm not sure what further evidence you're looking for. The fact that some
people post that they inadvertently reported spam and don't immediately
get banned only proves that the banning doesn't happen every time. The
people that make a single mistake, and are paying enough attention to
notice their own mistake, really aren't the problem.
> If it isn't public, it
> isn't much of a deterrent to anyone else.
I'm not sure that more posting about banning people in the newsgroup would
help anything. Only a really tiny proportion of Spamcop users read the
> When we (tinw :) respond
> to the detractors that punishment is surely to follow, we (tinw) are
> just blindly repeating the party line without any proof that what we
> (tinw) are claiming is, in fact, true...
In which case it would make sense for "us" not to make that particular
claim. I'm a deputy (at least technically), and I rarely make that claim.
I usually say that the user will be dealt with - of that much, I'm sure.
Whether the action will be a stern email educating the user about the
right thing to do, or if it will turn out the user has been warned before
and will be banned, I don't know.
> Michael himself seemed to waffle on
yeah, sorry... I tend to do that :)
> who to bitch at because there were so many of them
> that did things wrong. That doesn't sound to me like evidence
> that anything would actually be done to discipline the culprits.
I imagine in the case of people that report email from a blocklisted IP
with a spammy-looking subject, they'll get a warning email pointing out
the mistake and telling them to be more careful. Most of them probably
will be more careful. I'm not sure that banning those people straight off
would achieve better results. (Not that it's my decision in any case)
> I am a strong proponent of SpamCop... I am not knocking it,
> I am trying to make it better!
More information about the SpamCop-List