[SpamCop-List] Re: Great. Now it's my turn to get blocked.
sheila at spamcop.net
Sun Jan 25 18:02:21 EST 2004
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:17:46 -0800, "Bob W." <responseguard at hotmail.com>
wrote in spamcop in article
<responseguard-48FBD3.16174525012004 at news.spamcop.net>:
> Yes, it was a real problem. But if notice had been given to the host
> before the blacklisting had taken place -- possibly upon the first spm
> report, even before the spamtrap triggered immediate listing -- then the
> problem could have been fixed, and the collateral damage might have been
I would like to re-iterate that there were not multiple reports or
complaints in this incident.
As the information was conveyed to me by the deputies, there was a single
report, a spamtrap report, and that one single spamtrap report is the only
report that was ever received in this incident and it alone was sufficient
to block that IP address.
I do not know why, but for some reason the email sampling that SpamCop does
has always grossly underestimated the volume of email coming through our
servers. Whenever I have checked, and it has shown how much mail has
recently come through and so on, it has always been about 100 to 1000 times
less mail than are actually sent through our servers. I've mentioned this
in the newsgroups in the past.
In any case, because SpamCop sees such a very small percentage of email
from our servers, then the bad reports impact us severely. I'm fairly
certain that the actual ratio of bad to good email that is going through
our servers is less than the 2% cutoff that SC uses for deciding whether to
include an IP address in the SCBL, but based on the data that SC has, they
do not believe that to be the case.
More information about the SpamCop-List