[SpamCop-List] Re: KenRadio slams SpamCop

[Merlyn]

"Zeerover" <nobody at devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:c20ldp$h2o$1 at news.spamcop.net...
>     Hmm well in my experience, the problem isn't exactly SpamCop proper.
The
> problem is that SpamCop imports or uses the SORBS database in addition to
> what we report. SORBS blocks whole networks (or at least huge IP ranges).
> For instance recently they listed whole ranges of Comcast/ATTBI.
>     Now from one point of view we might say that will excert pressure on
> Comcast to clean up their act and get rid of spammers, but from another
> point of view, people that run businesses. and are interested in receiving
> email from their customers no matter who their ISP happens to be, can't
use
> SpamCop to filter the spam since the SORBS database encompasses many
> innocent users.
>     I think it's preferable that, since SpamCop can be very quick to
respond
> to a spam run, getting reports almost immediately, that SC should only
> list/use the spammers that it's organization finds - as we find them - by
IP
> or at least a very small IP range and forget trying to incorporate SORBS.
If
> I want SORBS, it is easily configurable on my mail server in addition to
> SpamCop. That gives business servers a more conservative and flexible
choice
> of how they handle spam instead of simply not being able to use a
blacklist
> at all since it blocks innocent people.
>     The bl's should be different, reflecting different approaches to
> stopping spammers and not incorporated into each other. That way a network
> administrator can figure out the best way to block the maximum amount of
> spam for his organization and not block the people they want to
communicate
> with. As it is, they simply can't use anything, or at least not SpamCop or
> SORBS. If SpamCop dumped using SORBS, then SpamCop could be used. I don't
> think SpamCop itself lists very many innocent people, at least to the
extent
> that it relies on reporting to get a spammer listed.
>     By the way, I've got nothing against SORBS, I've used it for my
personal
> mail since it does catch a lot of stuff and I don't personally care
whether
> it occasionally lists someone I want to communicate with. I just add 'em
to
> my white list, but a business doesn't have that option since it doesn't
know
> who might want to communicate with them.
>     Just a thought.
>

Please do not top post.

Spamcop does not use SORBS for the SCBL.

I have no problem using some of the SORBS zones on all of our servers.

Which SORBS zone are you having problems with?

SORBS is very reputable. If you do not like it do not use it, if you do not
understand how to use it then they surely have no problem.

You are probably upset with them because you think they are blocking your
ISP (Comcast) but they aren't.  You are in their SPEWS mirror
(l1.spews.dnsbl.sorbs.net) which actually points to
http://spews.org/html/S2963.html.  Your problem would then be with SPEWS not
SORBS.  Many Comcast people have been complaining about SORBS but they do
not understand how the SORBS/SPEWS mirror works because they will not take
the time to research it.

-- 

Regards,
Merlyn

A Spamcop advocate
No emails this account is for newsgroups only
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which
they avoided