[SpamCop-List] Re: Earthlink parseing not as good as might be
not at home.today
Fri Apr 15 00:01:05 EDT 2005
"Mike Easter" wrote:
> What rfc-ignorant is supposed to be all about is about being compliant.
> Therefore you would think that the website and the process would be all
> about the fine points of being compliant. [snip]
You didn't go into those fine points, but thanks for your thoughts.
I'll just comment on a few things.
> Personally, I would never block mailfrom a domainname on the basis of
> the domainname being listed somewhere in rfc-i. Would you?
No, I'd only block spam or attack sources if I blocked anything.
> rfc-i is that classic 'conflict' between the frustrations of those who
> wish they could make others do as they wish, and an inability to
> /actually/ do that. So, they are left with choices that resemble
> cutting off their nose to spite their face.
A bit like SPEWS then, when they extend an IP range to include those
that may not be spamming?
> And, the listing is about domainnames! What are you going to do with a
> listing of domainnames? Who uses domainnname listings for anything?!
Well, if I find an IP belongs to an ISP called example.com, and I want
to report spam from that IP, then it's helpful if everyone adopts a
standard method of contact for abuse. Of course not all domain names
belong to ISPs or have abusable services associated with them. In any
case I would use whois to find a contact. So, yes, I see your point.
> Or perhaps because no one gives a sh*t whether something is rfc-i listed
> or not.
But you said a listing of EL had potential to cause you some kind of
problem, so apparently you, or someone, does care.
> The system spamcop uses is not compatible with the system which rfc-i
> uses for [not] listing.
Looking at the reason, and finding that Spamcop gives an alternative
contact, it does seem a bit extreme.
More information about the SpamCop-List