[SpamCop-List] Re: WANT SPAMCOP TO GO AWAY

[Mike Easter]

Daniel W. Johnson wrote:

> triplespiral.net has its MX host at 66.235.219.164
> teamega.com has its MX host at 66.235.219.164
> caribbeanpipeline.com has its MX host at 66.235.219.164
> There may be others.

There may be hundreds of others, there are over 1300 domains at that IP,
and I'll wager that a high percentage of them have their MX there.

> Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that teamega.com blocks but
> triplespiral.net doesn't.  A successful message to devnull at teamega.com
> and user at triplespiral.net might look like:

> An unsuccessful message due to blocking at teamega.com could be:
>
> 220 host64.ipowerweb.com ESMTP
> HELO yahoogroups.com
> 250 host64.ipowerweb.com Hello yahoogroups.com [66.94.237.24]
> MAIL FROM:<groupname at yahoogroups.com>
> 250 OK
> RCPT TO:<devnull at teamega.com>
> 550 Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?66.94.237.24

In your imaginary scenario, the yahoo would be SCbl listed at the time
of the transaction, and the ipower server would be configured to use the
blocklist [or not] on the basis of the rcpt-to domainname, of which it
might be handling for hundreds.

> Were those different error message from the same host or different
> hosts?

I think the yahoo bounce place doesn't tell that.

I would say that what make that scenario above unlikely is the
'position' that ipower describes at its website about how its spamfilter
does and doesn't work.  If you choose 'filtering' or not all you are
choosing is what happens to the spam which the server accepts for you -- 
you aren't choosing rejecting.  That is, no filtering, you get all of
your spam -- with filtering, the spam you receive is either deleted
sight unseen by some unknown filtertagger or tagged.  No spam is
rejected.  Or at least that is the way I interpreted what I read there.

But I can imagine a scenario like that if the provider had a mechanism
for rejecting mail with its server and if it were serving for hundreds
of different domainnames.

-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin