[SpamCop-List] Re: Seeking Advice

[BMW]

Mike Easter wrote:
> BMW wrote:
> 
> 
>> I'm not getting
>>through the maze of these forums with a usable answer for me and my
>>business.
> 
> 
> Not forums.
> 
> Typically newsgroups are called newsgroups, and web based forums are
> called forums.  While forums can be anything from newsgroups to old
> fashioned bulletin boards to mailing lists -- in the context of spamcop,
> there is a webforum community and an nntp newsgroup community.  This is
> the nntp newsgroup community, the webforum community is over there ==>
> 
>>Please if you don't use the paid service, and you are not familiar
>>with how it differs from the free service, Please don't muddy the
>>waters with irrelevant responses.
> 
> 
> Re Please
> 
> I'm sure anyone will comment who feels like it.  You are being the
> muddying one.  Spamcop reporting comes in free and paid.  Spamcop mail
> is always paid, never free, and the users of the spamcop mail system
> have reporting facilitated for them.
> 
> 
>>Things in my email world have to change. My current structure has
>>things that work well and things that are seriously broken, with
>>little prospect for a solution.
> 
> 
> Then you should keep your ears open for suggestions.
> 
> 
>>My structure - I have multiple domains at which I receive email, some
>>of which are posted as contact info on my web sites (spam is a given
>>in this situation).
> 
> 
> There are a 'zillion' ways to publish easily mailable web addresses
> without hanging naked mailto/s out there for the webbots to scrape up.
> One site that has about half a zillion different demonstrated ways is
> this one -- oops, the link isn't accessible right now for me to
> finetune, so I'll get back to it later.
> 
> 
>> I need the new business so I'm unwilling to
>>remove the email addresses from my web pages.
> 
> 
> You should fix them so that they aren't naked mailto/s.    The link came
> back up.  I'll put it at the bottom^1
> 
> 
>> SC collects mail from
>>these domain POPs and places them in my "Held Mailbox".
> 
> 
> You haven't actually described how SC gets the mail from some other
> mailbox, but you used the word pop, so I'm going to assume that you are
> popping them to spamcop rather than forwarding them.  When you forward,
> there is an opportunity to exert some filtering influence by the
> forwarding system.  And, actually it isn't SC which writes the rules for
> things going to your held mailbox, but you.  That is, you tell SC how to
> put things into your held mailbox.
> 
> 
>>Also the
>>mail that is sent directly to my spamcop.net account also goes into
>>my Held Mail.
> 
> 
> According to your own rules.
> 
> 
>>If the mail "passes" through a filter it is moved to
>>my Inbox.  My domain POPs offer filtering so that the
>>"TeamAaronShara's" are easily controlled. BUT SC doesn't.
> 
> 
> If you were forwarding instead of popping to SC you might be able to use
> some of your domain's server's filtering.  Maybe.
> 
> 
>>When I get
>>these mail bombs it is very difficult and time consuming to sort
>>through hundreds of messages in Held Mail looking for legit
>>communications.
> 
> 
> One of the advantages of using a whitelisting only system is that the
> whitelisted mail is very 'clean'.  One of the disadvantages of using a
> whitelisted only system is that if you get unknown unwhitelisted but
> wanted mail, it is going to be all mixed up with tons of spam.  So as a
> result you are going to be 'digging through' tons of spam to find your
> uknown unwhitelisted.  You would be better off with a better
> discriminatory system than whitelisted only if you are in the business
> of getting unknown wanted mail.
> 
> The only people who can use whitelisted only easily are the people who
> only get mail from their friends or mailing lists and not uknown wanted.
> You aren't choosing a good strategy for your needs.
> 
> 
>>The frustrating part is that SC doesn't offer any
>>filter for the Held Mailbox, NO select by string, so mail sent
>>directly to the spamcop address always ends up in the Held Mail NO
>>MATTER What, and selection of the messages is all or individual
>>clicks.
> 
> 
> That's the part I have no comment on.
> 
> 
>>I'm thinking I'm at least going to have to change my spamcop.net
>>address. . . and not give it out to anyone (as inconvenient as that
>>  is). Forcing all communications through my domain POP, were I have a
>>fighting chance to mitigate the effects of the un-controllable.
>>
>>At the point were I'm ready to surrender my spamcop.net address I need
>>to evaluate whether or not I need to continue to pay SC for an
>>  account. There are lots of spam control competitors out there.
> 
> 
> You are correct.
> 
> 
>>I'm going to have to restructure, and I'm looking for ideas. . . Gotta
>>get it right this time.
> 
> 
> 
> ^1 http://spamlinks.net/prevent-spambots-hiding.htm
> 
> Generalised Hiders and Descriptions
> Javascript Email Encoders
> HTML Character Entities
> CSS Encoding
> Passive Web-based Scripts
> Web-based Contact Pages
> Other Methods
> Manual Address Munging
> 

Thanks for the VERY relevant comments, they really are appreciated.  I'd 
like to understand his difference between having SC "pop fetch" and 
setting up a "forwarding" system.

I think I found a check-box that allows filters to be applied to ALL 
mailboxes.  This could work.

I would like to find a script (could be CGI or perl) that would open 
YOUR mail client with To & Subject filled in.  The "TO" mail address 
could be buried in the script, and not available to bots.  There will 
always be problems like D&B who will sell your address etc.

Thanks again Mike for taking the time to understand my problem and 
suggest solutions.