[SpamCop-List] Re: Blacklists don't work

[Mike Easter]

Bucky wrote:
>> Bucky wrote:
>>> SpamCop is providing the data. The data is wrong. As soon as I click
>>> the bl.shtml?IP_Address link, SpamCop reports that the IP address is
>>> not listed.
>>
<my cite>
>> I suspect that if something is stamping your mail 'suspected spam'
>> and the issue IP is not SCbl listed, then the 'suspected spam' label
>> has nothing to do with the SCbl.  Whatever is doing that must be
>> providing misinformation by associating its spamlabel with SC.
>
> By the time I go to look at the blcheck, the IP has been removed from
> Spamcop. It is still listed under the senderbase link.

As far as I'm concerned, if we are going to have a discussion about some
IP being listed or not being listed, we have to talk about the specific
IP - not some 'described' unidentified IP.  You say, I saw this, and I
saw that, but we aren't looking at whatever you were looking at, and
your notion that you have it all figured out because there is a
discrepancy between the senderbase listing and the SC webbased listing
isn't a 'comprehensive' picture of the particular IP which seems to be
having trouble.

What is the IP in question?  You have brought up mail you have
/received/ and you have brought up mail you have /sent/, but you haven't
named a single IP yet.

>>> There are people on this newsgroup asking why they have been listed
>>> when the report back from SpamCop only shows 2 spam reports.
>>
>> If you have an old specific issue or thread you would like to use as
>> a reference or an example, you will have to name the thread or the
>> date and the poster or something, or else you are just making
>> something up.
>
>
> 16/02/2005: Rob: Re: How can I find out why we were black listed?
>> -- SPAM SOURCE REPORT --
>> IP Address Start/Duration Trap User Mole Simp Additional comments
>> 209.251.xx.xx  Feb 15 23h/0 0 2 0 0

Notice that

 - I didn't participate in that discussion, mostly because the poster
never named the IP
 - Even when trying to show some 'evidence', the IP in question was
munged
 - This discussion is going the same way - some bellyaching and no IP
being named.

> As far as I can see, no one in the thread disputed that only two
> people had reported it as spam?

As far as I can see, we were never talking about a /real/ issue that
'we' can put a finger on.  Until we start talking about an *ACTUAL* IP
instead of some unknown mysterious spectral ghostlike entity which no
one has seen but the complainer, we won't be able to pin anything down.

-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin