[SpamCop-List] Re: New NANAE discussion about SpamCop
/ at /.cn
Tue Mar 22 20:10:23 EST 2005
The ONLY email address you will EVER need
SpamCop Emaill service for a spamfree inbox
"Frank Ellermann" <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote in message
news:423FD725.50EF at xyzzy.claranet.de...
> Petzl wrote:
>> Propaganda. This is not to say they are clueless just
>> when it comes to SpamCop very artful at deceit.
> Same picture for anything that does some good but is not
> theirs like SPF. Seth and derMouse and some others are
> honest. It's perfectly possible to dislike e.g. SC for
> honest valid reasons.
> Bye, Frank
> 1. SpamCop does a lot of good.
> 2. SpamCop does some harm.
> 3. The algorithms used by SpamCop are not the best possible.
> [Seth B. <http://archive.iecc.com/article/spamtools/20031230010>]
SpamCop WORKS and is GOOD/effective as a spam shield
SpamCop is still the best of any anti-spam measure out there or can you
point to a more accurate one?
As I have said here and in NANAE SpamCop email users are the only ones
immune from spammers not seen any in NANAE of late. Exception being SpamCop
users who are taking the FULL advantage of SpamCop email accounts and
without fear publish a working email address.
Sort of tells one that for all the NANEA rhetoric against SpamCop the full
use of SpamCop provides one with a spam proof email address. One that
effectively attacks spammers by (not only) reporting every spammer that
tries. But also literally stops the spammers "run before it starts (I know
this because I look/check the SCBL before and after)
More information about the SpamCop-List