[SpamCop-List] Re: No From Munge
MikeE at ster.invalid
Mon Apr 10 09:15:51 EDT 2006
> From line. Obviously, this provides blackhats and spammers a means
> to identify "live" addresses and either listwash or increase the
> amount of spam sent.
You have another choice, and that is to not submit reports to blackhat
providers, but not mole report.
The most efficient current option for avoiding blackhats is to not
submit reports to the spamvertiser providers. At the present time, one
way to do that is to uncheck them from the standard report. An
alternative is to quick report which only notifies the source provider
and not the spamvertiser provider; because the report to the spamsource
provider is much less likely to be to a blackhat.
I continue to harp that SC should provide another option to the reporter
besides quick reporting and mole reporting regarding the spamvertiser
I argue that the reporter should be able to choose whether or not to
notify the spamvertiser provider, while still providing the spamvertiser
to the sc-surbl system.
A reporter should be able to configure hirself to devnull all
spamvertiser notifies or to have the devnull one of the options for the
spamvertiser. Then the regular reporter is reporting and notifying
spamsource, and also the regular reporter is not requiring spamcop to
try to resolve the spamvertised url, whIch SC doesn't do particularly
well anyway, but the spamvertised link still goes to a database which
helps those who use it in filtering.
At the present time, SC's algorithm is wasting a great deal of spam
reporting and a great deal of spamcop resources by not feeding
spamvertised sites to sc-surbl.
kibitzer, not SC admin
More information about the SpamCop-List