Re: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-08 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 06:50:07PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I believe im currently blocked by Spamcop despite not being a spammer... You are not being blocked by Spamcop. Stop thinking this. If you're listed (which you're not, I just checked based on the headers; I'd appreciate the effo

RE: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-08 Thread Hell.Surfers
I believe im currently blocked by Spamcop despite not being a spammer... McEwan Family On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:41:20 -0900 Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- Begin Message --- > SpamCop is a rather arbitrarily-run service that has received a lot of > criticism for blocking whole IP ranges, thereb

Re: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-08 Thread DvB
Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > DvB wrote: > > > Kind of hard when your ISP is Yahoo! and you're not willing to pay for > > their pop server :-) > > apt-get install fetchyahoo > > I've been using it for months in a cron job. Works quite nicely. > Awesome! Thanks :-) -- To UNSUB

Re: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-08 Thread Craig Dickson
DvB wrote: > Kind of hard when your ISP is Yahoo! and you're not willing to pay for > their pop server :-) apt-get install fetchyahoo I've been using it for months in a cron job. Works quite nicely. Craig -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble

Re: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-08 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 02:04:48AM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote: > I'm sure no one would advocate illegal means of retribution against > spamhausen. Question: Is it in violation of any international laws to report to the Chinese government a spammer inside thier borders along with the claim that

Re: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-08 Thread DvB
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 01:15:23AM -0600, DvB wrote: > > Kind of hard when your ISP is Yahoo! and you're not willing to pay for > > their pop server :-) And, yes, I've written their support people and > > requested being able to view messages w/o HTML. Th

Re: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-08 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 01:15:23AM -0600, DvB wrote: > Kind of hard when your ISP is Yahoo! and you're not willing to pay for > their pop server :-) And, yes, I've written their support people and > requested being able to view messages w/o HTML. This, of course, seems > kind of silly when your mai

Re: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-08 Thread Nathan E Norman
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 11:41:20AM -0900, Andy wrote: > That is good stuff to know but I still believe spam needs to be reported to > the source network. If the ISP's don't know how they are being used by the > spammers then how can they help stop the SPAM? Of course there will always > be com

Re: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-07 Thread DvB
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 09:57:40AM -0600, DvB wrote: > > The biggest problem with spamcop, and reporting spam in general, IMO, > > is that you have to open the message in order to do so. Many spammers > > nowdays have little notification mechanisms embedd

Re: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-07 Thread DvB
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 12:19:05PM -0600, DvB wrote: > > Just disable HTML rendering completely. All you need is the headers and, > > besides, anybody who sends you HTML formatted mail (unless it's your > > boss) probably isn't worth listening to anyway ;

Re: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-07 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 04:08:39PM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote: > Well, only if it gets it right. I get messages from spamcop on a > regular basis complaining that I'm running an open relay, when in fact > what is happening is that a user has a .forward and the mail server is > forwarding his m

Re: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-07 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 11:15:40AM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote: > SpamCop is a rather arbitrarily-run service that has received a lot of > criticism for blocking whole IP ranges, thereby blocking tons of legit > mail in the name of blocking a spammer or two who might also inhabit > that IP range.

Re: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-07 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 12:19:05PM -0600, DvB wrote: > Just disable HTML rendering completely. All you need is the headers and, > besides, anybody who sends you HTML formatted mail (unless it's your > boss) probably isn't worth listening to anyway ;-) No, you need the full message. Abuse desks an

Re: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-07 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 09:57:40AM -0600, DvB wrote: > The biggest problem with spamcop, and reporting spam in general, IMO, > is that you have to open the message in order to do so. Many spammers > nowdays have little notification mechanisms embedded in the HTML of > their messages which sends an

Re: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-07 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 02:50:44PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I know this is off-topic but since joining this list I'm getting > increasing levels of Spam. I've heard that using SpamCop.net to process and > report spam can help. Is this true? Is it worth bothering with? Yes, but I think

Re: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-07 Thread Noah L. Meyerhans
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 11:41:20AM -0900, Andy wrote: > I use SpamCop all the time (30 times a day + ) as a header analyzing engine. > It does a great job of tracking the message source. Saves me hours every day > so I don't have to manually track down the message source and upstream ISP. > I t

Re: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-07 Thread Andy
> SpamCop is a rather arbitrarily-run service that has received a lot of > criticism for blocking whole IP ranges, thereby blocking tons of legit > mail in the name of blocking a spammer or two who might also inhabit > that IP range. In particular, journalist Declan McCullagh's PoliTech > mailing l

Re: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-07 Thread Craig Dickson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I know this is off-topic but since joining this list I'm getting > increasing levels of Spam. I've heard that using SpamCop.net to process and > report spam can help. Is this true? Is it worth bothering with? SpamCop is a rather arbitrarily-run service that has recei

Re: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-07 Thread DvB
Brian McGroarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 09:57:40AM -0600, DvB wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > Hi, > > >I know this is off-topic but since joining this list I'm getting > > > increasing levels of Spam. I've heard that using SpamCop.net to process an

Re: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-07 Thread Ken McCord
Brian McGroarty wrote: On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 09:57:40AM -0600, DvB wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, I know this is off-topic but since joining this list I'm getting increasing levels of Spam. I've heard that using SpamCop.net to process and report spam can help. Is this true? Is

Re: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-07 Thread Brian McGroarty
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 09:57:40AM -0600, DvB wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Hi, > >I know this is off-topic but since joining this list I'm getting > > increasing levels of Spam. I've heard that using SpamCop.net to process and > > report spam can help. Is this true? Is it worth bot

Re: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-07 Thread DvB
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Hi, >I know this is off-topic but since joining this list I'm getting > increasing levels of Spam. I've heard that using SpamCop.net to process and > report spam can help. Is this true? Is it worth bothering with? > The biggest problem with spamcop, and reporting

Re: [OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-07 Thread Robert L. Harris
Spamassassin works great. I've set my block level to 5.7 I believe and I think I get about 1 spam per day not-filtered. In the last 3 months I haven't had a non-spam filtered. I'm also looking at a volume of about 500-800 valid messages per day (yeah, alot of lists). Those are pretty good num

[OT] SpamCop.net

2003-02-07 Thread Kevin . Bewley
Hi, I know this is off-topic but since joining this list I'm getting increasing levels of Spam. I've heard that using SpamCop.net to process and report spam can help. Is this true? Is it worth bothering with? Thanks, Kevin -- The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the