If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Information Request
"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message
... Sam Hobbs wrote: Using SpamCop can make things worse for you, not better. Gordon wrote: Eh? How do you work that one out? Sam Hobbs wrote: This was discussed in this newsgroup about a month ago. If you don't fnd that discussion then perhaps I will later. This? http://groups.google.com/group/micro...ef3a091960a12f Where you commented, "I used spamcop years ago until I realized that they include our email address in their complaints. I am not totally sure that is happening but I did read somewhere that they do. Perhaps they do not now even if they did in the past, but if they do include our email address in their complaints then it does not help us to report spam." Yes, except there was more in that thread. Ignore it if you wish; at least others have the discussion to judge for themselves. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Information Request
"Stan Brown" wrote in message
t... Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:22:44 -0800 from Sam Hobbs : "Gordon" wrote in message ... "Sam Hobbs" wrote in message ... Using SpamCop can make things worse for you, not better. Eh? How do you work that one out? This was discussed in this newsgroup about a month ago. If you don't fnd that discussion then perhaps I will later. In other words, you're just making it up. Thanks for the clarification. It is good for you to believe that. Now you will do us all a favor by insisting to use SpamCop. That will benefit everyone else at least. Thank you. For those that choose to believe what I say, SpamCop can be counter-productive for the person reporting spam. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Information Request
Sam Hobbs wrote:
Using SpamCop can make things worse for you, not better. Gordon wrote: Eh? How do you work that one out? Sam Hobbs wrote: This was discussed in this newsgroup about a month ago. If you don't fnd that discussion then perhaps I will later. Shenan Stanley wrote: This? http://groups.google.com/group/micro...ef3a091960a12f Where you commented, "I used spamcop years ago until I realized that they include our email address in their complaints. I am not totally sure that is happening but I did read somewhere that they do. Perhaps they do not now even if they did in the past, but if they do include our email address in their complaints then it does not help us to report spam." Sam Hobbs wrote: Yes, except there was more in that thread. Ignore it if you wish; at least others have the discussion to judge for themselves. I looked through said discussion... Bruce mentioned SpamCop first with: "One tool that makes forwarding such complaints fairly simple is SpamCop (http://spamcop.net)." Followed by your comment (Sam Hobbs): "I used spamcop years ago until I realized that they include our email address in their complaints. I am not totally sure that is happening but I did read somewhere that they do. Perhaps they do not now even if they did in the past, but if they do include our email address in their complaints then it does not help us to report spam." Bruce replied (in reference to Spamcop): "Well, yes, email address that received is an integral part of the header information that must be submitted when reporting spam. That's inevitable and unavoidable." Followed by your reply (in reference to SpanCop): "I suggested not using SpamCop. I said don't use it unless they assure us they don't include our email addresses in their reports." Poprivet replied there with: "If you mean spamcop.net, they do munge your address where it's in the clear. But what they don't/can't do is look in base64, etc. types of code to see if it's been hidden somewhere. If you read the FAQs you'll find it well spelled out. If it botheres you, don't use Spamcop. Do it manually. And hope." Where you responded (last response in the thread)(Sam Hobbs): "So let's get back to what I said. I said that using Spamcop could easily make things worse for the person reporting spam." I personally wouldn't call that a very conclusive discussion. Poprivet was the only one participating that mentioned any sort of documented facts beyond a loose opinion that I saw. In fact - I followed up on that one suggested documented fact and located this: http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/3.html Where they state: "SpamCop will parse the headers of unwanted email and (if all goes well) phrase a complaint to the system administrator responsible for the spammer's internet access. This complaint will be addressed from a blind SpamCop.net email address, however any responses to that address will be routed to the email address you have provided with your SpamCop account. You may be presented with more than one address to send your complaint to and can select whether to send to each individual address or not." Digging just a bit further - SpamCop/IronPort Systems was sued (in 2004) and one of the 'complaints" was: "The lawsuit alleges SpamCop deleted the email addresses of complainers from the complaints the company sent to OptInRealBig's ISPs. According to the allegations, "Neither Optigate nor the other ISPs could take any corrective action because SpamCop had rendered the Complaint to be anonymous." Barrett agrees this is a problem. "SpamCop reports delete the email of the person who's reporting the spam from servers, so ESPs (email service providers) have a difficult time removing the people who are reporting the spam."" Mo http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3348241 http://www.spamlaws.com/cases/optinrealbig.shtml http://www.marketingvox.com/archives..._stop_spamcop/ And more on what I believe was the final decision... http://lawsuite.word-to-the-wise.com/srannounce.txt I do not work with SpamCop/for SpamCop nor do I even recommend it currently in my list of tips... I have never used it - nor likely will I. I have no plans to recommend it or not. I personally don't see the point of reporting the email spammers - because if that worked - it would have by now. I get very little spam that makes it to me - even on an account that, by all rights, should get 1000's of messages a day (and does, in fact, get - on average - 100 spam messages a day.) It is all filtered and never gets to me and the chances that I could lessen said spam never enters my mind. It's a wasted effort - in my opinion - because of the tricks employed to send said emails. However - to each their own - if someone feels they are cleaning up the world by reporting spammers (or even just cleaning up their inbox) - more power to them. I personally just take the 'good filter' approach and never see the problem that collects in my mailbox - somewhere - probably. Do whatever you like - but do your own research and read up on things before you try it out. -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Information Request
Mon, 7 Jan 2008 12:42:14 -0800 from Sam Hobbs
: For those that choose to believe what I say, SpamCop can be counter-productive for the person reporting spam. Right -- you repeated the same unsupported statement, so it *must* be true. The contrast between your "it must be true because I say so" and Shenan Stanley's actual research is pretty striking. Whether Spamcop does or does not include your email address in the spam report, what does it matter? The spammer already *has* your email address. And it doesn't matter that you're confirming that it's good, because they don't care. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/ "If there's one thing I know, it's men. I ought to: it's been my life work." -- Marie Dressler, in /Dinner at Eight/ |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Information Request
"Stan Brown" wrote in message
t... Whether Spamcop does or does not include your email address in the spam report, what does it matter? The spammer already *has* your email address. And it doesn't matter that you're confirming that it's good, because they don't care. Confirmation of validity of an email adderess is valuable to those gathering and selling email addresses. That is common knowledge among those familair with spam. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Information Request
"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message
... Where you responded (last response in the thread)(Sam Hobbs): "So let's get back to what I said. I said that using Spamcop could easily make things worse for the person reporting spam." I personally wouldn't call that a very conclusive discussion. I did not claim to be conclusive. Thank you for all your research. I snipped a lot but I hope everyone interested will have access to it. I don't have time to be conclusive. If I am wrong then I apologize for wasting people's time. Note that my original comment was simple and suggested that people be skeptical and what to look for. I don't consider myself obligated to do or say anything more if I am correct. I see nothing conclusive that I am incorrect. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Information Request
Sam Hobbs wrote:
"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message ... Where you responded (last response in the thread)(Sam Hobbs): "So let's get back to what I said. I said that using Spamcop could easily make things worse for the person reporting spam." I personally wouldn't call that a very conclusive discussion. I did not claim to be conclusive. Thank you for all your research. I snipped a lot but I hope everyone interested will have access to it. I don't have time to be conclusive. If I am wrong then I apologize for wasting people's time. Note that my original comment was simple and suggested that people be skeptical and what to look for. I don't consider myself obligated to do or say anything more if I am correct. So, you feel free to cast doubt on the validity of several others' advice, and to cast aspersions upon an organization that provides a valuable service, all without seeing the slightest need to justify or substantiate your accusations? The normal term for one who uses such an operating standard is "troll." I see nothing conclusive that I am incorrect. The very fact that you won't even attempt to justify or substantiate your claims demonstrates that even you know you're unlikely to be correct. All you've accomplished is to establish your lack credibility. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. ~ Denis Diderot |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Information Request
"Bruce Chambers" wrote in message
... So, you feel free to cast doubt on the validity of several others' advice, and to cast aspersions upon an organization that provides a valuable service, all without seeing the slightest need to justify or substantiate your accusations? The normal term for one who uses such an operating standard is "troll." There are many frustrated people that use newsgroups such as this to express frutration, and that is what you are doing here. It might make you feel good to say these things but you are not accomplishing anything useful. The very fact that you won't even attempt to justify or substantiate your claims demonstrates that even you know you're unlikely to be correct. All you've accomplished is to establish your lack credibility. I have made it very clear that that is incorrect. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Information Request
Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:58:20 -0800 from Sam Hobbs
: "Bruce Chambers" wrote in message ... So, you feel free to cast doubt on the validity of several others' advice, and to cast aspersions upon an organization that provides a valuable service, all without seeing the slightest need to justify or substantiate your accusations? The normal term for one who uses such an operating standard is "troll." There are many frustrated people that use newsgroups such as this to express frutration, and that is what you are doing here. It might make you feel good to say these things but you are not accomplishing anything useful. Anybody who's been here for any length of time knows who has more credibility between you two. You do yourself no service by attacking a respected contributor in this fashion. It makes you look smaller and stupider, not bigger and wiser. An overdue plonk! -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/ "If there's one thing I know, it's men. I ought to: it's been my life work." -- Marie Dressler, in /Dinner at Eight/ |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Information Request
"Stan Brown" wrote in message
t... Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:58:20 -0800 from Sam Hobbs : "Bruce Chambers" wrote in message ... So, you feel free to cast doubt on the validity of several others' advice, and to cast aspersions upon an organization that provides a valuable service, all without seeing the slightest need to justify or substantiate your accusations? The normal term for one who uses such an operating standard is "troll." There are many frustrated people that use newsgroups such as this to express frutration, and that is what you are doing here. It might make you feel good to say these things but you are not accomplishing anything useful. Anybody who's been here for any length of time knows who has more credibility between you two. You do yourself no service by attacking a respected contributor in this fashion. It makes you look smaller and stupider, not bigger and wiser. An overdue plonk! It is Bruce's words that are unnecessary. People here are really exagerating this issue. The mature thing to do is to agree to disagree. There are too many people here that cannot do that, but I certainly am. No one has yet provided anything conclusive; it is not just me that has not. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Information Request
"Gordon" wrote in message
... "Sam Hobbs" wrote in message ... Using SpamCop can make things worse for you, not better. Eh? How do you work that one out? Look at "How is data from spam submissions used?" at: http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/145.html Especially the part that says "It is possible that the header may reveal your email address.". |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Information Request
Sam Hobbs wrote:
"Gordon" wrote in message ... "Sam Hobbs" wrote in message ... Using SpamCop can make things worse for you, not better. Eh? How do you work that one out? Look at "How is data from spam submissions used?" at: http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/145.html Especially the part that says "It is possible that the header may reveal your email address.". Actually: don't look now but if your spammer sees your address, then he already has it or you wouldn't have done the submission or received the spam. SC munges the obvious places an address appears but can not get all of them. However it's very, very seldom a spammer sees the info, considering how many complaints are normally filed against him, even if he did care. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Information Request
Sam Hobbs wrote:
"Gordon" wrote in message ... "Sam Hobbs" wrote in message ... Using SpamCop can make things worse for you, not better. Eh? How do you work that one out? Look at "How is data from spam submissions used?" at: http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/145.html Especially the part that says "It is possible that the header may reveal your email address.". Well, duh! We all know that. What you need to do is substantiate your insinuation that SpamCop sends this information to the spammers. That, after all, would be the only time the presence of one's email address in the headers could conceivably (but probably not, as the spammer already has the info) make things worse. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. ~ Denis Diderot |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Information Request
"Bruce Chambers" wrote in message
... Sam Hobbs wrote: "Gordon" wrote in message ... "Sam Hobbs" wrote in message ... Using SpamCop can make things worse for you, not better. Eh? How do you work that one out? Look at "How is data from spam submissions used?" at: http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/145.html Especially the part that says "It is possible that the header may reveal your email address.". Well, duh! We all know that. What you need to do is substantiate your insinuation that SpamCop sends this information to the spammers. That, after all, would be the only time the presence of one's email address in the headers could conceivably (but probably not, as the spammer already has the info) make things worse. I explained that previously. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|