Re: [vps-mail] !nouser problems

["Andy McKell, FOCUS Internet" <mac@xxxxxxxx>]

At 04:13 PM 3/19/2005 +0100, you wrote:
> > I've been considering the practicalities of your website briefing
>
> It isn't *my* website. I'm just a (happy) SpamCop client, hence the
> spamcop.net e-mail address.

Yup, misleading address. Misdirected me. Bad form.
:-)

My original response became a rant, so I'll just stick to a few key points..

> > 1. If an online order is placed or someone asks to sign up for a mailing
> > list, the provider may send an email asking for confirmation or sending
> > a password. If a fake email address is used and the recipient complains
> > to SpamCop - is this spam? Aren't the provider's intentions clear - i.e.
> > asking for confirmation to avoid the email address being misused?
>
> ONE misdirected e-mail will not cause the sender to be listed. It takes
> more than one misdirected mail and complaints from more than one person for
> that to happen.

Not actually true. I've had 3 recent instances where a SINGLE complaint has 
had SpamCop jump on Verio, who jumped on me, threatening shutdown unless I 
jumped on my (3 separate) clients. (BTW: None was "found guilty".)

>  So, this scenario will not result in the server being
> listed through the rare occurrance of someone mistyping their e-mail
> address.

The threats force action and chasing up and responses. Who pays for my time?

> > 2. If I go on vacation, I can no longer use a nice autoreply with a warm,
> > commercially-sensitive and informative message, but must  use:-
> > to:oldaddress@xxxxxxxxxxx 550 my message
>
> Correct.

So SpamCop interferes with "proper" commercial activity by innocent 
businesses trying to serve their customers. Seriously, this is not the 
solution to spam.

Setting and unsetting these 550's cost me time, while an autoreply is set 
by the user. Again, who pays for my time?

> Obviously your rules apply to your server

Again, not true. Not while SpamCop blacklists over-ride them. Also, I don't 
set rules for untold other servers, unlike SpamCop. And as their website 
states, bounces are required by RFC822. So SpamCop runs counter to RFC's 
but I dare not run counter to SpamCop policy? Hmmm... sounds unbalanced (in 
both meanings).

<snip>
> Spam is a far greater problem than it used to be, say, 5 years ago.....
<snip>

I know all this. I want it stopped, too. My stats are much worse than 
yours. But I want the big boys busted, not the innocent hassled.

The point is that hitting a few small businesses over their autoreplies is 
not going to solve the spam problem. SpamCop's targets should be the ****s 
who send the original spam in untold millions in the first place, not the 
guy who innocently bounces. It's bailing out the Titanic with a thimble.

SpamCop's disproportionate power damages the innocent. How about its trick 
of blacklisting whole IP blocks because someone in that block is suspected 
of sending spam? That's like fining everyone on the street because a 
neighbour parks badly. I got hit three times with that little trick. Again, 
it takes up my time sorting it out, once I find out what's happening (as 
SpamCop does it without warning).

But - as all enforcement agencies find - it's easier to bully the little 
bystander than it is to deal with the real criminals.

> > Have you actually seen what the sender gets back?
> Yes. The point being that it's the *sender* who gets it,

That's not MY point, which is that no serious business would want to send 
out those things. 550 messages are ugly, misleading and make no commercial 
sense.

Maybe we should have true internet regulation with proper procedures and 
appeals and compensation schemes for the innocent? At heart, I don't want 
regulation, but my head (and my wallet) differ. However, both sides of me 
agree that SpamCop is more vigilante than cop, more overhead than asset.

Andy
--------------------------------------------------------------------
PROTEUS - new anti-spam, anti-virus solution
www.proteus.lu

FOCUS Internet Services
Domains, Design, Hosting, Custom Applications, E-Commerce
106 rue de Mersch, L-8181 KOPSTAL, Luxembourg
tel. (+352) 305 197
fax (+352) 305 188
www.focus.lu  

======================================================================
This is <vps-mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>       <http://www.perlcode.org/lists/>
Before posting a question, please search the archives (see above URL).