Just wondering why was my e-mail thread (Hierarchical Credit-based Queuing (HCQ): QoS) dated 5/9/2004 9:36 PM reported as a spam? Just trying to understand so that I don't repeat it. Below is a cut and paste of the reported incident.
Just wondering why was my e-mail thread (Hierarchical Credit-based
Queuing (HCQ): QoS) dated 5/9/2004 9:36 PM reported as a spam? Just
trying to understand so that I don't repeat it. Below is a cut and paste
of the reported incident.
Please advice.
I think this is a violation of the SpamCop TOS. Somewhere in there is
says something like, Don't report stuff you asked for like mailing
lists, newsletters, etc.
I can't find the link now :(, but I remember seeing it in there
somewhere.
Possible someone on the list didn't understand the content, didn't
realize this was sent via a mailing lists and submitted this as a spam
message to SPAMCOP. Less likely someone didn't know how to
get off the mailing list and this was the result.
In both cases the submitter exercised bad judgement. But the mailing
list could be more helpful as well. There have been no reminders from
the mailing list since I signed up which I think is a good policy for a
mailing list. The mailing list only uses "Precedence: bulk" to mark it as
a mailing list.
That said, this is a case of misjudgment, albeit perhaps a premature
and a hasty one.
>. There have been no reminders from
> the mailing list since I signed up which I think is a good policy for a
> mailing list. The mailing list only uses "Precedence: bulk" to mark it
as
> a mailing list.
the list is pretty active, so i would dare say that reminders are
superfluous. an iq test at subscription time would probably work better to
prevent situations like this in the future.
Right, the reminder may have no value for the intended recipient which is
the
one that signed up. However, in the case of an inherited email address this
may
be valuable.
But an IQ test would be nice. What should be the I to test for?
Further, Spamcop should implement some form of check to verify that the
e-mail is in fact spam before they go pointing the finger and/or
blocking mail servers. The problem of end users leveraging Spamcop to
get them off of mailing lists or a simple way of DoSsing a discussion
forum would become mute if some form of sanity checking was in place.
Further, Spamcop should implement some form of check to verify that the
e-mail is in fact spam before they go pointing the finger and/or
blocking mail servers. The problem of end users leveraging Spamcop to
get them off of mailing lists or a simple way of DoSsing a discussion
forum would become mute if some form of sanity checking was in place.
As an ex-admin, I have some "serious issues" about the way Spamcop
works, but this argument is similar to one that says a credit reporting
company has to prove that you are a deadbeat before reporting that
several companies you do business with report that you are late with
payments a lot.
And as an ex-admin that had some contact with mailing lists and their
operation and managment I will say that the notion that people "forgot"
that they subscribed to a list does not happen nearly as often as it
is used to wriggle out from under a spam complaint.
I would agree with your analogy if Spamcop limited automatic reporting
to subset of the community. The problem is they do not. I can't call up
a credit agency and get them to automatically red mark your credit
report. I obviously can send pretty much anything to Spamcop, claim you
are a spammer and get them to act on that.
As an ex-admin, I have some "serious issues" about the way Spamcop
works, but this argument is similar to one that says a credit reporting
company has to prove that you are a deadbeat before reporting that
several companies you do business with report that you are late with
payments a lot.
I would agree with your analogy if Spamcop limited automatic reporting
to subset of the community. The problem is they do not. I can't call up
a credit agency and get them to automatically red mark your credit
report. I obviously can send pretty much anything to Spamcop, claim you
are a spammer and get them to act on that.
Actually, apparently you can--we have to (actually, my dear wife has to)
take the reporting houses to task every now and again because they
report, on occasion, that we are somehow connected to people who
have financial difficulty. Sometimes it is people we know, but have
no responsibility for, sometimes it is people whose account numbers
are related numerically to ours, sometimes we never find out how they
got on our report.
And the "act on that" means "report that you reported it--with your
privacy protected" doesn't it?
I would agree with your analogy if Spamcop limited automatic reporting
to subset of the community. The problem is they do not.
In Spamcop's defence, it seems that their systems were never designed to handle the wide variety of 'attack vectors" that spam uses today.
Spamcop also operates on the assumption that the user is exercising some judgement when *directly* reporting spam, which is universally the case with mailing list traffic. No matter how foolproof your system, the world creates a better fool.
Thankfully, all my interactions - as a web host, network operator, and mailing list manager- with Spamcop and their staff have been professional, and productive. I for one appreciate the "just the facts" style of reporting, and useful mechanisms for interacting with the complainers. It is a refreshing change from the usual ALL-CAPS threats and exclamation point filled diatribes, usually mailed to the wrong abuse@* addresses.
Just wondering why was my e-mail thread (Hierarchical Credit-based Queuing (HCQ): QoS) dated 5/9/2004 9:36 PM reported as a spam? Just
That question is best asked of the admin of widowmaker.com, a user of which reported your nanog post to spamcop.
Received: from [198.108.1.26] (helo=trapdoor.merit.edu)
by wilma.widomaker.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1)
id 1BN2ZP-000Jo6-00
for x; Mon, 10 May 2004 00:39:15 -0400
I think this is a violation of the SpamCop TOS. Somewhere in there is
says something like, Don't report stuff you asked for like mailing
lists, newsletters, etc.
I can't find the link now :(, but I remember seeing it in there
somewhere.