TruerWords Logo
Google
 
Web www.truerwords.net

Search TruerWords

Welcome
Sign Up  Log On

“Bring it On, Spamsters”

From: Seth Dillingham In Response To: Top of Thread.  
Date Posted: Wednesday, January 9, 2002 11:42:33 PM Replies: 4
   
Enclosures: None.

A change in some of the software I use on a daily basis (can't say what, yet) has made it incredibly easy for me to report Unsolicited Bulk Email (spam) to SpamCop.

Really easy. One mouse click easy.

I love SpamCop. It was always easy to use, especially for techies. Just paste in the full text of the email, including the headers, and submit it. The software would do the work of figuring out which postmaster and abuse addresses should receive the notifications, and then send them for you.

One-click reporting is even better. :-)

On the Other Hand, there's ORBZ and the ORDB

As long as I'm on the subject of spam-fighting services, I'll point out that I really hate ORBZ and the other "black hole" services that use "Open Relay Databases". They block all of the email from entire domains simply because it's possible to use those domains' mail servers to send spam. They don't even require evidence that spam has actually been sent through them... it just has to be possible. Overkill! Macrobyte's been blocked by them a couple of times, because our mail server (EIMS) is very difficult to fully protect. Fail one of their tests, and they'll drop you into the hole immediately.

Lots of people like these sorts of services because they think it cuts down on the amount of spam. It doesn't, because the spammers just find other ways to send their mail. These "services" do a great job of preventing legitimate email from getting through, though, because they block all email from a domain. (If you send mail from a domain listed by ORBZ to someone at xyz.com, and xyz.com's mail server uses the ORBZ service, your mail won't get through.)


Discussion Thread:
  • RE: Bring it On, Spamsters (by Sean McMains at 1/10/2002)

    Ooh, I hope your NDA (or whatever is preventing you from telling us more about one-click spam reporting)

    • RE: Bring it On, Spamsters (by Sean McMains at 1/28/2002)

      Hey, speaking of SpamCop, are you ready to share the miracle of one-click spam reporting yet? Sean

      • RE: Bring it On, Spamsters (by Seth Dillingham at 1/28/2002)

        On 1/28/2002 at 1:41 PM, Sean McMains wrote: >Hey, speaking of SpamCop, are you ready to share the miracle

  • Re: Bring it On, Spamsters (by Bill Kearney at 1/10/2002)

    Well, you might actually want to consider using an e-mail server that's not defective. The emergence

    • RE: Bring it On, Spamsters (by Greg Pierce at 1/10/2002)

      On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 20:17:06 -0500, Bill Kearney wrote: >Given the quantity of FREE products like

      • RE: Bring it On, Spamsters (by Seth Dillingham at 1/10/2002)

        On 1/10/2002 at 8:37 PM, Greg Pierce wrote: >>Given the quantity of FREE products like sendmail, postfix,

      • RE: Bring it On, Spamsters (by Mark Morgan at 1/10/2002)

        --- Greg Pierce <greg@turtleprod.com> wrote: > I'd much rather see Seth working on new Conversant

        • RE: Bring it On, Spamsters (by Seth Dillingham at 1/10/2002)

          On 1/10/2002 at 10:14 PM, Mark Morgan wrote: >>I'd much rather see Seth working on new Conversant features

    • RE: Bring it On, Spamsters (by Seth Dillingham at 1/10/2002)

      On 1/10/2002 at 8:17 PM, Bill Kearney wrote: >Well, you might actually want to consider using an e-mail

      • Re: Bring it On, Spamsters (by Bill Kearney at 1/11/2002)

        Gimme a break. On one hand you're bitching about the services blocking systems than are susceptible

        • RE: Bring it On, Spamsters (by Mark Morgan at 1/11/2002)

          ??? Normally I stay out of conversations like this, but I'm completely nonplussed. Did Seth kick your

          • RE: Bring it On, Spamsters (by Seth Dillingham at 1/11/2002)

            On 1/11/2002 at 1:18 AM, Mark Morgan wrote: >??? Normally I stay out of conversations like this, but

        • RE: Bring it On, Spamsters (by Brian Carnell at 1/11/2002)

          At 01:05 AM 1/11/2002 -0500, Bill Kearney wrote: >Gimme a break. On one hand you're bitching >about

        • RE: Bring it On, Spamsters (by Seth Dillingham at 1/11/2002)

          On 1/11/2002 at 1:05 AM, Bill Kearney wrote: >There are plenty of things that "should" be done to >deal

          • Re: Bring it On, Spamsters (by Bill Kearney at 1/11/2002)

            RE: Bring it On, Spamsters <sigh> Text just doesn't convey much in the way of feeling. I'm not full

  • A little levity (by Bill Kearney at 1/11/2002)

    "I programmed my robotic dog to bite the guy who delivers the electronic mail." -- Kibo

  • Spammer's Black List (by Seth Dillingham at 1/26/2002)

    I wonder if there's any such thing as a "Spammer's Black List", a list of people that the Spamsters

    • Re: Spammer's Black List (by Clark Venable at 1/26/2002)

      Every since you mentioned spam cop, I've been using it as well. One thing I liked about the OS X mail

Trackbacks:

There are no trackbacks.


Until August 31
My Amazon sales
benefit the PMC

Homepage Links

Apr 1 - Aug 31
Ad revenue
benefits the PMC


TruerWords
is Seth Dillingham's
personal web site.
From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put. - WC