>
>rich wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>sorry for the late reply - spamcop has the whole of the UK's biggest ISP
>>>blocked so I couldn't post to the reflector. I'm trying this through a
>>>webmail account.
>>>
>>// My ISP is rabidly anti-spam - yet SpamCop managed to label him a
>>source of spam, which naturally blocked yours truly. Perhaps SpamCop was
>>created by spammers?
>>
>...in a subtle move to give anti-spam services a bad name? Well, it
>almost fits the facts.
>
// Indeed. Shades of Orwell's "1984"?
>My ISP was another victim of this useless "service". SpamCop blocks mail
>from any ISP server that has been used to send spam. Sounds like a great
>idea... until you stop and think about it.
>
>ISPs hate spam even more than we do, because it clogs up their servers.
>Reputable ISPs - the vast majority - will zap a spammer immediately on
>the first offence. But gung-ho SpamCop has already blacklisted their
>outgoing servers.
>
// And there's the fly in the ointment. SpamCop is like having a
vaccine that kills half of those innoculated.
>For you and me, it means we can't send to any list that uses the SpamCop
>service - like AMPS - until SpamCop times-out our ISP's "offence" after
>a few days.
>
>So SpamCop did nothing to stop the spammer - the ISP did that. SpamCop
>only makes the innocent suffer after the event.
>
>SpamCop does have a "whitelist" facility that could override the
>automatic blocking... but that is not being used for AMPS.
>
>AMPS has been very quiet recently. I wonder how much of this is
>self-inflicted?
// I was quiet only because my posts were being blocked.
- R. L. Measures, a.k.a. Rich..., 805.386.3734,AG6K,
www.vcnet.com/measures.
end
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
|