Talk:SpamCop/Archive 1

Erratic Service
As of January 2006, the service has been erratic. According to Spamcop, their hosting provider had problems in the last few months occassioning a few hours off-line. Recently, users are experiencing the same sort of poor service. Should this sort of comment be in the main article? unsigned edit by (129.94.6.28 at 10:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC))

"Controversial User Policies"
I have deleted an addition that a contributor labelled "Controversial User Policies" for the following reason: this appears to be a one-off "disgruntled" spamcop user; the contributor's text states EXPLICITLY that the user was banned from using the spamcop service for making threats in response to a spamcop report (i.e., "The user had to promise to refrain from making any future threats before being reinstated."). This user complains that these 'rules' were not posted; it is beyond the pale to believe spamcop needs to inform their users "don't make threats in email." unsigned edit by (24.7.92.254 at 20:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

shotgun reporting
Recently, Codetickler has added a section title "shotgun reporting". I can find no other reference to this term via google in relation to spam, so it appears to be "original research". It appears to be related to Vernon Schryver's "You might be an anti-spam kook" entry: "You routinely send single reports of single examples of objectionable mail to more than two dozen addressees." (see http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#spam-fighter-3 )

Spamcop does not do "shotgun reporting", either by Codetickler's definition nor the behavior characterized by Vernon. It sends reports to the ISP responsive for the IP address used to send the spam, and to spamvertized websites mentioned in the spam. Both of these are usually against ISP and web hoster's terms of service and are generally considered to be important to report. These reports are not sent in "hopes that one of the reports can actually be effective dealing with the complaint". unsigned edit by (Wrs1864 at 01:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC))


 * SpamCop definately does do shotgun reporting. Just saying that it doesn't will not eradicate the facts. Spammers put URLs in their spam that will cause SpamCop to generate false complaints to the administrator of an innocent site when the user either checks or leaves the checkbox checked that points to the innocent site's administrator. When the user allows SpamCop to send the report with the innocent site's administrator checked, SpamCop erroneously sends the complaint to that administrator. I have seen this myself. So, should I believe you or my lying eyes?


 * Essentially, if multiple destinations are extracted from the content of the e-mail, SpamCop is at the mercy of its own ability to discern the intent of the content. Computers are notoriously innacurate in discerning human intent. Since it cannot discern that a link is a bait link placed there by the spammer, it complains to someone it should not have complained to. That's what happens when a complaint is not targeted more accurately. Erroneous complaints are generated as a result of shotgun reporting and any amount of denial is just that - denial. unsigned edit by (CodeTickler at 06:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC))

Edits by WRS1864
The edits by WRS1864 are impressive. It's easier to see how Wikipedia maintains credibility with efforts like this. My hat is off to WRS1864. Good job. unsigned edit by (CodeTickler at 15:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

Unsigned comment
Spamcop erronoeusly blocks legitimate emails to unsubcribed customers as discribed below. It appears there is no way to contact them by phone and one must wait for twelve hours to get "clean'. There is no effort to check on whether it is a false error. This has happen to my company three times in the last two weeks and has cost sales dollars. unsigned edit by (24.51.49.70 at 21:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

Deleted link jhoward.fastmail.fm/spamcop.html
I have deleted the external link to *Why the SpamCop blocking list is harmful added on 12/1 because the link contains the EXACT SAME TEXT as the external link already present: unsigned edit by (24.7.108.157 at 18:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC))
 * A variety views on this subject can be found here

What is wrong with the word "Blacklist"?
Recently, a user made two edits with a summary like "Removed "Right Hand Side Blacklist" because, for legal reasons, I think it's best to stay away from the word "Blacklist"."

What are the legal reasons for not using the word "Blacklist"? AIUI this is the accepted term for what these lists are? Thryduulf 11:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a small explanation of why on the DNSBL page.  The spamcop website uses both terms in various places, but usually calls their DNSBL a "block list", so it makes sense to use their terminology in this article. There is a little bit of iron that spamcop recommends in several places that you shouldn't directly block email using their "block list", but instead you should use it for scoring, tagging, or putting in a spam folder.  By calling it a "blocklist" they may well have more legal liability than calling it a "blacklist". Wrs1864 12:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To me, the two words are synonymous. To others, one word might carry racial overtones. "Block" in this case may simply mean blocking it from view, regardless of the physical meaning to a computer. Brewhaha@edmc.net 13:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW: in my view, the argument by Wrs1864 is the strongest here. To me, a blocklist blocks unambiguously whereas a blacklist may be used to block, filter, or direct incoming content to a different location (in the case of suspected spam, to a folder other than the "normal" e-mail Inbox). Turetzsr (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops, I wish to modify my earlier remark: on more careful reading, I see that I agree with Wrs1864's remark that the greater legal liability may be in calling the list a "block list;" I prefer the term "blacklist" for the reasons I stated in my post immediately above this one.  formerly Turetzsr, now  SteveT (talk)  23:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)