Hmm....just noticed these comments in a recent slashdot article. Being slashdot it's hard to know whether to take it seriously or not ;-)
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=105978&cid=9022567
Regards, Simon
Hi!
Hmm....just noticed these comments in a recent slashdot article. Being slashdot it's hard to know whether to take it seriously or not ;-)
Very very old news, whats your point ?
Bye, Raymond
On Saturday 01 May 2004 05:08, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Hi!
Hmm....just noticed these comments in a recent slashdot article. Being slashdot it's hard to know whether to take it seriously or not ;-)
Very very old news, whats your point ?
Bye, Raymond
Well the article was only yesterday, so how old could it have been?
As for what his point may be, that should be self evident. Here we are building upon SpamCop only to find out there are some serious alegations that its in league with the enemy.
For those of us who are not up on all this "old news" why don't you tell us why we should yawn at this...?
On Saturday, May 1, 2004, 9:13:10 PM, John Andersen wrote:
On Saturday 01 May 2004 05:08, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Hi!
Hmm....just noticed these comments in a recent slashdot article. Being slashdot it's hard to know whether to take it seriously or not ;-)
Very very old news, whats your point ?
Bye, Raymond
Well the article was only yesterday, so how old could it have been?
As for what his point may be, that should be self evident. Here we are building upon SpamCop only to find out there are some serious alegations that its in league with the enemy.
For those of us who are not up on all this "old news" why don't you tell us why we should yawn at this...?
I'm not really sure it's relevant. Does it really matter what software the company that bought SpamCop sells? As far as I know that doesn't much effect the kind of URI reports that SpamCop users are making and sc.surbl.org is therefore using.
I'm interested in any other readings....
Jeff C.
On Saturday 01 May 2004 20:36, Jeff Chan wrote:
I'm not really sure it's relevant. Does it really matter what software the company that bought SpamCop sells?
Yes, of course it does. Your naivete would be refreshing were it not so dangerous. I'd love to hear your take on this had they been purchased by Scott Richter.
On Sunday, May 2, 2004, 1:57:43 AM, John Andersen wrote:
On Saturday 01 May 2004 20:36, Jeff Chan wrote:
I'm not really sure it's relevant. Does it really matter what software the company that bought SpamCop sells?
Yes, of course it does. Your naivete would be refreshing were it not so dangerous. I'd love to hear your take on this had they been purchased by Scott Richter.
I'm results-oriented. If the parent company somehow impacts the quality of the *user* reported URIs, then there could be some relevance.
Otherwise maybe you can clarify how it might be relevant in terms of actual results as we're using them.
Jeff C.
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Andersen"
On Saturday 01 May 2004 05:08, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Hi!
Hmm....just noticed these comments in a recent slashdot article. Being slashdot it's hard to know whether to take it seriously or not ;-)
Very very old news, whats your point ?
Bye, Raymond
Well the article was only yesterday, so how old could it have been?
Because the writer dredged up some old news. The news itself dates back to November 2003.
As for what his point may be, that should be self evident. Here we are building upon SpamCop only to find out there are some serious alegations that its in league with the enemy.
For those of us who are not up on all this "old news" why don't you tell us why we should yawn at this...?
Allegations without proof? I wouldn't pay much attention.
The sale obviously did raise eyebrows at the time, but I haven't seen any changes for the worse. It boils down to whether the spamcop users continue to place their trust in Julian Haight who is still involved in running spamcop.
As RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET rule is #1 for me and the combination of spamcop and surbl correctly identify 96% of the spam I receive personally, then that still seems to be a safe assumption. If these numbers start dropping, then questions need to be asked.
As long as spam will be reported through spamcop, there is a basis for additions to surbl. If that will no longer be the case, the usefulness of the surbl approach itself will determine its survival, with the help of alternative data collection mechanisms.
John
On Saturday, May 1, 2004, 10:35:40 PM, John Fawcett wrote:
As long as spam will be reported through spamcop, there is a basis for additions to surbl. If that will no longer be the case, the usefulness of the surbl approach itself will determine its survival, with the help of alternative data collection mechanisms.
I assume everyone is aware that we currently have three SURBL lists:
1. sc.surbl.org - domains from SpamCop URI reports 2. ws.surbl.org - domains from Bill Stearns' sa-blacklist 3. be.surbl.org - domains from BigEvil and MidEvil by Chris and Paul mainly.
So we have some diversity of source data currently. I expect the SpamCop URI reports to keep flowing, and I'm thinking about/working on the next version of the sc data engine which should offer significantly improved performance.
Jeff C.
Hi!
Very very old news, whats your point ?
Well the article was only yesterday, so how old could it have been?
Some clueless user postst a message, so what :)
They were aquired a long long time ago.
As for what his point may be, that should be self evident. Here we are building upon SpamCop only to find out there are some serious alegations that its in league with the enemy.
For those of us who are not up on all this "old news" why don't you tell us why we should yawn at this...?
IronPort to acquire SpamCop Posted Nov 20, 2003, 5:39 PM ET by Weblogs, Inc. Staff
Its a 7 months old announcement.
If you see evidence that the spamcop project goes into the wrong direction, please shout. This has been talked over at various lists when it was hot. Julian Height also posted answers about it.
I dont have any worries unless you or anyone can convince me with proof.
Google on Spamcop and Ironport, you will find all you need i think, also that its really old news you posted :)
Bye, Raymond.
-
Jeff Chan -
John Andersen -
John Fawcett -
Raymond Dijkxhoorn -
Simon Byrnand