[SURBL-Discuss] Spamcop conflict of interest ?
johnml at michaweb.net
Sun May 2 08:35:40 CEST 2004
----- 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 ;-)
> > >
> > > http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=105978&cid=9022567
> > 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
More information about the Discuss