spamcop.net?

Tue Mar 4 05:01:00 UTC 2003

On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Martin Hannigan wrote:

>
>
>
> Not for nothing, but there's so much time wasted with all these diversified
> spam systems.
>
> I've been reading about Barry Shein's proposals and I have to say I am on board
> with a centralized -single- system based on his young, but intelligent, model.

One large problem is that people utilize these various lists without
the understanding as to what they really will block.  Blocking standard
'your penis can be bigger' messages is one thing, blocking production
email to customers is another :(

>
> http://www.internetweek.com/breakingNews/INW20021219S0003
>
> I applaud RBL, spamcop, etc., but without funding and consolidation, it's
> another
> waste of offensive time that could be spent on a far more effective defense.
>
> -M
>
>
>
>
>
> At 02:51 AM 3/4/2003 +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, blitz wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Anyone having trouble getting to/ know of any issues with spamcop.net
> > today?
> > >
> > > They seemed to have dropped off the radar from me...
> > >
> > > No pings
> > > No traceroute
> > >
> > > but they still show registered at 216.127.43.89
> > >
> >
> >laptop ~]$ t 216.127.43.89 80
> >Trying 216.127.43.89...
> >Connected to 216.127.43.89 (216.127.43.89).
> >Escape character is '^]'.
> >GET /
> >
> >hmm, there isnt anything returning right now, but it connects atleast :)
> >
> > > Tnx
> > >
> > > Marc
> > > macronet.net
> > >
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Martin Hannigan                    hannigan at fugawi.net
>