From owner-freebsd-advocacy Sun Mar 16 2:14:44 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9CDD37B401 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 02:14:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [213.165.65.60]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5A60443F3F for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 02:14:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from snowfall@gmx.co.uk) Received: (qmail 16677 invoked by uid 0); 16 Mar 2003 09:47:56 -0000 Received: from tnt2-155.quicksilver.net.nz (HELO COMPUTER.gmx.co.uk) (202.89.134.155) by mail.gmx.net (mp009-rz3) with SMTP; 16 Mar 2003 09:47:56 -0000 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030316201802.020b5230@213.165.64.20> X-Sender: 6803933@213.165.64.20 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 21:46:53 +1200 To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org From: Craig Carey Subject: OpenBSD uses SpamCop (was Re: Blocking addresses of non-spammers; bug reporting In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030316095750.035d3748@213.165.64.20> References: <20030314170503.C60320@xeon.unixathome.org> <200303131013.h2DADL386993@flip.jhs.private> <200303131013.h2DADL386993@flip.jhs.private> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG The OpenBSD mailing list seem to be running better. http://www.openbsd.org/mail.html : | Spam is always forbidden but sometimes things slip through the cracks. If | you get spam through one of the OpenBSD mailing lists, you might want to | submit it to spamcop. -- Declan wrote about SpamCop. http://www.politechbot.com/p-04259.html : the summary upto 18 Dec2002 At 2002\12\18 10:51 -0500 Wednesday, Declan McCullagh wrote: >SpamCop's Julian Haight intentionally blocked mail from the Politech server >(which has never been a source of any spam) last month as a way to apply >pressure to the network where the server is located. Then he appeared to >change his mind and back down. But he refused to tell me what happened and http://www.politechbot.com/p-04261.html : SpamCop targets another rival: Despammed.com's free service http://www.politechbot.com/p-04129.html At 2002\11\04 22:05 -0500 Monday, Declan McCullagh wrote: >See also, from the second time Politech was incorrectly blacklisted by Spamcop: ... > >Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 12:52:44 -0500 >From: jhh@siliconinc.net >To: Declan McCullagh >Subject: Re: FC: Politech incorrectly blocked by SpamCop -- for the third time > >Hi Declan, > >I recently worked with a datacenter that housed a rather notorious >spammer (azoogle.com), and found out that spamcop actually does not >filter them (or several other spammers). Why? Payoffs. Thats right, >spamcop is paid to not filter several several UCB sources... I guess >thats their right though as a business (just as its mine to seek a >better source of blacklists). Its a bit annoying that they have that >paypal "donate" button up at the top of their website though. Im sure >they are doing quite well from the spammers bribes and the last thing >they need is more money. > That's not bad. It is sort of inherently reasonable. The list of Politechbot articles on SpamCop: http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=spamcop A lengthy page summarising SpamCop : http://jhoward.fastmail.fm/spamcop.html http://www.politechbot.com/p-04527.html At 03\03\06 13:42 -0500 Thursday, Declan McCullagh wrote: Subject: Spamcop again blocks legit site, reportedly takes out Tucows ... >Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:01:35 -0500 >From: Edward Gray >To: discuss-list@opensrs.org ... >The duration that the blacklist will remain active is difficult to determine >but the longest we have remained blacklisted so far is approximately 19 >hours with some of the events lasting a 1-2 hours. > >Edward Gray >Director, Operations & Networks >Tucows Inc. -------------------- Some calculations OpenBSD is able to reverse wrong blocking decisions about 268 times faster than FreeBSD did. That has 19hrs be on the denominator. OpenBSD could be nearly 2,500 times faster at unblocking wrong blocking decisions that FreeBSD. So OpenBSD is hundreds of times more responsive. At 03\03\16 18:17 +1200 Sunday, Craig Carey wrote: > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message