[123015] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Spamcop Blocks Facebook?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Seth Mattinen)
Fri Feb 26 13:05:02 2010
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:04:49 -0800
From: Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20100226175638.GA2396@tico.tsc.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2/26/10 9:56 AM, Bob Poortinga wrote:
> Shon Elliott <shon@unwiredbb.com> writes:
>
>> Feb 25 19:08:18 postfix/smtpd[12682]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
>> outmail011.snc1.tfbnw.net[69.63.178.170]: 554 5.7.1 Service unavailable;
>> host [69.63.178.170] blocked using bl.spamcop.net; Blocked - see
>> http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?69.63.178.170;
>
> Using the Spamcop BL *solely* as the basis for rejecting mail is a sure way
> to lose wanted email. From Spamcop's website:
>
> "... SpamCop encourages use of the SCBL in concert with an actively maintained
> whitelist of wanted email senders. SpamCop encourages SCBL users to tag and
> divert email, rather than block it outright."
>
> "The SCBL is aggressive and often errs on the side of blocking mail...
> Many mailservers operate with blacklists in a "tag only" mode, which
> is preferable in many situations."
>
> IMO, the best use of the SCBL is as a scoring metric with Spam Assassin.
> Additional discussion should be directed to SPAM-L.
>
In the early days of spamcop I'd agree with you unconditionally, but
over the years they've become much better to the point where I'd argue
it's suitable for blocking. In the case of Facebook it certainly is; if
they're is feeding spamtraps with enough volume to merit a listing then
it is wholeheartedly deserved.
~Seth
