RBL checks and Spamcop

John Rudd jrudd at KZIN.UCSC.EDU
Sun Dec 1 15:24:21 GMT 2002

> From: Paul Welsh <paul at ESPMAIL.CO.UK>
> > From: "Matt Kettler" <mkettler at EVI-INC.COM>
> > By default SA has no score assigned to spamcop due to the fact that it is
> > not free, it's donation-ware.
> >
> > You'll have to uncomment the score to enable checking of spamcop, but make
> > sure you donate to them.
> Thanks for pointing this out.  This level of donation seems fine.
> Is anyone here using SpamCop's blocking list?  If so, is it reasonable to
> assume that I could quarantine all mail that gets into SpamCop's list,
> rather than accepting MailScanner's default of prefixing the Subject with
> {SPAM?}?  If so, it would be helpful to my users and worth donating.

My personal experience with SpamCop is that they're unreliable, inaccurate,
and difficult to get responses from regarding fixing their errors.  We had one
of our users report spam to them, and they blocked _our_ mail server because
they mis-parsed the Received headers.  That wasn't our first problem with
them, and I generally recommend that people not use SpamCop for any services
that they care about.

I would compare the quality of their service to trying to use a house
of cards as your rack mounting solution.  If you don't mind your servers
physically crashing to the floor on a regular basis, then, hey, it's
a fine solution!

So, if it's a mail server that is involved in your company's revenue, or
if it's the campus mail server, or something like that ... I wouldn't use
SpamCop.  If it's just your personal machine ... well, then, if you don't
mind the structural reliability of a house of cards, go right ahead.

John Rudd

More information about the MailScanner mailing list