Paul Karagianis wrote:
[...]
> How so?  Virus forges itself as being from SpamCop's burnt-paper-
> in-the-palm-secret spamtrap, which can't be too secret or it wouldn't
> work at all, then sends a copy of itself to "somelist", so the Listserv
> kicks back a "you aren't a subscriber" message to SpamCop which then
> blacklists your entire system for "backscatter" and your entire
> community gets reamed by this Bozo outfit without there actually being
> any real spam anywhere in the cycle.
>
> You can not have reliable mail and SpamCop.
1. I consider SpamCop to be too aggressive.
2. SpamCop says "don't use us to block e-mail"
3. I'm not happy about all this.
4. I know that 70% of all bounces or autoresponder-e-mails sent by my
organisation originate from listserv. That's what logfiles are for.
5. When being blacklisted by spamcop I asked them why. They provided
several correct, verifiable examples of listserv-autoresponders.
6. I believe that e-mail has to be reliable and know that this creates
conflicts with spamcop.
7. I define "reliable mail" as "mail is never dropped/deleted, but
either sent to the recipient (or someone responsible) or bounced back to
the sender".
8. I don't consider "Ack=YES" necessary for public mailinglists, but
more than 100 mailinglists here had chosen that option. It does not
improve reliability but is noise.
9. Given my definition of "reliable mail", I don't consider a mail "your
message has been sent to the moderator" to be necessary. However, I'd
prefer something like "moderate quietly for highly suspicious mail,
inform sender about moderation for all other mail".
10. I know that 9 can be done with some other software and believe that
listserv should be capable of providing such fine-grained control about
when to send autoresponder-mails (and when not to...).
11. I am convinced that I could reduce the number of bounces and
autoresponders by at least 30% without any loss in service-quality or
service-reliability.

--
CU,
    Patrick.