Talk:SpamCop

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Talk page reorganized

This talk page is a real mess. Most messages are not signed and are inserted in random order. I have started trying to reorganize this page by breaking it up into subjects and referencing signatures by using the history file. This project will take some time which I have currently run out of. But I will continue working on it. Dbiel 19:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have finished my work of reorganization. I hope no one will find any objection to my work. There has been no edits to the text itself. The only changes have been to add headers and signatures and to resort into standard Wikipedia order, oldest first, newest last. If anyone feels my choice of headers should be changed, feel free to do so as it was simply my best attempt at putting some semblance of order to this page. Dbiel 01:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Anti-spam tools?

Is there a critique of the various anti-spam tools/filters?
Perhaps starting with IDS spam-filter-comparison?
Wikidity (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Recent Edit (17 Oct, 2012) by 108.93.101.129

Anyone unfamiliar with the RfC process should first read Responding to RfC's. The RfC process is for new comments from uninvolved editors. Please do not repeat the above debate in the RfC.

[Added 03:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)] Quoting the edit comment: 14:48, 17 October 2012‎ [EDT | UTC +4:00] 108.93.101.129 . . (11,495 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (Added ".net" to the first mention of SpamCop. (When I read this article it took quite a wile [sic] to figure out if .net or .com was the "good" domain))

Is this really needed? I have some reservations:

1. The service is not spamcop.net, but SpamCop. spamcop.net is the machine part of the URL of the web address.
2. The purported reason for the edit is "When I read this article it took quite a wile [sic] to figure out if .net or .com was the 'good' domain." But the distinction is made at end of the very first paragraph!
   

My personal preference would be to undo the edit (but I don't feel strongly enough or sufficiently experienced to actually perform the undo on my own without further feedback). What do others (especially the editor, 108.93.101.129) think?
  SteveT (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

[Added 03:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)] Unless I find something that suggests a different timeframe, I am planning to undo the change after about 30 days of the origin of my post here, which would be on or about 18 November, 2012.

[Added 04:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)] After reading WP:Revert only when necessary, I have concluded that rather than undoing the edit, it would be better to further edit the article to meet the latest editor's desire to have it mentioned more prominently (earlier) that spamcop.net is the service being discussed (especially as distinguished from spamcop.com). I shall wait until about 18 November, 2012 to do this for more comments before I proceed.  SteveT (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I was invited here by RfC bot. I know nothing about Spamcop. That said, it seems to me that the service is "Spamcop;" the website is "spamcop.net." The article needs an infobox with the url in it. Absent the userbox, SteveT's suggestion about including the url earl on in the lede makes sense. In fact, the url should probably be mentioned early in the lede whether or not it is included in an infobox. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

◌ Reply Thank you, Ebikeguy!   SteveT (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

‹› Absent further comments and the passing of my self-professed deadline, I have made the edit. Further comments are still welcome.   SteveT (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yikes, I did not realize I hadn't logged in when I completed the edit so it appears to be from 99.62.148.86 rather than from me (SteveT). Is there any way to "fix" the Revision History so that it appears to be by me (as it was!)?   SteveT (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit 528575802 02:53, 18 December 2012‎ by anonymous editor ‎150.101.222.216 undid both the original edit (518331812 at 14:48, 17 October 2012) and my re-edit (524130145 at 03:21, 21 November 2012 [yes, I know it is not signed by me -- I had forgotten to log in before posting]) with the comment, "this is an advertising page...." I understand the point; however, we are left without a resolution to the problem that led to the first edit: "When I read this article it took quite a wile [sic] to figure out if .net or .com was the 'good' domain." Would someone else be willing to give it a try without violating the latest editor's concern? Perhaps a infobox that includes the URL, as suggested, above, by Ebikguy?   SteveT (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The same IP address has added a further edit. I am changing some of the content:

• "to report businesses to the sender's ISP or hosting provider."

to "to report IP addresses found by SpamCop's analysis to be senders of the spam to the abuse reporting addresses of those IP addresses." and removing:

• "and websites referenced in the mailout are used to create a blocklist for SpamCop's list recipients."

Reason: SpamCop makes no attempt to find the "sender" of the spam in the sense of the individual/ e-mail address of the sender, because its analysis relies on the internet headers of the spam and the sender can not be reliably determined from the headers. Instead, it looks for an IP address outside the receiver's server network. It also makes no attempt to create any lists of websites, it only includes in its blacklist IP addresses that have delivered spam to reporters' (or their e-mail service providers') networks.   SteveT (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edit (18 May, 2014) by Psychonaut

"→ Controversy: remove section; all claims of controversy unsourced for 7+ years despite maintenance tag requesting sources"
Well, yes, but surely there's room somewhere for these mostly true "claims of controversy," even though perhaps the only sources are the SpamCop web site, Forum and FAQ? SteveT (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I think a web forum can absolutely not be used to provide evidence of a controversy. Besides not being a reliable source, spam fighters and anti-spam services are notoriously prone to smear campaigns by spammers. To make sure we're not just repeating claims made by individual members of an astroturfing campaign, any controversy we cover must be covered by a reliable source unconnected with SpamCop. The only reference in the portion of the article I removed was to the SpamCop website, and even then it did not acknowledge the existence of any controversy. Psychonaut (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it still working?

It seems to me, that spamcop is not actually working right now. I'm not getting anything back from there. --Manorainjan 10:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)