On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 23:27 -0800, Shon Elliott wrote:
So really, my customers, and myself are victims of Spamcop's blocking of Facebook.
I forget how far back in this thread someone said: Spamcop *listed* Facebook for valid reasons according to their published listing criteria. Other people blocked it. Not Spamcop. FWIW outright blocking on a Spamcop listing is a particularly risky business; best to use a listing as an intelligence point towards a decision whether to block a given message or not. That's why Spamcop is referred to by the default SpamAssassin ruleset, but not in a big enough way to block outright. Fresh operational content: one of the reasons services like Spamcop occasionally list services like Facebook is that they don't honour 5xx responses to RCPT TO:. I'd offer some statistics but I'm concerned that the legal brigade will jump down my throat, but I suggest that anyone running a system like an academic mail platform take a look at the number of invalid recipients services like Facebook try to deliver. If they stopped doing that they'd be a long way towards better behaviour, IMO. Graeme