Re: Anet TW doesn't care about reports, wondering...
"Mike Easter" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.spam.spamcop.help |
|---|---|
| Organization | SpamCop |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Ilgaz Ocal wrote: > As any Taiwan company, I figured anet does not care about spam > reports at all. > > Besides sending insultmonger good wishes ;) to them (nope, I don't > abuse spamcop for it), what can a end user can do about it? > > I mean, I want to notify spamcop that their reports are ignored. >From a SC point of view, ignoring reports and being unresponsive is almost immaterial, IMO. That is, being notified is considered [by me] to be a courtesy SC extends to the provider. If the provider wanted to, s/he could turn off all SC notifications and not even be bothered with devnulling them or ignoring them. If the issue is a source, the IP is listed whether or not the provider ignores notifies. If the issue is a spamvertiser, the IP is 'only' put on the stats page whether or not the provider ignores notifies. A SC notify is like a 'courtesy ticket' in traffic parlance, not like a 'fix it ticket' which requires that you make repairs and report back or a 'real ticket' which requires that you pay a fine or go to court. If some issue has an upstream or parent which is of value to notify, that is an option to the reporter -- manually for free reporters or SC additional for paid reporters -- and that is about the end of the 'power' of notification. You might try to build a case for a /better/ notify if there /were/ one in routing, but if there isn't a better notify then there isn't a better notify. SC's role is notifying those who want to be notified, listing those which it lists, and statistic/ing reported spamvertisers. Other systems, such as spews and spamhaus, have a different listing impact and system than spamcop's. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin