[Scspamcop] Re: cox now blocking reports to spamcop (labelling them as spam)

[Miss Betsy]

"dwayne" <no_spam at for_me.plz> wrote in message 
news:f1u9rv$pof$1 at news.spamcop.net...
<snip>
> But my issue with Cox is that they don't provide any tools at the server 
> level... so I have to rely on client-side tools like SpamPal and others to 
> deal with what comes through.
>
> Anyway, not to start a fight... just to clarify where I was coming from.

I don't think that ISPs can add 'tools at the server level' that would be 
under the control of the end user.  What the end user can do is to be a good 
consumer and demand to know what is being done to combat spam at the server 
level and try to find an ISP who will use the 'best' tools - ones that 
inform the sender that the email has been rejected, for instance.  I am not 
a server admin and don't understand all the fine points, but I think that 
there is a blacklist of those IP addresses that are zombies and there is no 
problem with blocking email from those addresses since no real email comes 
from them for another 'for instance.'

IMHO, any spam defenses on the receiving end except blocking at the server 
level are time consuming and prone to error - destroying legitimate email 
and letting spam in.  The sender is the only one in control of whether spam 
is being sent or not and the sender should be responsible for choosing a 
competent email service provider.  The receiver should not have any spam 
allowed in the inbox and any suspect spam (based on IP address, not content) 
should be returned to the sender to let them figure out how to get it sent. 
Most competent ISPs can prevent spam from leaving their mail servers.  Any 
mistakes would be a whole lot less time consuming than the present system. 
(well, maybe not at first when consumers would be fighting Cox and Comcast, 
etc. but once that was over)

Miss Betsy
an almost new internet user