[Scspamcop] Re: Is SpamCop parsing this correctly?

[Geoffrey Hyde]

"Mike Easter" <MikeE at ster.invalid> wrote in message 
news:gs3l9i$2in$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> Geoffrey Hyde wrote:
> www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z2792181368zbcb1e3b85cc8fcb010d48b35cfdd5f4fz
>
>> Is SpamCop parsing this spam correctly?
>
> Yes, but your provider isn't doing a very good job.  It should be doing a
> better job of rejecting some of the spam which is submitted to it for
> placing in its clients' mailboxes and it should do a better job of
> stamping its headers.

The last time I checked into it, yes they had spamfiltering services.  But 
(and there's always a but) you have to pay money for it to be switched on. 
Why they don't want to do their customers a favour is beyond me.

I presume by "doing a better job" you're talking about the simpler things 
like misdirected assumed aliases, not trusting spam sent with bogosity in 
the headers, that sort of thing?  The last time I checked into that line of 
blocking I think they said it was something along the lines of too much 
hardware to maintain and configure for such a job.  That was quite some time 
ago though and presumably before they implemented spamfiltering services.

And to Ellen, yes I was talking about the "you are receiving this offer" 
crap they were talking about.  I didn't even bother reading it, as it was 
bogus from the very start.  I would think that Microsoft or whoever uses 
that sort of legal jargon might have to say something about improper usage 
of that, *if* and only *if* they could find a legally identifiable entity to 
pin it on.  It's kind of like playing "pin the tail on the donkey" when it's 
invisible and not even in the same room as you.


Cheers ...

Geoffrey Hyde