From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Thu Sep 1 01:58:36 2005 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (WazoO) Date: Thu Sep 1 02:00:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: No source IP address found, cannot proceed. References: Message-ID: "Anon_" wrote in message news:df5gc9$ac6$1@news.spamcop.net... > "WazoO" wrote in message > news:df59np$61i$1@news.spamcop.net... > > "Anon_" wrote in message > > news:df581r$4nk$1@news.spamcop.net... > > > > > > "WazoO" wrote in message > > > news:df0561$ved$1@news.spamcop.net... > > > > "Anon_" wrote in message > > > > news:devl50$mct$1@news.spamcop.net... > > > > > Top posted on purpose! > > > > > > > > > > *I* clicked on the tracking URL and it DID parse correctly with > > > > > addresses (with check boxes) for reporting this spam! > > > > > > > > > > Why did it parse correctly for me (now) and failed for the OP? > > > > > > > > Check poster's other thread in the spamcop newsgroup. > > > **** > > > I had checked and did again check and NONE mentioned that anyone had > > > reparsed the link successfully - with the option of sending a report to > > > specific abuse desks! > > > > In the spamcop newsgroup thread; > > > > Ellen: The parse looks fine to me and you mailhosts > > look OK. Are you seeing something different? > > Did Don make some changes for you in the mailhosts? > > > > Wazoo: Somebody did something, as both the example > > here and the one offered over in spamcop.help are > > now parsing with results. > > > > BMW: Yes, I made the changes. . . Mailhost setting > > for "theplanet" have changed, much to my surprise. > > Things seem to be working. Thanks for your help! > Top posted on purpose. > > OK, I did not look at the forums. Thanks (It DID seem odd that no-one had > commented on the OK parse.) ????? "spamcop newsgroup" != "Forum" ????? From MikeE at ster.invalid Thu Sep 1 05:46:57 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Thu Sep 1 07:50:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: No source IP address found, cannot proceed. References: Message-ID: Anon_ wrote: > Top posted on purpose! You shouldn't have top posted this. You should have trimmed and contextualized it for clarity for yourself and for anyone else following the thread and responding to it, as I am doing now. > "BMW" >> What is up with SC? I haven't been able to submit a SPAM that "got >> through" for a long time. I always get >> >> "No source IP address found, cannot proceed." >> >> Sample = www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z800666612z042f3048b472e29617f368eb722ae809z >> I'd appreciate any help you could offer. . . > *I* clicked on the tracking URL and it DID parse correctly with > addresses (with check boxes) for reporting this spam! That's because a tracking url provides a link to the original spam which is reparsed under the new 'conditions' if some conditions change between the time of an original or earlier parse and a later parse. This is mentioned here http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/32.html Why does SpamCop show different results from one day to the next? > Why did it parse correctly for me (now) and failed for the OP? The mailhost condition which was causing the parser to handle the headers improperly was corrected. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From MikeE at ster.invalid Thu Sep 1 05:59:10 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Thu Sep 1 08:00:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: No source IP address found, cannot proceed. References: Message-ID: Anon_ wrote: > "WazoO" >> "Anon_" >>> Why did it parse correctly for me (now) and failed for the OP? >> >> Check poster's other thread in the spamcop newsgroup. ... which thread sez: BMW wrote: > Ellen wrote: >> "BMW" >>> Still doesn't answer my question so here is yet another (in proper format): www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z800666612z042f3048b472e29617f368eb722ae809z >>> It is real it has a source IP and SC doesn't believe it. What good >>> is this service if it doesn't work? >> The parse looks fine to me and you mailhosts look OK. Are you seeing >> something different? >> Did Don make some changes for you in the mailhosts? > Yes, I made the changes. . . Mailhost setting for "theplanet" have > changed, much to my surprise. Things seem to be working. Thanks for > your help! Anon_ wrote: > I had checked and did again check and NONE mentioned that anyone had > reparsed the link successfully - with the option of sending a report > to specific abuse desks! You are saying 'anyone had reparsed the /link/ successfully'. That is ambiguous. A link might be the tracking url, or a link might be a spamvertised url in a particular spam. BMW is saying things are working, ie saying that the parser is parsing the spam. That [where 'that' is parsing a spamvertised link inside a spam] isn't what the conversation/thread was about. The conversation was about what this thread was about, which is parsing a spam, not determining a notify for a spamvertised link. The OP was posting about the parser failing to parse a spam BMW wrote: > What is up with SC? I haven't been able to submit a SPAM that "got > through" for a long time. I always get > > "No source IP address found, cannot proceed." > > Sample = > http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z800666612z042f3048b472e29617f368eb722ae809z > > I'd appreciate any help you could offer. . . I think you Anon might be getting mixed up about what we are talking about. We are not talking about the parser failing to notify for a spamvertised link. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From MikeE at ster.invalid Thu Sep 1 06:05:16 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Thu Sep 1 08:05:04 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: No source IP address found, cannot proceed. References: Message-ID: Anon_ wrote: > Top posted on purpose. You shouldn't have top posted this, either. > OK, I did not look at the forums. Thanks (It DID seem odd that no-one > had commented on the OK parse.) That remark is unresponsive to what WazoO sed. Here's part of what WazoO just sed that you perceived incorrectly because of your reading and posting method. > "WazoO" >> Wazoo: Somebody did something, as both the example >> here and the one offered over in spamcop.help are >> now parsing with results. >> >> BMW: Yes, I made the changes. . . Mailhost setting >> for "theplanet" have changed, much to my surprise. >> Things seem to be working. Thanks for your help! There is nothing being mentioned by WazoO or anyone else about any conversation in the forums. If you will consistently trim and contextualize, as you /sometimes/ do, less confusion will develop and we or I or anyone, including you Anon can follow the thread better . -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From h9vzc2i02 at sneakemail.com Thu Sep 1 11:28:02 2005 From: h9vzc2i02 at sneakemail.com (Anon_) Date: Thu Sep 1 13:30:06 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: No source IP address found, cannot proceed. References: Message-ID: "WazoO" wrote in message news:df65ab$lgj$1@news.spamcop.net... > "Anon_" wrote in message > news:df5gc9$ac6$1@news.spamcop.net... > > "WazoO" wrote in message > > news:df59np$61i$1@news.spamcop.net... > > > "Anon_" wrote in message > > > news:df581r$4nk$1@news.spamcop.net... > > > > > > > > "WazoO" wrote in message > > > > news:df0561$ved$1@news.spamcop.net... > > > > > "Anon_" wrote in message > > > > > news:devl50$mct$1@news.spamcop.net... > > > > > > Top posted on purpose! > > > > > > > > > > > > *I* clicked on the tracking URL and it DID parse correctly with > > > > > > addresses (with check boxes) for reporting this spam! > > > > > > > > > > > > Why did it parse correctly for me (now) and failed for the OP? > > > > > > > > > > Check poster's other thread in the spamcop newsgroup. > > > > **** > > > > I had checked and did again check and NONE mentioned that anyone had > > > > reparsed the link successfully - with the option of sending a report > to > > > > specific abuse desks! > > > > > > In the spamcop newsgroup thread; > > > > > > Ellen: The parse looks fine to me and you mailhosts > > > look OK. Are you seeing something different? > > > Did Don make some changes for you in the mailhosts? > > > > > > Wazoo: Somebody did something, as both the example > > > here and the one offered over in spamcop.help are > > > now parsing with results. > > > > > > BMW: Yes, I made the changes. . . Mailhost setting > > > for "theplanet" have changed, much to my surprise. > > > Things seem to be working. Thanks for your help! > > > Top posted on purpose. > > > > OK, I did not look at the forums. Thanks (It DID seem odd that no-one had > > commented on the OK parse.) > > > ????? "spamcop newsgroup" != "Forum" ????? > > *** Newsgroup - I meant this particular place to post. Forum - the other (web page) place to post. I looked in this place for the postings I was discussing. I did not look in the forum for the information. Does this clear up the different locations I 'should' have looked in??? -- A SpamCop user and forum reader, Not Admin *** From h9vzc2i02 at sneakemail.com Thu Sep 1 11:33:43 2005 From: h9vzc2i02 at sneakemail.com (Anon_) Date: Thu Sep 1 13:35:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: No source IP address found, cannot proceed. References: Message-ID: "Mike Easter" wrote in message news:df6qp5$25u$1@news.spamcop.net... > Anon_ wrote: > > Top posted on purpose. > > You shouldn't have top posted this, either. ** OK you are correct, I (mis)thought that this top post was permissible in this particular case - but, yes, top posting disconnects from the thing posted about. *** > > > OK, I did not look at the forums. Thanks (It DID seem odd that no-one > > had commented on the OK parse.) > > That remark is unresponsive to what WazoO sed. Here's part of what > WazoO just sed that you perceived incorrectly because of your reading > and posting method. > > > "WazoO" > > >> Wazoo: Somebody did something, as both the example > >> here and the one offered over in spamcop.help are > >> now parsing with results. > >> > >> BMW: Yes, I made the changes. . . Mailhost setting > >> for "theplanet" have changed, much to my surprise. > >> Things seem to be working. Thanks for your help! > > There is nothing being mentioned by WazoO or anyone else about any > conversation in the forums. > ** I thought that the matter of someone having been able to parse the link was discussed in the forum as it had NOT been discussed in this ng. *** > If you will consistently trim and contextualize, as you /sometimes/ do, > less confusion will develop and we or I or anyone, including you Anon > can follow the thread better . > > ** Will do in future - see comment at top as to my feelings about top posting. -- A SpamCop user and forum reader, Not Admin *** > -- > Mike Easter > kibitzer, not SC admin > From h9vzc2i02 at sneakemail.com Thu Sep 1 11:39:38 2005 From: h9vzc2i02 at sneakemail.com (Anon_) Date: Thu Sep 1 13:40:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: No source IP address found, cannot proceed. References: Message-ID: "Mike Easter" wrote in message news:df6qdm$1ln$1@news.spamcop.net... > Anon_ wrote: > > "WazoO" > >> "Anon_" > > >>> Why did it parse correctly for me (now) and failed for the OP? > >> > >> Check poster's other thread in the spamcop newsgroup. > > ... which thread sez: > > > BMW wrote: > > Ellen wrote: > >> "BMW" > > >>> Still doesn't answer my question so here is yet another (in proper > format): > > www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z800666612z042f3048b472e29617f368eb722ae809z > > >>> It is real it has a source IP and SC doesn't believe it. What good > >>> is this service if it doesn't work? > > >> The parse looks fine to me and you mailhosts look OK. Are you seeing > >> something different? > ** I missed THAT line stating that the parse did work. *** > >> Did Don make some changes for you in the mailhosts? > > > Yes, I made the changes. . . Mailhost setting for "theplanet" have > > changed, much to my surprise. Things seem to be working. Thanks for > > your help! > > > > Anon_ wrote: > > I had checked and did again check and NONE mentioned that anyone had > > reparsed the link successfully - with the option of sending a report > > to specific abuse desks! > > You are saying 'anyone had reparsed the /link/ successfully'. That is > ambiguous. A link might be the tracking url, or a link might be a > spamvertised url in a particular spam. BMW is saying things are > working, ie saying that the parser is parsing the spam. > > That [where 'that' is parsing a spamvertised link inside a spam] isn't > what the conversation/thread was about. The conversation was about what > this thread was about, which is parsing a spam, not determining a notify > for a spamvertised link. The OP was posting about the parser failing to > parse a spam > *** No my comment was only about SC not parsing and was not about spamvertised sites in the body of the spam. *** > > BMW wrote: > > What is up with SC? I haven't been able to submit a SPAM that "got > > through" for a long time. I always get > > > > "No source IP address found, cannot proceed." > > > > Sample = > > > http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z800666612z042f3048b472e29617f368eb722ae809z > > > > I'd appreciate any help you could offer. . . > > > I think you Anon might be getting mixed up about what we are talking > about. We are not talking about the parser failing to notify for a > spamvertised link. > *** I thought you were talking about the SC failing to parse anything after the first line of the header. -- A SpamCop user and forum reader, Not Admin *** > > -- > Mike Easter > kibitzer, not SC admin > From h9vzc2i02 at sneakemail.com Thu Sep 1 11:48:13 2005 From: h9vzc2i02 at sneakemail.com (Anon_) Date: Thu Sep 1 13:50:02 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: No source IP address found, cannot proceed. References: Message-ID: "Mike Easter" wrote in message news:df6pmp$16t$1@news.spamcop.net... > Anon_ wrote: > > Top posted on purpose! > > You shouldn't have top posted this. You should have trimmed and > contextualized it for clarity for yourself and for anyone else following > the thread and responding to it, as I am doing now. > > > "BMW" > > >> What is up with SC? I haven't been able to submit a SPAM that "got > >> through" for a long time. I always get > >> > >> "No source IP address found, cannot proceed." > >> > >> Sample = > www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z800666612z042f3048b472e29617f368eb722ae809z > > >> I'd appreciate any help you could offer. . . > > > *I* clicked on the tracking URL and it DID parse correctly with > > addresses (with check boxes) for reporting this spam! > > That's because a tracking url provides a link to the original spam which > is reparsed under the new 'conditions' if some conditions change between > the time of an original or earlier parse and a later parse. This is > mentioned here http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/32.html Why does > SpamCop show different results from one day to the next? > > > Why did it parse correctly for me (now) and failed for the OP? > > The mailhost condition which was causing the parser to handle the > headers improperly was corrected. > > *** Are you saying that something that a third party did to their server made the SC parser complete the parsing of all the header lines? But when the OP originally tried the parser had failed. If that is true then when a poster has complained about an SC parser failure and gives the tracking URL - and I then click on the tracking URL the parser COULD then do its job completely and satisfactorily. If this is true then there is no way for the ng reader to see what the OP was talking about (the problem has evaporated.) -- A SpamCop user and forum reader, Not Admin *** > -- > Mike Easter > kibitzer, not SC admin > From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Thu Sep 1 14:35:57 2005 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (WazoO) Date: Thu Sep 1 14:40:05 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: No source IP address found, cannot proceed. References: Message-ID: "Anon_" wrote in message news:df7dkg$dbg$1@news.spamcop.net... > > "WazoO" wrote in message > news:df65ab$lgj$1@news.spamcop.net... > > > > ????? "spamcop newsgroup" != "Forum" ????? > > Newsgroup - I meant this particular place to post. > > Forum - the other (web page) place to post. > > I looked in this place for the postings I was discussing. > > I did not look in the forum for the information. > > Does this clear up the different locations I 'should' have looked in??? Nope .... the SpamCop newsgroups include; spamcop (where the other thread is found) spamcop.geeks spamcop.help (where this thread is at) spamcop.mail etc. .... The Forum is a whole different beast. On the other hand, if you go to the Forum, follow the link to SpamCop Newsgroups, you should see the entire list of newsgroups available ... provided in response to the complaints of "hidden" newsgroups when approached from the www.spamcop.net side of the house. From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Thu Sep 1 14:43:33 2005 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (WazoO) Date: Thu Sep 1 14:45:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: No source IP address found, cannot proceed. References: Message-ID: "Anon_" wrote in message news:df7eqd$e3s$1@news.spamcop.net... > > Are you saying that something that a third party did to their server made > the SC parser complete the parsing of all the header lines? But when the OP > originally tried the parser had failed. > > If that is true then when a poster has complained about an SC parser failure > and gives the tracking URL - and I then click on the tracking URL the parser > COULD then do its job completely and satisfactorily. If this is true then > there is no way for the ng reader to see what the OP was talking about (the > problem has evaporated.) If you really feel the need to continue this, you need to go visit the actual thread being discussed. There is a problem in that the OP started a thread 'here' ... but also jumped into an existing thread "there" ... all 'continued' dialog on the specific issue then happened "there" ... Please see; From: BMW Newsgroups: spamcop <---------- (critical data bit) Subject: Re: SC can't find source IP Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:43:17 -0400 Message-ID: From MikeE at ster.invalid Thu Sep 1 13:17:29 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Thu Sep 1 15:20:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: No source IP address found, cannot proceed. References: Message-ID: Anon_ wrote: > "Mike Easter" >>> Why did it parse correctly for me (now) and failed for the OP? >> >> The mailhost condition which was causing the parser to handle the >> headers improperly was corrected. > Are you saying that something that a third party did to their server > made the SC parser complete the parsing of all the header lines? I'm saying that the tracker points to a spam which is 'attached' to a particular mailhost. When called, the parser reparses the spam and uses current information, which includes databases, whois, and mailhost condition. In the first parsing, something was whacky with the mailhost status, as a server had apparently changed behavior from the time the OP configured the mailhost. Then the OP or some combination of the OP and SC admin corrected the mailhost configuration. Nothing changed about the spam of course. When the parser was called by the tracker to parse the item according to the recipient OP's properly configured mailhost, the item parsed satisfactorily. > But > when the OP originally tried the parser had failed. Correct. > If that is true then when a poster has complained about an SC parser > failure and gives the tracking URL - and I then click on the tracking > URL the parser COULD then do its job completely and satisfactorily. Correct. Sometimes it is actually necessary to copy some part of the verbose output of the parser's results in addition to the tracker in order to say what the parser said at the time -- usually that is unnecessary. Usually by providing a tracker which can access the original spam, all of the necessary information can be conveyed. Occasionally it is desirable to reparse an original spam with a non-mailhosted account. I keep a nonmailhosted account just for the purpose of experimentally parsing spams whose trackers have been posted and which tracker shows the result of a mailhosted recipient's parse. > If this is true then there is no way for the ng reader to see what > the OP was talking about (the problem has evaporated.) The original spam will always be present. Its age may have changed to too old. Databases may have changed their results of the parse. Very very rarely the configuration of a mailhost will have changed. 99+% of the time, the tracker 'alone' without copying of any verbose information from the parse is quite sufficient. Those of 'us' tinu who can sometimes predict the future can sometimes anticipate when the result of a parse is going to change and 'we' might copy a little bit of the verbose so that we can show what it said at the time. But very rarely. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From MikeE at ster.invalid Thu Sep 1 14:06:26 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Thu Sep 1 16:10:05 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: No source IP address found, cannot proceed. References: Message-ID: Anon_ wrote: > OK you are correct, I (mis)thought that this top post was permissible > in this particular case - but, yes, top posting disconnects from the > thing posted about. Exactly. The greatest vulnerabilities in newsgroup communications are the various forms of misunderstanding. I misunderstand something you say or how you mean it. You misunderstand or 'miss' something I say because I didn't say it clearly enough because I was thinking about what I was thinking about, but you or someone else were thinking about something else while you were reading what I was saying. To say nothing of the missing subtleties of body language or gestures or facial expressions or voice inflections which we are accustomed to in other media of communication. So, as a result, the 'tiny' difference of approximating or juxtaposing the context of a reply directly beneath what it is addressing is of /enormous/ importance. That single 'little' difference makes quantitative leaps of an order of magnitude in the quality of the communication of the conversation. It 'forces' a poster to be 'staring at' the precise and exact words which were used before -- 'forcing' the poster's brain and words to be even more responsive to the very words than that respondent would have been by 'simply' posting a reply to hir recollection of what s/he is replying to. And posting that reply 'up in the sky', isolated, disconnected, in a vacuum impairing its association and enhancing or aggravating any existent confusion. The enhanced precision and accuracy of a 'conversation' of trimmed contextualizers is beyond comparison with top posters. Any top post derogates or deteriorates the 'quality' or accuracy or understanding of an existing conversation. The people who think that top posting is simply an option contrasted with 'bottom posting' - like black shoes vs brown shoes - simply don't 'get it'. Top posting is associated with both impaired understandings as well as inaccurate communications of the important elements of a dialog. And further, that results in a necessity for all involved to get the dialog *organized* which is impossible because of the disruptive effects of the top post's destruction of the order of the conversation. It is almost never appropriate to top post. Sometimes it would be better to summarize what has been said before without 'quoting' anything underneath -- but in no case is there some kind of 'advantage' or desirability to put a post or remark on 'top of' a bunch of accumulated junk - cite marks, sigs, attributions and various other content amassed from before. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From h9vzc2i02 at sneakemail.com Thu Sep 1 16:07:05 2005 From: h9vzc2i02 at sneakemail.com (Anon_) Date: Thu Sep 1 18:10:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: No source IP address found, cannot proceed. References: Message-ID: "WazoO" wrote in message news:df7i4m$g0t$1@news.spamcop.net... > "Anon_" wrote in message > news:df7eqd$e3s$1@news.spamcop.net... > > > > Are you saying that something that a third party did to their server made > > the SC parser complete the parsing of all the header lines? But when the > OP > > originally tried the parser had failed. > > > > If that is true then when a poster has complained about an SC parser > failure > > and gives the tracking URL - and I then click on the tracking URL the > parser > > COULD then do its job completely and satisfactorily. If this is true then > > there is no way for the ng reader to see what the OP was talking about > (the > > problem has evaporated.) > > If you really feel the need to continue this, you need to go visit the > actual thread being discussed. There is a problem in that the OP > started a thread 'here' ... but also jumped into an existing thread > "there" ... all 'continued' dialog on the specific issue then happened > "there" ... Please see; > *** I see, that must be where I got lost. Thanks. -- A SpamCop user and forum reader, Not Admin *** > From: BMW > Newsgroups: spamcop <---------- (critical data bit) > Subject: Re: SC can't find source IP > Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:43:17 -0400 > Message-ID: > > From h9vzc2i02 at sneakemail.com Thu Sep 1 16:12:12 2005 From: h9vzc2i02 at sneakemail.com (Anon_) Date: Thu Sep 1 18:15:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: No source IP address found, cannot proceed. References: Message-ID: "Mike Easter" wrote in message news:df7k3f$h6d$1@news.spamcop.net... > Anon_ wrote: > > "Mike Easter" > > >>> Why did it parse correctly for me (now) and failed for the OP? > >> > >> The mailhost condition which was causing the parser to handle the > >> headers improperly was corrected. > > > Are you saying that something that a third party did to their server > > made the SC parser complete the parsing of all the header lines? > > I'm saying that the tracker points to a spam which is 'attached' to a > particular mailhost. When called, the parser reparses the spam and uses > current information, which includes databases, whois, and mailhost > condition. > > In the first parsing, something was whacky with the mailhost status, as > a server had apparently changed behavior from the time the OP configured > the mailhost. Then the OP or some combination of the OP and SC admin > corrected the mailhost configuration. Nothing changed about the spam of > course. > > When the parser was called by the tracker to parse the item according to > the recipient OP's properly configured mailhost, the item parsed > satisfactorily. > > > But > > when the OP originally tried the parser had failed. > > Correct. > > > If that is true then when a poster has complained about an SC parser > > failure and gives the tracking URL - and I then click on the tracking > > URL the parser COULD then do its job completely and satisfactorily. > > Correct. Sometimes it is actually necessary to copy some part of the > verbose output of the parser's results in addition to the tracker in > order to say what the parser said at the time -- usually that is > unnecessary. Usually by providing a tracker which can access the > original spam, all of the necessary information can be conveyed. > > Occasionally it is desirable to reparse an original spam with a > non-mailhosted account. I keep a nonmailhosted account just for the > purpose of experimentally parsing spams whose trackers have been posted > and which tracker shows the result of a mailhosted recipient's parse. > > > If this is true then there is no way for the ng reader to see what > > the OP was talking about (the problem has evaporated.) > > The original spam will always be present. Its age may have changed to > too old. Databases may have changed their results of the parse. Very > very rarely the configuration of a mailhost will have changed. 99+% of > the time, the tracker 'alone' without copying of any verbose information > from the parse is quite sufficient. Those of 'us' tinu who can > sometimes predict the future can sometimes anticipate when the > result of a parse is going to change and 'we' might copy a little bit of > the verbose so that we can show what it said at the time. > > But very rarely. > **** That clears up a lot of things (misc. posts that do not 'sound' as if they are talking about the same spam - spam's the same but the underlying database got changed - so the discussions don't track.) Thanks for the clarification. -- A SpamCop user and forum reader, Not Admin *** > -- > Mike Easter > kibitzer, not SC admin > From nobody at spamcop.net Thu Sep 1 23:07:32 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (N. Miller) Date: Fri Sep 2 01:10:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: No source IP address found, cannot proceed. References: Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 10:48:13 -0700, Anon_ wrote: > If that is true then when a poster has complained about an SC parser failure > and gives the tracking URL - and I then click on the tracking URL the parser > COULD then do its job completely and satisfactorily. If this is true then > there is no way for the ng reader to see what the OP was talking about (the > problem has evaporated.) I actually posted two trackers in the other thread: ================================================= Newsgroups: spamcop Subject: Re: SC can't find source IP Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 02:09:52 -0700 Message-ID: <12emfri2buq98$.dlg@news.spamcop.net> ================================================= I mentioned that the OP's failure was consistent with a failure on my mailhost-configured reporting account. I did not have the foresight to include the verbose component of the failure. My second tracker is on a non mailhost-configured reporting account parsed correctly. -- Norman ~Shine, bright morning light, ~now in the air the spring is coming. ~Sweet, blowing wind, ~singing down the hills and valleys. From redford_stone at INVERSE_OF_COLDmail.com Fri Sep 2 13:21:53 2005 From: redford_stone at INVERSE_OF_COLDmail.com (Redstone) Date: Fri Sep 2 08:25:02 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Spamcop not recognizing Links References: Message-ID: "R. Scott" wrote in news:depvhd$o3d$1 @news.spamcop.net: > Mortage spammer using somthing that confuses Spamcop. Links work and > ARIN finds them but spamcop barfs > > It usually has something to do with the DNS servers the spammers use. Some of them manage to block Spamcop's proddings for a time. Other times the server is rotating IP addresses as an attempt to keep it from being closed down. From edb2000 at spamcop.net Fri Sep 2 22:24:45 2005 From: edb2000 at spamcop.net (Don Wannit) Date: Sat Sep 3 00:25:04 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Spamcop not recognizing Links In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Redstone wrote: > "R. Scott" wrote in news:depvhd$o3d$1 > @news.spamcop.net: > > >>Mortage spammer using somthing that confuses Spamcop. Links work and >>ARIN finds them but spamcop barfs >> > > It usually has something to do with the DNS servers the spammers use. Some > of them manage to block Spamcop's proddings for a time. Other times the > server is rotating IP addresses as an attempt to keep it from being closed > down. > For all those people who ask "I'm reporting spam using SpamCop, but I still get spam. Does SpamCop make any difference?" this kind of thing is an indirect indication that yes, SpamCop does make a difference. If a spammer goes to the trouble of blocking SpamCop's IP addresses specifically from doing DNS lookups, that's strong indication that SpamCop does inflict pain on the spammers. And if a spammer goes to the trouble of rotating spam source IP addresses, let alone rotating DNS nameserver addresses, that shows that DNS-based blocklists like the SCbl and so many others as well really do cut down on the amount of spam that actually gets delivered. Hey, if my new weapons make the enemy spend the effort for another round of the weapons race, then I must be doing something right. Maybe the New Evil Empire (spammers) will collapse like the former "Evil Empire" (Soviet Union) in the face of an escalating arms race. (We're at 11:55pm on the clock of the Bulletin of the Internet Email Scientists.) -- Don Wannit A paid SpamCop user since 1999 From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Sep 7 05:53:58 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Wed Sep 7 07:55:06 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: AOL Bouncing Our Mail References: <1sjth1t102oep96qaa237dsqv4h3a6dj9l@4ax.com> Message-ID: SpamCop Admin wrote: > AOL users are starting to report that our responses to their email > spam submissions are bouncing. That sounds funny -- that the would-be recipient would be reporting the 'bounce' to the sender. You would think the would-be recipient would be reporting that they weren't getting the response. By your saying it that way, I guess that means that the spamcop sender can't get the 'bounce' [bounce is such an ambiguous word] - that is the failed delivery information? If an AOLer submits a spam, then I would think the spamcop response to that submission should contain headers that look in part like this: Return-Path: Received: from vmx1.spamcop.net ([204.15.82.27]) by Received: from sc-app6.ironport.com (HELO spamcop.net) (204.15.82.25) by vmx1.spamcop.net with SMTP; 07 Sep 2005 02:56:35 -0700 From: SpamCop So, how does AOL bounce that spamcop mail? To the Return-Path? The From? Does it simply reject the transaction? What? If it rejected the transaction, you wouldn't need the report from the non-recipient, you would know the item had been rejected. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From anthony.edwards at uk.easynet.net Wed Sep 7 13:07:06 2005 From: anthony.edwards at uk.easynet.net (Anthony Edwards) Date: Wed Sep 7 08:10:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: AOL Bouncing Our Mail References: <1sjth1t102oep96qaa237dsqv4h3a6dj9l@4ax.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 05:31:58 -0600, SpamCop Admin wrote: > AOL users are starting to report that our responses to their email > spam submissions are bouncing. > > It's due to our recent change in server IPs. Possibly, possibly not. They are similarly bouncing email we are attempting to send to a corporate customer whose sole contact address is @aol.com with the following error message: http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554hvub1.html Which means: * 554 HVU:B1 http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554hvub1.html EXPLANATION: There is at least one URL in your email that is generating substantial complaints from AOL members. The two URLs which are common in all of the attempts so far (we are progressively editing to remove URLs) are: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?* (a link to an example Unsolicited Bulk Email reported via your service) And: http://www.uk.easynet.net/legal/acceptable.asp My guess would be that, for whatever reason, AOL are currently blocking all mail with URLs containing "http://www.spamcop.net/". -- Anthony Edwards * anthony.edwards@uk.easynet.net Abuse Team Manager * Tel: 0800 053 0588 Easynet Ltd * DDI: 0161 227 0707 http://www.uk.easynet.net * Fax: 0845 333 4503 From anthony.edwards at uk.easynet.net Wed Sep 7 13:14:56 2005 From: anthony.edwards at uk.easynet.net (Anthony Edwards) Date: Wed Sep 7 08:15:04 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: AOL Bouncing Our Mail References: <1sjth1t102oep96qaa237dsqv4h3a6dj9l@4ax.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 12:07:06 +0000 (UTC), Anthony Edwards wrote: > My guess would be that, for whatever reason, AOL are currently blocking > all mail with URLs containing "http://www.spamcop.net/". Further to this, I have just re-sent the email in question, this time removing the included "http://www.spamcop.net/sc?*" URL from the body text of the email in question. No rejection message this time from AOL and it therefore appears that both this latest transmission attempt has been accepted, and that my hypothesis above is likely to be correct. -- Anthony Edwards * anthony.edwards@uk.easynet.net Abuse Team Manager * Tel: 0800 053 0588 Easynet Ltd * DDI: 0161 227 0707 http://www.uk.easynet.net * Fax: 0845 333 4503 From nobody at spamcop.net Wed Sep 7 19:37:58 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (SJones) Date: Wed Sep 7 18:40:22 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: AOL Bouncing Our Mail In-Reply-To: References: <1sjth1t102oep96qaa237dsqv4h3a6dj9l@4ax.com> Message-ID: On or about 9/7/2005 5:10 PM, SpamCop Admin penned the following: > Anthony Edwards wrote: >>-> It's due to our recent change in server IPs. > >>-Possibly, possibly not. > > Probably not. I got AOL to whitelist our IPs anyway because AOL users > routinely report our mail to AOL as spam. We've been blocked before > because of it. Defensive measure if nothing else. > >>-They are similarly bouncing email we are >>-attempting to send to a corporate customer whose sole contact address >>-is @aol.com with the following error message: >>- >>-http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554hvub1.html > > That's the same error I'm seeing. > > I just talked to AOL Postmaster Support and they say our IPs and > www.spamcop.net URL are not the problem. > > Earlier today, I had an issue where all my mail to an AOL user was > bouncing, with the same error, even though there weren't any URLs in > the message. > > I spent an hour with the AOL support guy testing stuff at that time, > and it turns out the rejection was because of an all-caps subject > line. > > All very strange. The support guy thinks there has to be something > wrong, so he entered a trouble ticket and escalated the problem to a > higher level. > > More news later. > > - Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin - > > > >>- >>-Which means: >>- >>- * 554 HVU:B1 >>- http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554hvub1.html >>- >>- EXPLANATION: >>- >>- There is at least one URL in your email that is generating >>- substantial complaints from AOL members. >>- >>-The two URLs which are common in all of the attempts so far (we are >>-progressively editing to remove URLs) are: >>- >>-http://www.spamcop.net/sc?* (a link to an example Unsolicited Bulk Email >>-reported via your service) >>- >>-And: >>- >>-http://www.uk.easynet.net/legal/acceptable.asp >>- >>-My guess would be that, for whatever reason, AOL are currently blocking >>-all mail with URLs containing "http://www.spamcop.net/". I, too, have been getting bounced reports from aol. Here's a typical one: Recipient address: @aol.com Reason: SMTP transmission failure has occurred Diagnostic code: smtp;554-: (HVU:B1) http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554hvub1.html TRANSACTION FAILED Remote system: dns;mailin-01.mx.aol.com (TCP|206.46.252.40|54606|205.188.159.57|25) (rly-yg03.mx.aol.com ESMTP mail_relay_in-yg3.6; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:25:39 -0400) -- All spam & UCE are reported. From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Sep 7 17:09:18 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Wed Sep 7 19:10:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: AOL Bouncing Our Mail References: <1sjth1t102oep96qaa237dsqv4h3a6dj9l@4ax.com> Message-ID: SpamCop Admin wrote: > Mike Easter wrote: >> -That sounds funny -- > The user doesn't get our response as expected, so he logs into his > account here to see what's going on, and is told that his account has > been suspended because our mail to him is bouncing. Then he writes to > me about the problem. > > The Return-Path on our system mail contains a code that ties the > message to the user account. If it bounces, it's logged as a note on > his account so I can see it. Got it. Thanks. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com Wed Sep 7 21:35:12 2005 From: post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com (DougW) Date: Wed Sep 7 21:40:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] SC missing some links. Message-ID: Modification on the same old theme of busting up a url with codes and other oddball obfuscation like using %2E for "." and a # to misdirect folks. Interesting is the http:\/ and http:/\ obfuscation attempt. IE works on that type of malformed url but firefox refuses the http:/\ Samples: (the breaks are from the embedded control codes) http:/ \hplgapdkuv.net%2Ezvxsieqvb%2Eulle ladt.info#hxswpeeyo.com ht tp:\ /hhcwovbgzrr.com%2Eoejaswgkodze%2Eune tretu.info#jktzsejas.net h ttp:\ /njlccdbt.com%2Euyghfhikn01%38%2Ewa tchzn8w73by2mai1.com#hwgpdknm.com h ttp:\ /sngkhpbydzji.net%2Ekyhdx%30%31%38%2Ewtch4z now62bymai1.com#sgotbfudh.com ----- Unedited spam available here: http://www.revbeergoggles.com/spammers/watchspam/ Loads more available on request. Postmaster or Abuse at .sig -- DougW Head kook and bottle washer, revbeergoggles.com From hwolfe at spamcop.net Fri Sep 9 07:25:46 2005 From: hwolfe at spamcop.net (Herb Wolfe) Date: Fri Sep 9 07:25:22 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: AOL Bouncing Our Mail In-Reply-To: References: <1sjth1t102oep96qaa237dsqv4h3a6dj9l@4ax.com> Message-ID: Anthony Edwards wrote: > On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 12:07:06 +0000 (UTC), Anthony Edwards > wrote: > > >>My guess would be that, for whatever reason, AOL are currently blocking >>all mail with URLs containing "http://www.spamcop.net/". > > > Further to this, I have just re-sent the email in question, this time > removing the included "http://www.spamcop.net/sc?*" URL from the body > text of the email in question. > > No rejection message this time from AOL and it therefore appears that > both this latest transmission attempt has been accepted, and that my > hypothesis above is likely to be correct. > Close. Actually it's just the spamcop.net text at most. I sent an e-mail to my mom the other day that was bounced. Snipped my .sig which had my url and spamcop e-mail address, and it went through fine. AOL's email admins seem rather incompetent, and not just due to this. She was telling me how she has trouble getting email from recipe mailing lists she's on, even after adding another screen name. From Kilgallen at SpamCop.net Fri Sep 9 10:08:03 2005 From: Kilgallen at SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Date: Fri Sep 9 10:10:04 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: AOL Bouncing Our Mail References: <1sjth1t102oep96qaa237dsqv4h3a6dj9l@4ax.com> Message-ID: In article , SpamCop Admin writes: > The other issue about them bouncing mail with an all-caps subject line Presumably including any inquiry about ISP recommendations sent to a known AOL-using friend with: Subject: AOL :-) From nospam at net.nonexistant Mon Sep 12 10:41:48 2005 From: nospam at net.nonexistant (John Blanton) Date: Mon Sep 12 10:45:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Help! My spamcop.net account no longer exists Message-ID: My spamcop email account is not working anymore. When I attempt to send mail to it, I get the following message: Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently: jblanton@spamcop.net Technical details of permanent failure: PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 10): 550 sorry, no such user here (#5.7.1) When I attempt to log on to it on the website, it says the account no longer exists. Can someone please help me with this? This is my primary email account. If it's billing related, I'll be happy to take care of it - I never got any renewal notification or notification of any kind at all that there was any problem with my account before it went dark. The last mail I got from it was around 9/7. Thanks, John From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Sep 12 12:04:31 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Ellen) Date: Mon Sep 12 14:25:04 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Help! My spamcop.net account no longer exists References: Message-ID: "John Blanton" wrote in message news:BF4AFDDC.3A6%nospam@net.nonexistant... > My spamcop email account is not working anymore. When I attempt to send mail > to it, I get the following message: > Responded in email. Ellen SpamCop From nospam at net.nonexistant Tue Sep 13 12:37:28 2005 From: nospam at net.nonexistant (John Blanton) Date: Tue Sep 13 12:41:07 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Help! My spamcop.net account no longer exists References: Message-ID: Ellen, I'm sorry, I didn't get your email. Could you please resend it to my alternative address at jblanton at aggienetwork d0t com? (Intentionally munging address to throw off harvesters) Thank you, John On 9/12/05 10:04 AM, in article dg4h2s$ih4$2@news.spamcop.net, "Ellen" wrote: > > > "John Blanton" wrote in message > news:BF4AFDDC.3A6%nospam@net.nonexistant... >> My spamcop email account is not working anymore. When I attempt to send > mail >> to it, I get the following message: >> > > > Responded in email. > > > Ellen > SpamCop > > From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Tue Sep 13 15:37:55 2005 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (WazoO) Date: Tue Sep 13 15:40:20 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Help! My spamcop.net account no longer exists References: Message-ID: "John Blanton" wrote in message news:BF4C6A78.3D7%nospam@net.nonexistant... > Ellen, > > I'm sorry, I didn't get your email. Could you please resend it to my > alternative address at jblanton at aggienetwork d0t com? (Intentionally > munging address to throw off harvesters) Based on Ellen's last to me about your issue coming up at the same time as a couple of other users over in the Forum, you need to contact JT about your SpamCop filtered e-mail account. That's a whole different side of SpamCop. Renewal / status / etc. data can be researched from links on the FAQ at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2238 From nobody at spamcop.net Tue Sep 13 16:39:21 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Ellen) Date: Tue Sep 13 15:55:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Help! My spamcop.net account no longer exists References: Message-ID: "John Blanton" wrote in message news:BF4C6A78.3D7%nospam@net.nonexistant... > Ellen, > > I'm sorry, I didn't get your email. Could you please resend it to my > alternative address at jblanton at aggienetwork d0t com? (Intentionally > munging address to throw off harvesters) > > Thank you, > John John -- as wazzo says -- you need to get in touch with Jeff -- support@spamcop.net should get you there. Ellen > From nobody at spamcop.net Wed Sep 14 16:20:28 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Ellen) Date: Wed Sep 14 15:30:04 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] system down 15:25:00 -0400 Message-ID: The system is down -- we have ops looking at it. No ETA yet. Please propagate as needed. Ellen SpamCop From mike.mccannish at mccannish.co.uk Thu Sep 15 14:48:25 2005 From: mike.mccannish at mccannish.co.uk (Mike McCannish) Date: Thu Sep 15 09:50:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Advice on removing IP Address from SPAMCOP Message-ID: Hi On Monday my IP was added to the SPAMCOP DB. We successfully managed to delist our mail server but today we found ourselves back on the list. The entry is:- http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?62.189.137.201 I would like to know how I go about removing our server from this list (we no longer have an option to delist) as we can no longer send email. I spoke with the support company who look after our Trend IMSS server and they said it was configured correctly and we should look at our internal SMTP gateway (GroupWise). We have not changed anything on our system for over a year so this is confusing me. In addition to receiving advice on how to remove our IP from the Database, is there anyway we can see who reported us in the first place? Any advice greatly appreciated. From MikeE at ster.invalid Thu Sep 15 09:26:29 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Thu Sep 15 11:30:04 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Advice on removing IP Address from SPAMCOP References: Message-ID: Mike McCannish wrote: > On Monday my IP was added to the SPAMCOP DB. We successfully managed > to delist our mail server but today we found ourselves back on the > list. Delisting shouldn't be your goal. Your goal should be to stop the behavior of the server which is causing the problem of hitting spamcop reporters and spamcop spamtraps. > The entry is:- > > http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?62.189.137.201 When you follow that link you get to a page you should read and you also get links to more pages you should read. I'll post some of that here in case you didn't follow the links or do the reading yet. > I would like to know how I go about removing our server from this list > (we no longer have an option to delist) as we can no longer send > email. Good that you can no longer delist. Good that you can no longer send mail. Now maybe you will do what you are supposed to do, which is not delist but to stop the abusive behavior. > I spoke with the support company who look after our Trend IMSS server > and they said it was configured correctly Who will figure out who is right and who is wrong? http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=blcheck&ip=62.189.137.201 >> 62.189.137.201 listed in bl.spamcop.net (127.0.0.2) System has sent mail to SpamCop spam traps in the past week ( It appears this listing is caused by misdirected bounces. We have a FAQ which covers this topic: http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html#bounces Why auto-responses are bad (Misdirected bounces). Please read this FAQ and heed the advice contained in it. System administrator has already delisted this system once Because of the above problems, express-delisting is not available In the past 3.7 days, it has been listed 3 times for a total of 25 hours >> > and we should look at our > internal SMTP gateway (GroupWise). We have not changed anything on our > system for over a year so this is confusing me. You and groupwise and Trend need to get straightened out all together > In addition to receiving advice on how to remove our IP from the > Database, is there anyway we can see who reported us in the first > place? There is only one important thing. Fix the problem. It isn't important who reported, because spamtraps alone are enough to get you listed. It isn't 'worthwhile' to delist. Delisting will occur automatically when the problem is fixed. You've got your priorities all mixed up. > Any advice greatly appreciated. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From Kilgallen at SpamCop.net Thu Sep 15 12:17:27 2005 From: Kilgallen at SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Date: Thu Sep 15 12:20:05 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Advice on removing IP Address from SPAMCOP References: Message-ID: In article , "Mike Easter" writes: > Mike McCannish wrote: > >> On Monday my IP was added to the SPAMCOP DB. We successfully managed >> to delist our mail server but today we found ourselves back on the >> list. > > Delisting shouldn't be your goal. Your goal should be to stop the > behavior of the server which is causing the problem of hitting spamcop > reporters and spamcop spamtraps. > >> The entry is:- >> >> http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?62.189.137.201 > > When you follow that link you get to a page you should read and you also > get links to more pages you should read. I'll post some of that here in > case you didn't follow the links or do the reading yet. But beware - the link entitled "Dispute listing of 62.189.137.201" should not work for you because it presumes you have reduced your browser security by enabling Javascript. It seems ironic to me that a spamfighting outfit should presume that users are willing to reduce their security in other ways. From MikeE at ster.invalid Thu Sep 15 11:30:20 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Thu Sep 15 13:35:02 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: "Quick" Reporting Problems References: <9a9ji11o9epu810idbeug7soii73dbnum6@4ax.com> Message-ID: SpamCop Admin wrote: > In the mean time, just keep submitting your spam and pretend nothing > is wrong. :-) Heh. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From rene at kabis.org Fri Sep 16 16:11:58 2005 From: rene at kabis.org (=?UTF-8?B?UmVuw6kgS2FiaXM=?=) Date: Fri Sep 16 18:15:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Gateway Timeout Message-ID: I use MailWasher to "forward" spam on to SpamCop so I don't have to cut-and-paste-and-wait-7-seconds for every submission. In the last three days, I have been unable to process any of my unreported saved spam, due to this error: Gateway Timeout The proxy server did not receive a timely response from the upstream server. Reference #1.9072f9d1.1126908248.1e9a0a9 When I report a saved piece of spam, my browser sits there for about 10 minutes, and then gives me this page. I get this effect among multiple browsers (Mozilla, Firefox, IE, Opera, Camino, etc.) and across multiple operating systems (WinXP, Win2003, MacOSX, MacOSx86, Linux, OpenBSD, etc.). I have also rebooted, and renewed IP addresses across all machines. I have not made use of any proxy server. What's up?? TIA ...Ren? From forrie at Noforriesp.amcom Sat Sep 17 16:37:01 2005 From: forrie at Noforriesp.amcom (Forrest Aldrich) Date: Sat Sep 17 15:40:06 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] SpamCop error: "got sigalarm" Message-ID: I'm getting an error with one of my spam reports: got sigalarm, taking too long to process, aborted. Perhaps you can wait a few minutes and reload? My report link is: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z806717221za7ac584a2365728a36c78f7ea9236b51z What's different about this spam message is a number of fake links: Tracking link: http://acikdghjlm.lousher.info/?befdghjlmxwonoyacikzlv No recent reports, no history available Cannot resolve http://acikdghjlm.lousher.info/?befdghjlmxwonoyacikzlv Tracking link: http://bdfilmcek.fowlermy.biz/?aghjekxwonoybdfilmzlvc No recent reports, no history available Cannot resolve http://bdfilmcek.fowlermy.biz/?aghjekxwonoybdfilmzlvc Tracking link: http://fjcdglak.plastikliver.info/?behimakxwonoyfjzctcdgl No recent reports, no history available Cannot resolve http://fjcdglak.plastikliver.info/?behimakxwonoyfjzctcdgl Tracking link: http://abdefgmcijl.dollcheck.info/?hkcijlxwonoyabzvpdefgm No recent reports, no history available Cannot resolve http://abdefgmcijl.dollcheck.info/?hkcijlxwonoyabzvpdefgm Tracking link: http://ckafmdeghjl.infun.info/?bideghjlxwonoyckzvpafm No recent reports, no history available Cannot resolve http://ckafmdeghjl.infun.info/?bideghjlxwonoyckzvpafm Tracking link: http://befhikacgl.pixratio.info/?djmacglxwonoybefhikzct No recent reports, no history available got sigalarm, taking too long to process, aborted. Perhaps you can wait a few minutes and reload? Note the last one is where SpamCop gets stuck. It occurred to me that this may be intentional - to stick so many fake links in there in an attempt to get SpamCop stuck in the process? Forrest From forrie at Noforriesp.amcom Sat Sep 17 16:38:42 2005 From: forrie at Noforriesp.amcom (Forrest Aldrich) Date: Sat Sep 17 15:40:09 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Automated reporting? Message-ID: A while ago, I switched my config over to the new SC configuration where you identify your mail gateways, et al. I thought this was an effort to help automate reports (ie: not have to confirm them via the web). Is this changed since then? From MikeE at ster.invalid Sat Sep 17 13:51:02 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Sat Sep 17 15:55:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Automated reporting? References: Message-ID: Forrest Aldrich wrote: > A while ago, I switched my config over to the new SC configuration > where you identify your mail gateways, et al. That's called 'mailhosts' > I thought this was an > effort to help automate reports (ie: not have to confirm them via the > web). If you are going to be a quick reporter, it is a requirement that you be mailhosted 'first' and 'approved' second. There is more difference to quick reporting than just not having to review and confirm the report and notification process.. A properly configured mailhosts decreases the likelihood of a parser error reporting your own provider, along with decreasing chances of some other parse mistakes. However, the possibility of a parsing error is never eliminated altogether. > Is this changed since then? Quick reporting still requires being mailhosted. A quick report does not require or allow the reporter to review how SC is going to report/notify the spamsource. A quick report also does not parse the spambody for spamvertiser links nor notify the provider/s for the spamvertisements. That result has advantages and disadvantages. So, the quick report is both faster and/but unreviewed, as such has the danger of reporting your own provider or other mistakes unreviewed, and reports and notifies only spamsources and not spamvertisers. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From geary at fnord.io.com Tue Sep 20 22:50:42 2005 From: geary at fnord.io.com (Mark Geary) Date: Tue Sep 20 17:55:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Help! My spamcop.net account no longer exists References: Message-ID: In article , Ellen wrote: < < < "John Blanton" wrote in message < news:BF4AFDDC.3A6%nospam@net.nonexistant... < > My spamcop email account is not working anymore. When I attempt to send < > mail to it, I get the following message: < < Responded in email. But aren't you going to respond to the newsgroup, too, so the rest of us can benefit from the answer? Mark -- "It's going to be a tough one Sam...Ziggy hasn't got a clue and the guy in the waiting room keeps asking me if I want a jelly baby." From post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com Tue Sep 20 18:18:38 2005 From: post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com (DougW) Date: Tue Sep 20 18:20:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] submitting quick question. Message-ID: Thought the email to use when putting in a spam where you don't want the body parsed was quick.[useridthingy]@spam.spamcop.net Has that changed? Reason being I have a skiddo that's pounding me with fake spam. Garbage emails with innocent sites included. -- DougW From MikeE at ster.invalid Tue Sep 20 04:36:02 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Tue Sep 20 20:55:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: submitting quick question. References: Message-ID: DougW wrote: > Thought the email to use when putting in a spam > where you don't want the body parsed was > quick.[useridthingy]@spam.spamcop.net > > Has that changed? Quick submits require that the submitting account be mailhosted and then approved. > Reason being I have a skiddo that's pounding me with fake spam. > Garbage emails with innocent sites included. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From MikeE at ster.invalid Tue Sep 20 19:25:30 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Tue Sep 20 21:30:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: submitting quick question. References: Message-ID: Mike Easter wrote: Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 03:36:02 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:53:48 +0000 (UTC) -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com Tue Sep 20 21:47:59 2005 From: post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com (DougW) Date: Tue Sep 20 21:50:18 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: submitting quick question. References: Message-ID: Mike Easter did pass the time by typing: > Mike Easter wrote: > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 03:36:02 -0700 > NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:53:48 +0000 (UTC) > > few hours> Thanks for the info. :) Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. -- DougW From post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com Wed Sep 21 07:19:26 2005 From: post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com (DougW) Date: Wed Sep 21 07:20:22 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] spamcop missing a link, sorta. Message-ID: >From the parse: Resolving link obfuscation http:\/xkhimtxch.com%2ekwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5%2epistledfcn.info#aomxjmg.com Percent unescape: http:\/xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info#aomxjmg.com Normalizing slashes: http://xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info#aomxjmg.com host xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info (checking ip) = 222.233.52.45 host 222.233.52.45 (getting name) no name host xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info (checking ip) = 222.233.52.45 host 222.233.52.45 (getting name) no name Tracking link: http://xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info#aomxjmg.com No recent reports, no history available Cannot resolve http://xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info#aomxjmg.com pistledfcn.info = 222.233.52.45 = 222.233.32.0-222.233.63.255 = HANANET or ip-adm@hanaro.com / abuse@hanaro.com The whois response from Hananet is "abynormal" -- DougW From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Sep 21 08:33:52 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Wed Sep 21 10:35:04 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: spamcop missing a link, sorta. References: Message-ID: DougW wrote: > Resolving link obfuscation > http:\/xkhimtxch.com%2ekwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5%2epistledfcn.info#aomxjmg.com > http://xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info#aomxjmg.com So far so good. > host xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info > (checking ip) = 222.233.52.45 host 222.233.52.45 That is also correct. Sometimes. > Cannot resolve > http://xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info#aomxjmg.com That seems like a funny thing to say, when/since it just got resolved. Interesting to note that it is trying to resolve the IP with the #obfuscation in place. Here is some more funniness: Feed SC the naked url with and without the #obfuscation: Parsing input: http://xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info host xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info (checking ip) = 222.187.122.174 Reporting addresses: abuse@jsinfo.net abuse@pub.nt.jsinfo.net ct-abuse@abuse.sprint.net Parsing input: http://xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info#aomxjmg.com host xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info (checking ip) = 221.11.133.63 host 221.11.133.63 (getting name) no name Cannot resolve http://xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info#aomxjmg.com No valid email addresses found, sorry! There are several possible reasons for this: The business about the variable DNS from 222.187.122.174 to 221.11.133.63 isn't exactly SC fault, however. But I'm not exactly sure whether the parser is trying to get a DNS on the url with or without the # obfuscation. It isn't clear from the verbose. Here's a different iteration of SC trying to get a notify address with the obfuscated url. This time it resolves to the 222 instead of the 221, but there are no addresses. Parsing input: http://xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info#aomxjmg.com host xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info (checking ip) = 222.233.52.44 host 222.233.52.44 (getting name) no name Cannot resolve http://xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info#aomxjmg.com No valid email addresses found, sorry! -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Sep 21 08:43:15 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Wed Sep 21 10:45:02 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: spamcop missing a link, sorta. References: Message-ID: Mike Easter wrote: > Feed SC the naked url with and without the #obfuscation: > The business about the variable DNS from 222.187.122.174 to > 221.11.133.63 isn't exactly SC fault, however. But I'm not exactly > sure whether the parser is trying to get a DNS on the url with or > without the # obfuscation. It isn't clear from the verbose. The DNS is variable, but SC seems to be able to give addresses when it isn't # obfuscated. Parsing input: http://xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info host xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info (checking ip) = 59.107.72.197 Reporting addresses: jiangzhi@gzidc.com liucheng@gzidc.com Parsing input: http://xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info#aomxjmg.com host xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info (checking ip) = 59.107.72.197 host 59.107.72.197 (getting name) no name Cannot resolve http://xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info#aomxjmg.com No valid email addresses found, sorry! -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com Wed Sep 21 18:10:10 2005 From: post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com (DougW) Date: Wed Sep 21 18:15:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: spamcop missing a link, sorta. References: Message-ID: Mike Easter did pass the time by typing: > Mike Easter wrote: > >> Feed SC the naked url with and without the #obfuscation: > >> The business about the variable DNS from 222.187.122.174 to >> 221.11.133.63 isn't exactly SC fault, however. But I'm not exactly >> sure whether the parser is trying to get a DNS on the url with or >> without the # obfuscation. It isn't clear from the verbose. > > The DNS is variable, but SC seems to be able to give addresses when it > isn't # obfuscated. Thanks, I tried that with the last few spams and they parsed correctly. Odd. I don't like modifying the spam, but if that is what it takes till SC parses out the html target codes.... :/ Odd though, the # is used to tell the browser where to jump in the html page. It's not actually obfuscation unless the spammer wants to try example.com#joe.net in which case joe.net is the phony. This is how I use them on my pathetic excuse for a site. http://revbeergoggles.com/Fixes/diagnostics.html#sensors -- DougW From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Sep 21 19:14:21 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Wed Sep 21 21:15:06 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: spamcop missing a link, sorta. References: Message-ID: DougW wrote: > Thanks, I tried that with the last few spams and they parsed > correctly. Odd. I don't like modifying the spam, but if that is what > it takes till SC parses out the html target codes.... :/ No no no. The point of my talking about what can be done experimentally doesn't mean you should be making material changes. You have to live with SC's parsing of a spam; you don't get to change a spam to suit the parser. > Odd though, the # is used to tell the browser where to jump in the > html page. It's not actually obfuscation unless the spammer > wants to try example.com#joe.net in which case joe.net is the phony. I don't like to call things 'bugs' which I don't see or understand. The parser is a blackbox to me; all I can do is put something in one end and get something out the other end and comment on that. When I was messing with this earlier today, it appeared that SC was handling urls with # 'obfuscating' badly. Something is only a /successful/ obfuscation if it successfully obfuscates. A ROT13 cipher is successful encoding if it baffles the adversary. If all a spammer has to do to 'obfuscate' hir site against SC provider notification is to put in a # jump, then it is a 'functional' obfuscation. > This is how I use them on my pathetic excuse for a site. > http://revbeergoggles.com/Fixes/diagnostics.html#sensors The important thing is for it to work the way it is supposed to. And, incidentally, SC will currently 'notify' for your site, including the #: Parsing input: http://revbeergoggles.com/Fixes/diagnostics.html#sensors host revbeergoggles.com (checking ip) = 64.202.163.3 Reporting addresses: abuse@godaddy.com but it won't notify for the original url Parsing input: http://xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info#aomxjmg.com host xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info (checking ip) = 222.233.52.45 host 222.233.52.45 (getting name) no name Cannot resolve http://xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info#aomxjmg.com No valid email addresses found, sorry! but it will notify for the # removed url: Parsing input: http://xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info host xkhimtxch.com.kwgv5jtht5bcagat65n2oq5gs5n5.pistledfcn.info (checking ip) = 222.233.52.45 host 222.233.52.45 (getting name) no name Routing details for 222.233.52.45 Reporting addresses: abuse@hanaro.com just like before. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From totojepast at razdva.cz Thu Sep 22 03:38:23 2005 From: totojepast at razdva.cz (totojepast@razdva.cz) Date: Thu Sep 22 05:40:21 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Gmail blacklisted by SpamCop again Message-ID: <1127381903.003393.153010@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> -- shouldn't be the Gmaill's IP range (64.233.160.0/19?) wwhitelisted? Or does SpamCop just blacklist its competition (Gmail provides mail services and spam filtering for free)? This seems to be a long lasting problem: http://chris-linfoot.net/d6plinks/CWLT-6CALWG SpamCop lists GmailWednesday, 11. May 2005Category : GMailOh dear. SpamCop is currently listing 64.233.162.202 (and possibly some others close by) in its DNSBL. * whois -h whois.arin.net 64.233.162.202 ... OrgName: Google Inc. OrgID: GOGL Address: 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway City: Mountain View StateProv: CA PostalCode: 94043 Country: US etc etc and nslookup 64.233.162.202 Canonical name: zproxy.gmail.com Addresses: 64.233.162.202 According to SpamCop, "SpamCop users have reported [this] system as a source of spam less than 10 times in the past week" and "In the past 13.8 days, it has been listed 4 times for a total of 26 hours". So, SpamCop users (I count myself among their number) are allegedly seeing plentiful spam from Gmail IPs, well enough to cause DNSBL listing anyway. The thing is, despite the many thousands of spam samples trapped here, I still have only one sample of a spam ever originating in Gmail, originating at rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.203]) - I reported it. So where's mine? I want some too. Or is there another explanation? SpamCop recently begun implementing a new algorithm intended to minimise false listings by verifying bona fide mail hosts used by or belonging to SpamCop users. I have registered my own mail hosts there as well as the Gmail hosts so that if I receive a spam at my Gmail account, I can report via SpamCop which I sometimes do. So possibly: Some SpamCop users have attempted to configure Gmail mailhosts and got it wrong, or Some spammers have started to create convincing Gmail header forgeries and are spamming SpamCop users who have not yet implemented SpamCop mailhosts, or Gmail has added new mail hosts that are not known to the SpamCop mailhosts system ... or there really could be a Gspam problem... Frankly I just don't buy that last one though. Could someone (anyone) show me a real Gspam sample or two? If Julian or any SpamCop deputies are reading, you may want to look into that mail hosts hypothesis. Finally, the addresses to whitelist (we have them whitelisted here) are 64.233.160.0/19. * Thanks to Christopher Byrne for pointing this out. From Kilgallen at SpamCop.net Thu Sep 22 08:29:40 2005 From: Kilgallen at SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Date: Thu Sep 22 08:30:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Gmail blacklisted by SpamCop again References: <1127381903.003393.153010@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: In article <1127381903.003393.153010@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, totojepast@razdva.cz writes: > -- shouldn't be the Gmaill's IP range (64.233.160.0/19?) wwhitelisted? If that is your preference, by all means whitelist it. SpamCop is _not_ in the whitelisting business, since whitelisting says "no matter how much spam comes from this source, all mail coming from this source is critical to me". SpamCop cannot possibly know your business requirements regarding what is critical, and certainly they would not match mine (since I get no real mail from Gmail). From nobody at spamcop.net Thu Sep 22 09:09:43 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Ellen) Date: Thu Sep 22 09:05:04 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Gmail blacklisted by SpamCop again References: <1127381903.003393.153010@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: wrote in message news:1127381903.003393.153010@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > -- shouldn't be the Gmaill's IP range (64.233.160.0/19?) wwhitelisted? > Or does SpamCop just blacklist its competition (Gmail provides mail > services and spam filtering for free)? > > Gmail servers do *not* include the injecting user IP in the headers -- the other major, and most minor, freemail systems include that IP. As a result, from time to time, gmail servers get listed on the SpamCop blocklist because there is spam being sent thru those servers. Gmail has stated that they do not include the user injecting IP as a matter of privacy, altho other properties such as google groups do include the IP, and they are aware of the end result of potential listing on the SpamCop blocklist. It is entirely appropriate for any server owner/operator to make whitelist and blocklist decisions that are appropriate to their particular environment and user base and, indeed, a well thought out anti-spam approach should take into account multiple sources of information and assign relative weights to those sources in the detemination as to whether or not to accept a piece of mail. Blocklist operators should make public their criteria for listings and delistings and should operate in a fashion that is consistent with those criteria. The SpamCop information can be found here: http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/297.html Ellen SpamCop From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Thu Sep 22 11:41:05 2005 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (WazoO) Date: Thu Sep 22 11:45:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Gmail blacklisted by SpamCop again References: <1127381903.003393.153010@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: wrote in message news:1127381903.003393.153010@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > -- shouldn't be the Gmaill's IP range (64.233.160.0/19?) wwhitelisted? > Or does SpamCop just blacklist its competition (Gmail provides mail > services and spam filtering for free)? > > This seems to be a long lasting problem: Try http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3973 for yet another "look" at the issue, complete with dialog to / from GMail/Google folks. From wed59135 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 05:33:44 2005 From: wed59135 at yahoo.com (wed59135@yahoo.com) Date: Fri Sep 23 07:35:02 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Help Help Help please ???? Message-ID: <1127475224.897457.6280@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Is there a list of free email accounts I can get(buy) . I cannot keep getting orders from free e-mail accounts that are frauds..... Yes I know I will be blocking some good ones but I have no choice. Any geniuses out there....... Thanks so much. Ellen Hill From MikeE at ster.invalid Fri Sep 23 06:23:33 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Fri Sep 23 08:25:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Help Help Help please ???? References: <1127475224.897457.6280@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: wed59135@yahoo.com wrote: X-Trace: posting.google.com User-Agent: G2/0.2 Before anyone tries to figure out what this post means, realize that if you try to post an answer to it, your answer will not propagate 'back out' the same way it propagated 'in'. This was posted 'out there' to the google group spamcop.help. Posts 'in here' to news.spamcop.net spamcop.help don't often propagate to google groups, so it is a one way process. The last one of these was Subject: Gmail blacklisted by SpamCop again and we ended up talking among outselves about it, but not to the OP. The thread in googlegroups is a one post 'theme' you can see here http://snipurl.com/hw3r [snurled googlegroups link to only 1 post 'thread'] whereas the thread here in news.spamcop.net also has replies by Ellen, Larry, and WazoO. > Is there a list of free email accounts I can get(buy) . > I cannot keep getting orders from free e-mail accounts > that are frauds..... > Yes I know I will be blocking some good ones but I have no choice. > > Any geniuses out there....... I was preparing to try to figure out or to ask the OP what the question meant, and then I realized that she wouldn't be seeing any responses out there in googlegroup land. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nobody at spamcop.net Fri Sep 23 12:06:01 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Ellen) Date: Fri Sep 23 12:40:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Help Help Help please ???? References: <1127475224.897457.6280@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: -- > > I was preparing to try to figure out or to ask the OP what the question > meant, and then I realized that she wouldn't be seeing any responses out > there in googlegroup land. > > Near as I can tell -- she runs some sort of business and is being bilked by people who order and use freemail email addresses ... she wants to get or buy a list of the freemail domains so she can not accept orders from them. I presume she wants the ones that aren't @yahoo @hotmail @gmail ... I seem to vaguely remember seeing a list like that a year or so ago but there are so many freemail systems I don't know how anyone can keep up with them. E From MikeE at ster.invalid Fri Sep 23 13:31:30 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Fri Sep 23 15:35:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Help Help Help please ???? References: <1127475224.897457.6280@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Ellen wrote: > Near as I can tell -- she runs some sort of business and is being > bilked by people who order and use freemail email addresses ... she > wants to get or buy a list of the freemail domains so she can not > accept orders from them. I presume she wants the ones that aren't > @yahoo @hotmail @gmail ... I seem to vaguely remember seeing a list > like that a year or so ago but there are so many freemail systems I > don't know how anyone can keep up with them. Ah, I getcha. The problem with using that information as a 'discriminator' would be that -1- many mail systems have both a free and paid version and it changes -2- legitimate people sometimes like to use their 'other' addy for certain functions, ie I prefer to 'expose' my gmail addy than some other, -3- if you refuse or decide to do business based on what is someone's email address you'll have both false positives and false negatives for bilkers and nonbilkers. Depending upon what kind of business she is in, she would be better off using something more tightly connected to meatspace, such as credit card or drivers license identity.. Dnsstuff has a gizmo to query about free email addies, but I have no experience with 'testing' it. I don't think that is useful info. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From borgholio at storymind.com Sun Sep 25 18:49:09 2005 From: borgholio at storymind.com (Borgholio) Date: Sun Sep 25 20:50:04 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Problem reporting spam Message-ID: I forwarded a bunch of spam to Spamcop this morning, and I was able to report a bunch of it just fine. However, one piece of spam keeps giving me "gateway timeout" errors whenever I click on the "unreported spam saved" link. If I use a direct link found in the Spamcop emails I get, then I can report any of the other spam that's saved. But it keeps hanging on this one spam and I don't know which one it is, nor how to get rid of it without getting rid of all the spam I've sent in so far. From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Sun Sep 25 21:10:52 2005 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (WazoO) Date: Sun Sep 25 21:15:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Problem reporting spam References: Message-ID: "Borgholio" wrote in message news:dh7gi6$qbb$1@news.spamcop.net... > I forwarded a bunch of spam to Spamcop this morning, and I was able to > report a bunch of it just fine. However, one piece of spam keeps giving me > "gateway timeout" errors whenever I click on the "unreported spam saved" > link. If I use a direct link found in the Spamcop emails I get, then I can > report any of the other spam that's saved. But it keeps hanging on this one > spam and I don't know which one it is, nor how to get rid of it without > getting rid of all the spam I've sent in so far. http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=4919 http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=4911 Possible similarities involved? From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Sun Sep 25 21:13:21 2005 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (WazoO) Date: Sun Sep 25 21:15:07 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Problem reporting spam References: Message-ID: "Borgholio" wrote in message news:dh7gi6$qbb$1@news.spamcop.net... > I forwarded a bunch of spam to Spamcop this morning, and I was able to > report a bunch of it just fine. However, one piece of spam keeps giving me > "gateway timeout" errors whenever I click on the "unreported spam saved" > link. If I use a direct link found in the Spamcop emails I get, then I can > report any of the other spam that's saved. But it keeps hanging on this one > spam and I don't know which one it is, nor how to get rid of it without > getting rid of all the spam I've sent in so far. Possibly a more interesting 'spin' ...??? http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=4916 From borgholio at storymind.com Sun Sep 25 19:16:55 2005 From: borgholio at storymind.com (Borgholio) Date: Sun Sep 25 21:20:02 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Problem reporting spam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: WazoO wrote: > "Borgholio" wrote in message > news:dh7gi6$qbb$1@news.spamcop.net... > >>I forwarded a bunch of spam to Spamcop this morning, and I was able to >>report a bunch of it just fine. However, one piece of spam keeps giving > > me > >>"gateway timeout" errors whenever I click on the "unreported spam saved" >>link. If I use a direct link found in the Spamcop emails I get, then I > > can > >>report any of the other spam that's saved. But it keeps hanging on this > > one > >>spam and I don't know which one it is, nor how to get rid of it without >>getting rid of all the spam I've sent in so far. > > > Possibly a more interesting 'spin' ...??? > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=4916 > > Yeah all those links sound like what's happening. I'd rather not have to remove all unreported spam, since I have over a hundred in there. From borgholio at storymind.com Sun Sep 25 20:36:52 2005 From: borgholio at storymind.com (Borgholio) Date: Sun Sep 25 22:40:06 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Problem reporting spam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: WazoO wrote: > "Borgholio" wrote in message > news:dh7gi6$qbb$1@news.spamcop.net... > >>I forwarded a bunch of spam to Spamcop this morning, and I was able to >>report a bunch of it just fine. However, one piece of spam keeps giving > > me > >>"gateway timeout" errors whenever I click on the "unreported spam saved" >>link. If I use a direct link found in the Spamcop emails I get, then I > > can > >>report any of the other spam that's saved. But it keeps hanging on this > > one > >>spam and I don't know which one it is, nor how to get rid of it without >>getting rid of all the spam I've sent in so far. > > > Possibly a more interesting 'spin' ...??? > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=4916 > > Here's an update. I was able to pull up the tracking ID of the spam report that's causing SC to timeout. http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z809243932zb1fda793746d0cf1222873a16804498az From post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com Sun Sep 25 23:08:24 2005 From: post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com (DougW) Date: Sun Sep 25 23:10:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] logon issues? Message-ID: Didn't see anything in the forum but I'm getting occasional "No userid found" errors. My old password doesn't work and after I request a new password it doesn't work either. oddness. oh well, going to bed.. $dayjob. :P -- DougW From post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com Sun Sep 25 23:20:01 2005 From: post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com (DougW) Date: Sun Sep 25 23:20:02 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: logon issues? References: Message-ID: DougW did pass the time by typing: > Didn't see anything in the forum but > I'm getting occasional "No userid found" errors. > > My old password doesn't work and after I request a > new password it doesn't work either. > > oddness. > > oh well, going to bed.. $dayjob. :P Ok.. IE now works but firefox doesn't I had to upgrade FF today. :( -- DougW From MikeE at ster.invalid Sun Sep 25 22:24:55 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Mon Sep 26 00:25:04 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Problem reporting spam References: Message-ID: Borgholio wrote: > Here's an update. I was able to pull up the tracking ID of the spam > report that's causing SC to timeout. > www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z809243932zb1fda793746d0cf1222873a16804498az To me, that is a design flaw in the parser. I can imagine a number of different configurations which would be better than that item jamming up the works. My favorite choice would be that the parser provides an option to not even notify the spamvertisers, so the parser doesn't even have to resolve anything. My next favorite choice would be that the parser doesn't spend too much time trying to resolve some things which it shouldn't. Namely, this picture is ridiculous: >> Resolving link obfuscation http://deilmabcjf.yellowbring.info/?ghkfxwonoydeilmzlvabcj host deilmabcjf.yellowbring.info (checking ip) ip not found ; deilmabcjf.yellowbring.info discarded as fake. http://cfbejahkm.animeu.biz/?dgilahkmxwonoycfzsvbej host cfbejahkm.animeu.biz (checking ip) ip not found ; cfbejahkm.animeu.biz discarded as fake. http://bgjacelfim.fanglendy.biz/?dhkfimxwonoybgjzsvacel host bgjacelfim.fanglendy.biz (checking ip) ip not found ; bgjacelfim.fanglendy.biz discarded as fake. http://dijmaefglbhk.beachbox.info/?cbhkxwonoydijmzvpaefgl host dijmaefglbhk.beachbox.info (checking ip) ip not found ; dijmaefglbhk.beachbox.info discarded as fake. http://ahlmbcegdj.narcosis.info/?fikdjxwonoyahlmzvpbceg host ahlmbcegdj.narcosis.info (checking ip) ip not found ; ahlmbcegdj.narcosis.info discarded as fake. http://fghjblce.beachbox.info/?adikmcexwonoyfghjzlvbl host fghjblce.beachbox.info (checking ip) ip not found ; fghjblce.beachbox.info discarded as fake. Tracking link: http://deilmabcjf.yellowbring.info/?ghkfxwonoydeilmzlvabcj [report history] Cannot resolve http://deilmabcjf.yellowbring.info/?ghkfxwonoydeilmzlvabcj Tracking link: http://bgjacelfim.fanglendy.biz/?dhkfimxwonoybgjzsvacel [report history] Cannot resolve http://bgjacelfim.fanglendy.biz/?dhkfimxwonoybgjzsvacel Tracking link: http://cfbejahkm.animeu.biz/?dgilahkmxwonoycfzsvbej [report history] Cannot resolve http://cfbejahkm.animeu.biz/?dgilahkmxwonoycfzsvbej Tracking link: http://fghjblce.beachbox.info/?adikmcexwonoyfghjzlvbl [report history] Cannot resolve http://fghjblce.beachbox.info/?adikmcexwonoyfghjzlvbl Tracking link: http://dijmaefglbhk.beachbox.info/?cbhkxwonoydijmzvpaefgl [report history] Cannot resolve http://dijmaefglbhk.beachbox.info/?cbhkxwonoydijmzvpaefgl Tracking link: http://ahlmbcegdj.narcosis.info/?fikdjxwonoyahlmzvpbceg [report history] got sigalarm, taking too long to process, aborted. Perhaps you can wait a few minutes and reload? >> IMO the reporter should be able to report all of those links to the statistics page only, which doesn't require time or resolution. But, aside from my opinion about how the parser should provide different options than it currently does, the other issue is that the parser has a configuration by which it 'bails' on trying to resolve anything. So, if it is so 'designed' to bail on trying to resolve some things and not even bother, why would it spend so much time trying to resolve deobfuscated link after deobfuscated link all the way to a sig alarm, when it should have bailed a lot earlier. I don't understand that design. Incidentally, not that it matters, but each of those names resolves 'promptly' for me deilmabcjf.yellowbring.info = 222.122.52.115 bgjacelfim.fanglendy.biz = 222.122.52.115 cfbejahkm.animeu.biz = 222.122.52.115 fghjblce.beachbox.info = 222.122.52.115 dijmaefglbhk.beachbox.info = 222.122.52.115 It isn't spamcop's fault that its resolver might be blocked, but it is SC's fault that it barfs and hangs up everything. According to dnsstuff, the time to resolve one of those by something which isn't the SC resolver is less than half a second, so why should SC spend too much time? Either it should bail on trying to resolve sooner or 'something'. That is, the dnsstuff timing report isn't good, but it also isn't horrible for a non-SC resolution. I think the parser should be configured to 'discover' that "I think my resolver is being blocked, I think I'm going to bail on trying to resolve any of this spam's links." But most of all I think that the reporter should be able to choose that s/he doesn't want any resolution, s/he just wants to put the url on the statistics page and there is no resolution or gagging or expenditure of resources necessary to do that. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Mon Sep 26 01:40:33 2005 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (WazoO) Date: Mon Sep 26 01:45:10 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Problem reporting spam References: Message-ID: "Borgholio" wrote in message news:dh7ms4$qbb$3@news.spamcop.net... > > Here's an update. I was able to pull up the tracking ID of the spam report > that's causing SC to timeout. > > http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z809243932zb1fda793746d0cf1222873a16804498az Interestingly enough, one of the domains in your spam came up in a Forum discussion at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=4983 I can tell you that the additional results of the data seen at http://www.dnsreport.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=animeu.biz have changed since I looked it up for my response in the Forum discussion. Still sucky data, but that it changed a bit suggests that spammy isn't just sitting still From borgholio at storymind.com Sun Sep 25 23:43:19 2005 From: borgholio at storymind.com (Borgholio) Date: Mon Sep 26 01:45:19 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Problem reporting spam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: WazoO wrote: > "Borgholio" wrote in message > news:dh7ms4$qbb$3@news.spamcop.net... > >>Here's an update. I was able to pull up the tracking ID of the spam > > report > >>that's causing SC to timeout. >> >>http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z809243932zb1fda793746d0cf1222873a16804498az > > > Interestingly enough, one of the domains in your spam came up in > a Forum discussion at > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=4983 > I can tell you that the additional results of the data seen at > http://www.dnsreport.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=animeu.biz have > changed since I looked it up for my response in the Forum > discussion. Still sucky data, but that it changed a bit suggests > that spammy isn't just sitting still > > Is it possible to get a server-side temp fix for this, or am I stuck with having to clear all my unreported spam? From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Mon Sep 26 01:53:47 2005 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (WazoO) Date: Mon Sep 26 01:55:02 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: logon issues? References: Message-ID: "DougW" wrote in message news:dh7on7$83p$1@news.spamcop.net... > Didn't see anything in the forum but > I'm getting occasional "No userid found" errors. http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=4978 http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=4865 and one that is a bit off-tangent, but possibly connected ... http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=4919 and there are a couple of (Forum) SpamCop FAQ entries mentioned that deal with "cookie exceptions" that may have some bearing ...??? From keithj at spamcop.net Mon Sep 26 10:54:34 2005 From: keithj at spamcop.net (Keith Jillings) Date: Mon Sep 26 04:55:59 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Spamcop ignoring settings? Message-ID: Because I was receiving vast amounts of spam from Brazil, China and Korea, I have those three countries in my "blacklist". That works well most of the time, but I notice that a few spammers seems to get past that. Is there a reason why Spamcop would "pass" a spam like the one below? When I "reported" it, Spamcop recognised that it was from Brazil, which is in my "reject this country" list. I've had similar "escapees" from China and Korea. I've checked - this spammer isn't in my whitelist. Keith (I removed my post-filter address from the headers since I don't want spammers getting hold of that). I have no idea who Ghaliya Loving is! From - Mon Sep 26 03:13:11 2005 X-Account-Key: account23 X-UIDL: UID13979-1080344540 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 10000000 Return-Path: X-Original-To: (myaddress) X-Envelope-To: (myaddress) Delivered-To: (myaddress) Received: from c62.cesmail.net (c62.cesmail.net [216.154.195.54]) by addams.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F5F0E00008B for <(myaddress)>; Mon, 26 Sep 2005 03:12:29 +0100 (BST) Received: from unknown (HELO blade5.cesmail.net) ([192.168.1.215]) by c62.cesmail.net with SMTP; 25 Sep 2005 22:12:28 -0400 Received: (qmail 21317 invoked by uid 1010); 26 Sep 2005 02:12:28 -0000 Delivered-To: spamcop-net-keithj@spamcop.net Received: (qmail 21231 invoked from network); 26 Sep 2005 02:12:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (192.168.1.101) by blade5.cesmail.net with QMQP; 26 Sep 2005 02:12:24 -0000 Received: from 200227194056-dial-user-ecp.acessonet.com.br (HELO fsskc.com) (200.227.194.56) by mailgate.cesmail.net with SMTP; 26 Sep 2005 02:12:23 -0000 Received: from [192.168.52.116] (helo=clamant) by fsskc.com with SMTP (Incompact ju 5.13 (Toluene)) id LQydnU-rFJBoE-Dt for keithj@spamcop.net; Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:12:04 -0500 Message-ID: <647274.TUYFOQGGEXBQ@clamant> Reply-To: "Can Pauly" From: "Can Pauly" To: "Ghaliya Loving" Subject: must have! , Plharrmacy Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:12:00 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Incompact ju 5.13 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on blade5 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: hits=2.6 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO,HTML_60_70,HTML_MESSAGE, URIBL_SBL version=3.0.2 X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.101 200.227.194.56 192.168.52.116 X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 7.0.344 [267.11.6] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=======AVGMAIL-4337593700FA=======" From post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com Mon Sep 26 07:27:38 2005 From: post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com (DougW) Date: Mon Sep 26 07:30:02 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: logon issues? References: Message-ID: WazoO did pass the time by typing: > "DougW" wrote in message > news:dh7on7$83p$1@news.spamcop.net... >> Didn't see anything in the forum but >> I'm getting occasional "No userid found" errors. > > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=4978 > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=4865 > and one that is a bit off-tangent, but possibly connected ... > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=4919 > > and there are a couple of (Forum) SpamCop FAQ entries > mentioned that deal with "cookie exceptions" that may have > some bearing ...??? It's "fixed" for now. One of those situations where the system was waiting for me to post or email about having a problem before the problem would go away on its own. :/ arg. -- DougW From nobody at spamcop.net Tue Sep 27 04:39:54 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Ellen) Date: Tue Sep 27 04:10:02 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] *** System Maint Window *** Message-ID: System Maintenance Window -- reporting system We will have 2 maintenance windows of about 20 minutes each between 13:00 -0700 and 15:00 -0700 Tuesday, September 27, 2005. You will see the System Under Maintenance announcement on the website and you may note delays in responses to mailed spams. The email system will operate as normal during this period. Thank you for your patience. Ellen SpamCop followups: spamcop Please propagate to the forums. From a-mcn at online.no Wed Sep 28 14:22:05 2005 From: a-mcn at online.no (hAba) Date: Wed Sep 28 07:25:22 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Add fuel Message-ID: Hi, I'm trying to find out what advantages there are to "adding fuel" to my account. It's not that I don't support what Spamcop does, it's just that I would like to know if I'll get any advantages from buying fuel. Thanks From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Sep 28 06:15:27 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Wed Sep 28 08:20:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Add fuel References: Message-ID: hAba wrote: > I'm trying to find out what advantages there are to "adding fuel" to > my account. It's not that I don't support what Spamcop does, it's > just that I would like to know if I'll get any advantages from buying > fuel. The differences between being a paid reporter vs being a free reporter are that the paid reporter - gets rid of the nag wait for standard free reporting - can add additional notifies to a spamcop report - can 'appeal' to SC to 'please' notify a provider who wouldn't be - can access a db of your reports That is described here http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/288.html Upgrade to a premium member account The nag wait has a minimum, but it can be lengthened by busy-ness I think. The additional notifies and appeals are described here http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/126.html How should I select the recipients for my spam report? The cost of fuel which is consumed by paid reporting is $1/meg described at the first link. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Wed Sep 28 12:43:42 2005 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (WazoO) Date: Wed Sep 28 12:45:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Add fuel References: Message-ID: "hAba" wrote in message news:dhducg$rbm$1@news.spamcop.net... > > I'm trying to find out what advantages there are to "adding fuel" to my > account. It's not that I don't support what Spamcop does, it's just that I > would like to know if I'll get any advantages from buying fuel. http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=home may offer some other data, perhaps something more attractive based on how much fuel you're using .... From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Sep 28 20:15:09 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Wed Sep 28 22:20:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Add fuel References: Message-ID: WazoO wrote: > "hAba" >> I'm trying to find out what advantages there are to "adding fuel" to >> my account. It's not that I don't support what Spamcop does, it's >> just that I would like to know if I'll get any advantages from >> buying fuel. > > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=home may > offer some other data, perhaps something more attractive > based on how much fuel you're using .... I don't see anything like that on that page. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com Wed Sep 28 22:57:24 2005 From: post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com (DougW) Date: Wed Sep 28 23:00:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: logon issues? References: Message-ID: Ok I found the problem and solution. In Firefox 1.5 Beta 1 it appears that the SpamCop cookie gets corrupted or confused. After this happens you simply can't log back onto the reporting system. All you get is "No userid found" Deleting the cookie and logging back in again clears the problem. If it happens more I'll do some further research, but for now the delete and relogin is good enough. night. -- DougW From borgholio at storymind.com Fri Sep 30 10:53:20 2005 From: borgholio at storymind.com (Borgholio) Date: Fri Sep 30 12:55:02 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Is Valueweb.net on any blacklists? Message-ID: What's the easiest way to check to see if my ISP (Valueweb.net) is on any major blacklists? I seem to be having trouble sending email to several ISPs (including Spamcop), while other ISPs work fine. From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Fri Sep 30 13:51:21 2005 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (WazoO) Date: Fri Sep 30 13:55:04 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Is Valueweb.net on any blacklists? References: Message-ID: "Borgholio" wrote in message news:dhjqhh$40l$1@news.spamcop.net... > What's the easiest way to check to see if my ISP (Valueweb.net) is on any > major blacklists? I seem to be having trouble sending email to several ISPs > (including Spamcop), while other ISPs work fine. Not sure I understand the "including SpamCop" part ... Technically, the general concept wouldn't be based on "Valueweb.net" ... rather the e-mail servers involved. One place to look that up is Senderbase (keeping things in the family ) http://www.senderbase.org/search?searchString=Valueweb.net Analyzing a few of your own headers (CC: to another account) should pinpoint the IP(s) involved in your e-mail. Then head off to places like http://moensted.dk/ http://www.dnsstuff.com/ and plug in the numbers. From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Fri Sep 30 14:03:23 2005 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (WazoO) Date: Fri Sep 30 14:05:02 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Add fuel References: Message-ID: "Mike Easter" wrote in message news:dhfinc$8gf$1@news.spamcop.net... > WazoO wrote: > > >> I'm trying to find out what advantages there are to "adding fuel" to > >> my account. It's not that I don't support what Spamcop does, it's > >> just that I would like to know if I'll get any advantages from > >> buying fuel. > > > > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=home may > > offer some other data, perhaps something more attractive > > based on how much fuel you're using .... > > I don't see anything like that on that page. My thoughts were that the OP had missed the 1 -2 year old controversy about the money flow between the Reporting account w/fuel and the SpamCop filtered e-mail account ... and the "Interested" section at top lists both 'entry points' for both types of accounts. From Kilgallen at SpamCop.net Fri Sep 30 15:14:54 2005 From: Kilgallen at SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Date: Fri Sep 30 15:15:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Is Valueweb.net on any blacklists? References: Message-ID: In article , Borgholio writes: > What's the easiest way to check to see if my ISP (Valueweb.net) is on any > major blacklists? I seem to be having trouble sending email to several ISPs > (including Spamcop), while other ISPs work fine. If you have trouble sending to Spamcop, it is not a blacklist issue since the SpamCop ISP service rejects no email. SpamCop email customers always have the option to look inside their held mail folder. They may never respond to you, but that is different from "trouble sending". From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Fri Sep 30 17:59:20 2005 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (WazoO) Date: Fri Sep 30 18:00:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Is Valueweb.net on any blacklists? References: Message-ID: "WazoO" wrote in message news:dhjtup$6dt$1@news.spamcop.net... > "Borgholio" wrote in message > news:dhjqhh$40l$1@news.spamcop.net... > > What's the easiest way to check to see if my ISP (Valueweb.net) is on any > > major blacklists? I seem to be having trouble sending email to several > ISPs > > (including Spamcop), while other ISPs work fine. > > Not sure I understand the "including SpamCop" part ... Wait a dang minute! It was based on your previous commentary that I updated the Forum version of the SpamCop FAQ entry; "E-Mail spam submittals blocked by your ISP" ..... found at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2782 I even referenced "your" data in the "data added" post at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2782&view=findpost&p=33084 From borgholio at storymind.com Fri Sep 30 18:10:53 2005 From: borgholio at storymind.com (Borgholio) Date: Fri Sep 30 20:15:13 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Is Valueweb.net on any blacklists? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: WazoO wrote: > "WazoO" wrote in message > news:dhjtup$6dt$1@news.spamcop.net... > >>"Borgholio" wrote in message >>news:dhjqhh$40l$1@news.spamcop.net... >> >>>What's the easiest way to check to see if my ISP (Valueweb.net) is on > > any > >>>major blacklists? I seem to be having trouble sending email to several >> >>ISPs >> >>>(including Spamcop), while other ISPs work fine. >> >>Not sure I understand the "including SpamCop" part ... > > > Wait a dang minute! It was based on your previous > commentary that I updated the Forum version of the > SpamCop FAQ entry; "E-Mail spam submittals blocked > by your ISP" ..... found at > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2782 > I even referenced "your" data in the "data added" post at > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2782&view=findpost&p=33084 > > Ah actually re-read my question. :) I was asking if my ISP was on any blacklists. I didn't ask if my Spamcop reports were being blocked by my ISP. I was having an email issue with SEVERAL ISPs (including Spamcop). From borgholio at storymind.com Fri Sep 30 18:58:19 2005 From: borgholio at storymind.com (Borgholio) Date: Fri Sep 30 21:00:04 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Is Valueweb.net on any blacklists? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Larry Kilgallen wrote: > In article , Borgholio writes: > >>What's the easiest way to check to see if my ISP (Valueweb.net) is on any >>major blacklists? I seem to be having trouble sending email to several ISPs >>(including Spamcop), while other ISPs work fine. > > > If you have trouble sending to Spamcop, it is not a blacklist issue > since the SpamCop ISP service rejects no email. SpamCop email > customers always have the option to look inside their held mail folder. > > They may never respond to you, but that is different from "trouble sending". Turns out even though I've been told several times that Valueweb doesn't use a spam filter on their outgoing server, looks like they do anyways. Bastards. From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Fri Sep 30 21:04:56 2005 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (WazoO) Date: Fri Sep 30 21:05:03 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Is Valueweb.net on any blacklists? References: Message-ID: "Borgholio" wrote in message news:dhkk5q$i9o$1@news.spamcop.net... > WazoO wrote: > > "WazoO" wrote in message > > news:dhjtup$6dt$1@news.spamcop.net... > > > > Wait a dang minute! It was based on your previous > > commentary that I updated the Forum version of the > > SpamCop FAQ entry; "E-Mail spam submittals blocked > > by your ISP" ..... found at > > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2782 > > I even referenced "your" data in the "data added" post at > > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2782&view=findpost&p=33084 > > Ah actually re-read my question. :) I was asking if my ISP was on any > blacklists. I didn't ask if my Spamcop reports were being blocked by my > ISP. I was having an email issue with SEVERAL ISPs (including Spamcop). Blicklist question was talked to in my first response. ISP filtering of outgoing would impact outgoing e-mail, no matter of where it was headed ...???? From borgholio at storymind.com Fri Sep 30 19:07:16 2005 From: borgholio at storymind.com (Borgholio) Date: Fri Sep 30 21:10:04 2005 Subject: [SC-Help] Re: Is Valueweb.net on any blacklists? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: WazoO wrote: > "Borgholio" wrote in message > news:dhkk5q$i9o$1@news.spamcop.net... > >>WazoO wrote: >> >>>"WazoO" wrote in message >>>news:dhjtup$6dt$1@news.spamcop.net... >>> >>>Wait a dang minute! It was based on your previous >>>commentary that I updated the Forum version of the >>>SpamCop FAQ entry; "E-Mail spam submittals blocked >>>by your ISP" ..... found at >>>http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2782 >>>I even referenced "your" data in the "data added" post at >>> > > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2782&view=findpost&p=33084 > >>Ah actually re-read my question. :) I was asking if my ISP was on any >>blacklists. I didn't ask if my Spamcop reports were being blocked by my >>ISP. I was having an email issue with SEVERAL ISPs (including Spamcop). > > > Blicklist question was talked to in my first response. > ISP filtering of outgoing would impact outgoing e-mail, no > matter of where it was headed ...???? > > It's filtering ALL email, regardless of where it's being sent to. But anyways, the problem has been identified now.