[Scspamcop] Re: What works? Reporting hints, strategy, ...

[Mike Easter]

s. keeling wrote:

> REPORTED

I'm not commenting on the procmail, just any qx.

> I assume I'm just adding to the problem by reporting anything that's
> obviously already been reported, yes?

No.  Every spamsource report contributes to the SCbl's db, whether the
IP is currently listed there or if the IP is listed somewhere else like
a proxy db.  All spamreports contribute source which is of value to the
SCbl and those who use it to aid in spam management.

>   - Should I report spam that's eight hours old?  Four hours?

Yes.  Yes.

>       89.189.145.244 listed in cbl.abuseat.org ( 127.0.0.2 )

>     It's already listed, already known to be an open proxy; why report
>     it again?  Statistics?  Why?  We know what it is.  It ought
>     already be dead.

It's not 'dead'.  It is CBL listed and maybe listed in other proxy dbs.
Its condition of being listed or not listed or about to be unlisted by
the SCbl are all dynamic.  The SCbl is a valuable list.  It is frisky
and it is dynamic and its listed IPs will become unlisted if you don't
continue to report spam which sources from them.

>   - How is it that I can report repeats for weeks, yet still come home
>     to see:
>
>       Percent unescape: ... home.hn8868.com/clogin/freecd.htm

There is nothing about reporting spam that does very much about
spamvertisers hosted by blackhat providers.  The SC reporting system to
providers depends entirely upon the provider being self motivated to
curtail spamvertising at its webspace.  There are no teeth in SC
spamvertiser reports.

SC reporting contributes spamsources to the SCbl.  That is good and that
is important.  Various notifies to providers about reports are typically
worthless for one reason or another.  The occasional notify is not
worthless, which is more often the exception rather than the 'rule'.


-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin