[Scspamcop] Re: SpamCop still reports finding no abuse address when there's a - in the domain

[bar0]

"mr206" <mr206 at spamtrackers.eu> wrote in message 
news:ggt1ct$8lo$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> The problem with that is that many of the ISPs will just ignore it if they 
> only see one instance.  I don't know if you've noticed, but many upstreams 
> of hosts and ISPs track the amount of complaints/reports they receive... 
> if I'm Joe Q Host and I get one SC report, I may disregard it and assume 
> it's a n00b reporter.  However, if I get crapflooded with reports from 
> various users, I will know there's an issue and I'll deal with it.

If you or an ISP need a shiteload of SC reports to know you have a problem, 
then you're working on the "let the unpaid volunteers do my job" basis. A 
competent ISP that is concerned about its AUP and/or TOS doesn't need SC 
reports, nor to discover itself on a blocklist to know about abuse 
originating in it's network. If we, spamhaus, the CBL etc. can find it so 
can they. One report will do fine, and they do have the option to request 
all of them.

>
> I think CNC, Kornet and others simply are overwhelmed with exploited IPs 
> and they don't properly resolve the issues, so hackers/spammers just 
> re-exploit those addresses.

Exactly, and they either are exploiting or working with the spammers or they 
don't care, so in either case reports are a waste of bandwidth.

>
> It does, however, annoy me that certain hosts and ISPs refuse SpamCop 
> reports.... they're streamlined and easy to read; when I see someone 
> refuse them, I personally think their 'hat' colour is no longer white, but 
> starting to darken. <eg>

I see plenty of whitehats that don't want SC reports also, frankly though I 
see those very rarely. Those are the folks that keep an eye out for abuse 
that might come from their webspace. Of course others like google (docs, 
NG's, dropboxes) you may be right about.

Pleae don;t top post, it puts your answeers out of context and forces others 
to roam around your post to see what you are responding to.

>
> bar0 wrote:
>
>> ....