[Scspamcop] Re: Strange spams

[Mike Easter]

Twayne wrote:

>> In this case, the combination of noncompliance and nonmailhosted
>> causes SC to break the chain prematurely and name your provider's
>> server

>>> --  Is SC getting these things right?
>>
>> Not in the 2nd case above.  You need to be mailhosted especially if
>> you are using a mailhost which stamps noncompliant lines.

> Hmm, thanks, Mike, that explains a couple of things, actually.
>   I haven't had a spam lately that doesn't trace to Verizon for some
> reason; it must be intentional on the part of the spammers. They
> trickled in all day yesterday.

There's a big problem with using SC to report spam which results in
false/bad reports sourcing your provider.  The provider doesn't like that,
SC admin doesn't like that, and SC admin is going to insist that you
either get mailhosted and make accurate reports or that you don't be a SC
reporter if you can't make accurate reports.

> Reporting one's own ISP can be, well, sort of
> self defeating<g>.

Much worse than that.

> As for the noncompliant line in each one, the sc mailhost refuses to
> work for me because of it.

I've seen evidence here of mailhosts setup on some pretty whacky
noncompliant providers tracelines.

>    For awhile it looked like SC might be able to work around it, but I
> guess that never went anywhere either and eventually I got tired of
> frogging with it and just let it be.

Sometimes I can understand the 'mechnanism' or the 'syntax' of a
noncompliant line, but these two examples are a little baffling to me.  I
might need to look at them some more to see if what I said previously was
correct or to try to guess at what the yahoo server is doing.

>    Haven't tried setting up the mailhost in quite awhile now and might
> try again, just for grins, but I don't expect to see anything any
> different come about.  I'm just "left out" when it comes to the mailhost
> at spamcop.

IMO it is a must-do.  You can't be a spamcop reporter reporting the wrong
source.  That is bad for the provider and it is bad for the SCbl and it is
bad for SC generally.  All of that make it 'bad for you'.  SC has a rule
that you can't be making bad/false reports

http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/125.html  Erroneous reports make
the SCBL less accurate and potentially cause thousands of sites to
mistakenly block wanted, solicited email. ... SpamCop will ban users of
the free reporting service who violate these rules. ... SpamCop may fine,
suspend or terminate the accounts of paid members who violate these rules.

http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/13.html  Why does SpamCop want to
send a report to my own network administrator? -- The mail servers
handling your email must identify themselves in a consistent way,

There are some discussions in the forum about mailhosts and yahoo, but I
don't feel like wading thru' all that crap.  Trying to read or search
messages with a browser isn't at all appealing to me.

--
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin