[Scspamcop] Re: Strange spams

[Twayne]

> 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.

Yeah; but what are you supposed to do when those non-compliant lines 
cause parse results to not be provided and end up useless?  It's a 
Verizon/Yahoo issue; nothing I can do anything about anymore than I 
already have.  They know but they just don't care and used the line that 
it'll never make any difference to anyone anyway type of bozo response 
at one point.  Frustrated with them is a mild way to phrase my feelings 
about it.  There seems to be no place to complain to that can/will do 
anything about it.

>
>> 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.

Well, I've always figured I'd throw out spamcop when they indicated they 
would eventually insist on the mailhost only situation a long time ago. 
Up until a couple of weeks ago it was never a problem, either, so 
something has changed at spamcop, IMO.  I've been with SC since almost 
day one and this "by 0" crap has been there just as long.

>
>> Reporting one's own ISP can be, well, sort of
>> self defeating<g>.
>
>
> I've seen evidence here of mailhosts setup on some pretty whacky
> noncompliant providers tracelines.

I doubt you've seen this one, though.  It's not new by any means; I've 
posted about it here in fact, at least three times, this making the 4th, 
over the years.

>
>>    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.

If you mean the "by 0" part vs FQDN, I can pull out ANY e-mail and show 
it to you in the headers.  It never fails to appear and the domain there 
is NEVER named, for whatever reason.  If you see more than that, I'm not 
aware of it.  Not that it's not enough to frog things up royally anyway.

>
>>    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

Well, I'm hoping I come back and apologize to you for being wrong, but 
... I'm going to tell you right now, you are wrong.  And,  that I'll 
waste the hour or so it takes to get it all set up and then I'll fail to 
get any parses to work.  I've long ago cleaned up the forward to here 
and forward to there and all that crap in my accounts.  The only 
"forwarding" left is that I pop the mails I want instead.  I've kept 
that setup on purpose, just because of the mailhost thing.  All I'm 
going to get from the mailhosts is a story about the inability to parse 
it because ... well, you know why now, I think.

>
> 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,

I hear what you're saying but it's a little silly on your part to be 
quoting them to me since it's obviously nothing I have any conrtol over 
myself.  I have to wonder how many others have walked away from 
supporting the sbl et al because of comments like that and the confusion 
it all generates.  I've fielded five or six such questions myself from 
people around here and they just threw up their hands and said SC was 
useless.  And, that's about what you especially, and the FAQs tend to 
say in many places.  And you know, from their viewpoint, they're right? 
It is of no use to them.  It's of no use to me either, as of the last 
couple of weeks.  If you wish to digress and postulate, you should take 
an attitude of problem resolution, not get out of town.  Which, near as 
I can tell, is probably my only viable move right now.
>
> 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.

I'm reading a piece or two when I get a spare minute between calls, but 
gads, that's a crummy place to wade around in and  I suppose that only 
means it's newbies, which is fine with me, but ... it's not the best 
place to find information without a lot of luck, skimming and waiting 
for screen refreshes.

Cheers,

Twayne.