[Scspamcop] PS Re: Strange spams

[Twayne]

PS
Mike,

If you do a forum search on "received by 0" you'll find a lot of 
discussion, mostly guesses, and some that matched it to "0" being a 
server, and a few others that just threw up their hands.  This is the 
first time I've been aware other ISPs are doing that; I thought it was 
just mine.  But for the few that had it ID'd right, none of them lead to 
a conclusion; the threads all just peter out without resolution or hands 
in the air.

I still intend to try the mailhosts again tonite and I'll make one post 
to the forum for what it's worth, but ... I really don't see any future 
in it now.

Can't recall the deputy address or I'd copy them on this.  Nothing 
stands out in the spamcop.net or FAQ and I'm out of time.

Regards,

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.
>
>> 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.