From usenet-imp at exp09.spam.woody.ch Wed Aug 5 11:59:29 2009 From: usenet-imp at exp09.spam.woody.ch (Benoit Panizzon) Date: Wed Aug 5 12:00:03 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Why are Yahoo Groups not reported to Yahoo anymore? References: Message-ID: > To discuss any specific SC report process including the spamvertiser > link, paste the tracking URL into a discussion group such as this one, > or even better a group which has more traffic such as spamcop. Ok, here is one of the newest. I don't bother about the email addresses, they are spamtraps anyway :-) ======== Original Email ============ >From clarkmytemo23@93-34-201-235.ip51.fastwebnet.it Wed Aug 5 17:50:26 2009 Received: from 93-34-201-235.ip51.fastwebnet.it (93-34-201-235.ip51.fastwebnet.it [93.34.201.235]) by gintonic.woody.ch (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id n75FoMGa011794; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 17:50:25 +0200 Received: from [99.234.176.90] (helo=einkhvigpdbj.vuuljegreispa.net) by 93-34-201-235.ip51.fastwebnet.it with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MMFVD-4864ax-KK for webmaster@blacklist.woody.ch; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 16:50:25 +0100 From: Parker Ford To: Subject: Bestellen Sie Software. Unglaublich Sparen. Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 16:50:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_dmaw_78_23_58" X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: ybwrl-63 Message-ID: <3635630368.8FRIDZSA893588@mlbuwon.hvvymjlrgvec.tv> X-Greylist: Recipient e-mail whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0 (gintonic.woody.ch [157.161.57.2]); Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:50:26 +0200 (CEST) ------=_dmaw_78_23_58 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Diese Promotion dauert nicht lange, reagieren sie schnell! Software beste= llen und die Haelfte bezahlen! MCRS-9329 eintippen.Softwarekauf kann auch= Sparen helfen, jetzt Kaufen* Adobe Creative Suite 4 Master Collection: &= euro;164.95 * QuarkXPress 8 for MAC €59.95* iLife '09: €29.95* = Adobe Photoshop CS4 Extended: €59.95* Adobe Creative Suite 3 Design = Premium for MAC €114.95* Mac OS X v10.5.6 Leopard: €34.95http:/= /groups.yahoo.com/group/kifobegeculaxe/message/1 ------=_dmaw_78_23_58 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Diese Promotion dauert nicht lange, = reagieren sie schnell! Software bestellen und die Haelfte bezahlen! MCRS-9329 eintippen.

CONSIDERING URI: groups.yahoo.com FOUND URI: yahoo.com Softwarekauf kann auch S= paren helfen, jetzt Kaufen

* Adobe Creative Suite 4 Master Collect= ion: €164.95
* QuarkXPress 8= for MAC €59.95
* iLife '09: €29.95
* Adobe P= hotoshop CS4 Extended: €59.95* Adobe Creative Suite 3 Design Premium for MAC = €114.95
* Mac OS X v10.5.6 Leopard: €34.95

http://groups.yahoo.com/= group/kifobegeculaxe/message/1

------=_dmaw_78_23_58-- ========= SPAMCOP OUTPUT ==================== Tracking message source: 93.34.201.235: Routing details for 93.34.201.235 [refresh/show] Cached whois for 93.34.201.235 : abuse@fastweb.it Using abuse net on abuse@fastweb.it abuse net fastweb.it = abuse@fastweb.it Using best contacts abuse@fastweb.it Yum, this spam is fresh! Message is 0 hours old 93.34.201.235 not listed in dnsbl.njabl.org ( 127.0.0.8 ) 93.34.201.235 not listed in dnsbl.njabl.org ( 127.0.0.9 ) 93.34.201.235 not listed in cbl.abuseat.org 93.34.201.235 not listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net 93.34.201.235 not listed in accredit.habeas.com 93.34.201.235 not listed in plus.bondedsender.org 93.34.201.235 not listed in iadb.isipp.com Finding links in message body Recurse multipart: Parsing text part Parsing HTML part Resolving link obfuscation http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kifobegeculaxe/message/1 Please make sure this email IS spam: From: larkmytemo23@93-34-201-235.ip51.fastwebnet.it Wed Aug 5 17:50:26 2009 (Bestellen Sie Software. Unglaublich Sparen.) ------=_dmaw_78_23_58 Content-Type: text/plain; View full message Report Spam to: Re: 93.34.201.235 (Administrator of network where email originates) To: abuse@fastweb.it (Notes) Additional notes (optional - max 2000 characters): =============================================================== Well, Spamcop has found the 'obfuscated' links, but does not send any report to yahoo where the spamvertized website (and many many MANY others) reside. -Benoit- From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Aug 5 12:16:14 2009 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Wed Aug 5 12:20:06 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Why are Yahoo Groups not reported to Yahoo anymore? References: Message-ID: Benoit Panizzon wrote: >> To discuss any specific SC report process including the spamvertiser >> link, paste the tracking URL into a discussion group such as this one, >> or even better a group which has more traffic such as spamcop. > > Ok, here is one of the newest. I don't bother about the email addresses, > they are spamtraps anyway :-) That is not a tracker. A tracker looks like what I said in the other post: Mike Easter wrote: > How to make a tracker: > 'Here is your TRACKING > URL' of the appearance http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1505491930z5db2559eebcde98291b8e783c95d61c ez -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Aug 5 12:18:30 2009 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Wed Aug 5 12:20:06 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Why are Yahoo Groups not reported to Yahoo anymore? References: Message-ID: Benoit Panizzon wrote: > Ok, here is one of the newest. Do not paste spam in discussion groups. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Aug 5 12:30:39 2009 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Wed Aug 5 12:35:06 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Why are Yahoo Groups not reported to Yahoo anymore? References: Message-ID: Benoit Panizzon wrote: > Well, Spamcop has found the 'obfuscated' links, but does not send any > report to yahoo where the spamvertized website (and many many MANY > others) reside. On the tracker, you might see more logic, but just using the webparser on the link, SC sez Parsing input: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kifobegeculaxe/message/1 ISP does not wish to receive report regarding groups.yahoo.com ISP does not wish to receive reports regarding http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ SC's philosophy or commitment to providers is that it doesn't want to notify any provider of any spam related issue which the provider does not want to be notified. http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/75.html and http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/266.html Help for abuse-desks and administrators : - How can I control what type of reports I receive? - You can elect to accept or refuse reports depending on their type (source of mail, web hosting, open relays, etc..). - Change your preferences here. Altho' reporters are inclined to want to notify as a 'disciplinary' measure, that isn't rational. The purpose of a notify is to help the provider if the provider wants any help. If the provider doesn't want help or a notify, the notify becomes a waste of bandwidth - like spam. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Wed Aug 5 23:46:24 2009 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Patto) Date: Wed Aug 5 23:50:04 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Why are Yahoo Groups not reported to Yahoo anymore? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Benoit Panizzon wrote: >> To discuss any specific SC report process including the spamvertiser >> link, paste the tracking URL into a discussion group such as this one, >> or even better a group which has more traffic such as spamcop. > > Ok, here is one of the newest. I don't bother about the email addresses, > they are spamtraps anyway :-) > > ======== Original Email ============ (spam deleted) > ==================================== > > Well, Spamcop has found the 'obfuscated' links, but does not send any report > to yahoo where the spamvertized website (and many many MANY others) reside. Yahoo Groups are easiest reported on this form http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/abuse/abuse.html From nobody at spamcop.net Tue Aug 11 16:58:27 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (RandallW) Date: Tue Aug 11 17:00:02 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] spam abuse addresses not working Message-ID: I tried to do a manual report for 194.181.22.7; the parser shows andrzej.markowski@3w.com.pl and mtraba@3w.com.pl, but my complaints resulted in a 'relaying denied' message back to me. I tried a report for 89.130.38.241; the parser shows abuse@uni2.es; the result was "relay not permitted; no such user". From MikeE at ster.invalid Tue Aug 11 20:16:41 2009 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Tue Aug 11 20:20:04 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: spam abuse addresses not working References: Message-ID: RandallW wrote: > I tried to do a manual report for 194.181.22.7; the parser shows > andrzej.markowski@3w.com.pl and mtraba@3w.com.pl, but my complaints > resulted in a 'relaying denied' message back to me. The nameserver for 3w.com.pl currently has no MX records for that name - which is listed in RIPE as contacts for the /24 You might try the abuse addy for AS8308, the routing /16 abuse@nask.pl & abuse.net cert@cert.pl > I tried a report for 89.130.38.241; the parser shows abuse@uni2.es; the > result was "relay not permitted; no such user". RIPE sez abuse@orange.es abuse@ya.com abuse.net sez abuse@orange.es abuse@uni2.es abuse@ya.com SC sez Reports disabled for abuse@orange.es uni2.es MX is inc.wanadoo.es 62.36.20.20 rDNS 62.36.20.20.static.abi.uni2.es There is a mailserver there; sometimes it isn't good when an MX DNS doesn't rDNS. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From bcs1 at spamcop.net Fri Aug 14 09:45:39 2009 From: bcs1 at spamcop.net (Bill) Date: Fri Aug 14 09:50:03 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] enable quick reporting on mailhosted accounts? Message-ID: you know, I read about this somewhere, but for the life of me (or maybe just due to a brainfart) I can't seem to find it again and I'd like to get QR enabled for my account again.. anyone have the info handy? Thanks Bill From user at domain.invalid Fri Aug 14 13:09:36 2009 From: user at domain.invalid (Farelf) Date: Fri Aug 14 13:10:03 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: enable quick reporting on mailhosted accounts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bill wrote: > you know, I read about this somewhere, but for the life of me (or maybe just > due to a brainfart) I can't seem to find it again and I'd like to get QR > enabled for my account again.. > > anyone have the info handy? > > Thanks > Bill > > Bill, simply email Don - service [at] admin.spamcop.net, requesting it. Further detail in the SCWiki via the forum pages but, if you've had it before ... From bcs1 at spamcop.net Fri Aug 14 13:30:51 2009 From: bcs1 at spamcop.net (Bill) Date: Fri Aug 14 13:35:03 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: enable quick reporting on mailhosted accounts? References: Message-ID: "Farelf" wrote in message news:h645ob$3uc$1@news.spamcop.net... > Bill, simply email Don - service [at] admin.spamcop.net, requesting it. > Further detail in the SCWiki via the forum pages but, if you've had it > before ... Thanks Sir... From user at domain.invalid Sat Aug 15 00:17:11 2009 From: user at domain.invalid (Farelf) Date: Sat Aug 15 00:20:04 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: enable quick reporting on mailhosted accounts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bill wrote: > > Thanks Sir... > Y'r most welcome - but I overlooked the obvious, if you're still using the same reporting account that you once used to make quick reports and if quick reporting had never been disabled on that account then you (maybe) should still be able to quick report by using 'quick.' instead of 'submit.' in your submission address. From bcs1 at spamcop.net Mon Aug 17 07:33:07 2009 From: bcs1 at spamcop.net (Bill) Date: Mon Aug 17 07:35:04 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: enable quick reporting on mailhosted accounts? References: Message-ID: "Farelf" wrote in message news:h65cs2$ldh$1@news.spamcop.net... > Bill wrote: > >> >> Thanks Sir... > > Y'r most welcome - but I overlooked the obvious, if you're still using the > same reporting account that you once used to make quick reports and if > quick reporting had never been disabled on that account then you (maybe) > should still be able to quick report by using 'quick.' instead of > 'submit.' in your submission address. I am, however i went from non-mailhosted to setting up the mailhosts and IIRC that also disabled QR untill I requested it re-enabled, hence the reason I'd asked :) Don got me hooked up though... I had 83 emails in the held folder this morning, saved 3 or 4 of them, and blasted the rest out with QR, much easier than doing them one by one... Thanks Farelf Bill From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Aug 17 13:04:45 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Bar0) Date: Mon Aug 17 13:05:03 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Are forum.spamcop.net now deprecated? Message-ID: Not an issue, but a bit curious, The entryway from the SC Main Page for me to the fora, which I rarely follow, was the help button. The forum links appear to be gone, and forum.spamcop.net seems to be a different format than previously. From MikeE at ster.invalid Mon Aug 17 13:34:28 2009 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Mon Aug 17 13:35:03 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Are forum.spamcop.net now deprecated? References: Message-ID: Bar0 wrote: Subject: Are forum.spamcop.net now deprecated? The question goes into the body, not the subject. (Put IMO anywhere you feel you need to; personally I feel that everything I say is my opinion, not someone else's) > Not an issue, but a bit curious, I don't think so (in answer to your missing question down here where we are talking). > The entryway from the SC Main Page for me to the fora, which I rarely > follow, was the help button. The forum links appear to be gone, and > forum.spamcop.net seems to be a different format than previously. On the SC Site Map, Forums and its subcategories goes to the webforum, while NNTP newsgroups does not; but instead nntp just goes to the faqs links. If you search spamcop with the tool at faqs using the old archive function, you can get a google tool for searching zeta.cesmail.net as the default. One way to get to information about the newsgroups is to use the spamcop website to get to the forum website and click Newsgroups from there. I don't go to the forum site very often, but it looks the same to me as it did the last time I was there. I don't usually go in this page http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/ but more often http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=home to get a view of what is active there. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Mon Aug 17 18:15:13 2009 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Wazoo) Date: Mon Aug 17 18:20:04 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Are forum.spamcop.net now deprecated? References: Message-ID: "Bar0" wrote in message news:h6c2jd$9on$1@news.spamcop.net... > Not an issue, but a bit curious, > > The entryway from the SC Main Page for me to the fora, which I > rarely follow, was the help button. The forum links appear to be > gone, and forum.spamcop.net seems to be a different format than > previously. The last "public" discussion about this exists at; shortcut to forums from the "reporting screen" What happened to the forum shortcut? http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10275 which also references a previous newsgroup thread found at; [Scspamcop] Forum and Newsgroup links removed from SC Help page David Topping http://zeta.cesmail.net/pipermail/scspamcop/2009-April/thread.html#8575 Nothing 'new' has come up that can be talked about openly, per the paid-staff folks. From nobody at spamcop.net Tue Aug 18 00:16:21 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Richard W) Date: Tue Aug 18 00:20:04 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Release of Spamcop Version 4.6.0-028 Message-ID: The long awaited new version of SpamCop (v4.6) will being going into production release Tuesday, August 18, 2009. This means the SpamCop reporting service and website will be offline and unavailable for approximately eight hours beginning at 9:00 a.m. PDT. Emailed spam submissions will be accepted but will be queued for later handling. When the reporting service is brought back up please expect several hours of delay as the backlog is processed. This outage does not affect the SpamCop/CESMail email service. SpamCop/Cisco-Ironport apologizes in advance for inconvenience to our users. We would also like to thank the several users who have participated in the beta testing for the last several weeks. Richard From nobody at spamcop.net Tue Aug 18 00:42:18 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Richard W) Date: Tue Aug 18 00:45:04 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Release of Spamcop Version 4.6.0-028 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This deployment has now been moved to Wednesday, August 19, 2009. Same time, same duration, same effects. Richard Richard W wrote: > The long awaited new version of SpamCop (v4.6) will being going into > production release Tuesday, August 18, 2009. This means the SpamCop > reporting service and website will be offline and unavailable for > approximately eight hours beginning at 9:00 a.m. PDT. > > Emailed spam submissions will be accepted but will be queued for later > handling. When the reporting service is brought back up please expect > several hours of delay as the backlog is processed. > > This outage does not affect the SpamCop/CESMail email service. > > SpamCop/Cisco-Ironport apologizes in advance for inconvenience to our > users. We would also like to thank the several users who have > participated in the beta testing for the last several weeks. > > Richard From user at domain.invalid Tue Aug 18 00:45:25 2009 From: user at domain.invalid (Farelf) Date: Tue Aug 18 00:50:03 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Are forum.spamcop.net now deprecated? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bar0 wrote: > forum.spamcop.net seems to be a different format than previously. Without the links from the SC Help page, the 'portal' page may be a little easier to find than the index page: http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=home (as opposed to) http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php? Perhaps that's it? From borgholio at storymind.com Tue Aug 18 05:52:44 2009 From: borgholio at storymind.com (Borgholio) Date: Tue Aug 18 05:55:04 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Release of Spamcop Version 4.6.0-028 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard W wrote: > The long awaited new version of SpamCop (v4.6) will being going into > production release Tuesday, August 18, 2009. This means the SpamCop > reporting service and website will be offline and unavailable for > approximately eight hours beginning at 9:00 a.m. PDT. > > Emailed spam submissions will be accepted but will be queued for later > handling. When the reporting service is brought back up please expect > several hours of delay as the backlog is processed. > > This outage does not affect the SpamCop/CESMail email service. > > SpamCop/Cisco-Ironport apologizes in advance for inconvenience to our > users. We would also like to thank the several users who have > participated in the beta testing for the last several weeks. > > Richard Would you be able to point out where we can find the changelog? Thanks! From MikeE at ster.invalid Tue Aug 18 12:48:53 2009 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Tue Aug 18 12:50:12 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Are forum.spamcop.net now deprecated? References: Message-ID: Charles wrote: > "Wazoo" >> Nothing 'new' has come up that can be talked about openly, per the >> paid-staff folks. > > Sounds ominous. One of the 'wonderful' (insert sarcastic grimace) things about such as a moderated forum is that you have these inner circles; here are the real insiders, here are the insiders who aren't on that inside but are inside of this other middleside, then here are the middlesiders who are inside the outsiders, and then here is everyone else out yonder. Such a caste system of hierarchies works in many societies, why not a web forum? -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nobody at spamcop.net Tue Aug 18 16:50:58 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Ellen) Date: Tue Aug 18 16:55:05 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Are forum.spamcop.net now deprecated? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike Easter wrote: > Charles wrote: >> "Wazoo" > >>> Nothing 'new' has come up that can be talked about openly, per the >>> paid-staff folks. >> Sounds ominous. > > One of the 'wonderful' (insert sarcastic grimace) things about such as a > moderated forum is that you have these inner circles; here are the real > insiders, here are the insiders who aren't on that inside but are inside > of this other middleside, then here are the middlesiders who are inside > the outsiders, and then here is everyone else out yonder. > > Such a caste system of hierarchies works in many societies, why not a > web forum? > > remembering always that the center is a black hole ..... :-) Ellen From MikeE at ster.invalid Tue Aug 18 17:10:58 2009 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Tue Aug 18 17:15:03 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Are forum.spamcop.net now deprecated? References: Message-ID: Ellen wrote: > Mike Easter wrote: >> One of the 'wonderful' (insert sarcastic grimace) things about such as >> a moderated forum is that you have these inner circles; here are the >> real insiders, here are the insiders who aren't on that inside but are >> inside of this other middleside, then here are the middlesiders who >> are inside the outsiders, and then here is everyone else out yonder. > remembering always that the center is a black hole ..... Ha! ...where the power of the (gravitational/corporate) effect is that everything, including information can go in but nothing escapes - comes out. > :-) Here's some heavy philosophical (from the corporate blackhole perspective) snippage from the wikipedia's description of the event horizon A misconception concerning event horizons, especially black hole event horizons, is that they represent an immutable surface that destroys objects that approach them. In practice, all event horizons appear to be some distance away from any observer, and objects sent towards an event horizon never appear to cross it from the sending observer's point of view -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nobody at spamcop.net Tue Aug 18 18:20:56 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Bar0) Date: Tue Aug 18 18:25:03 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Are forum.spamcop.net now deprecated? References: Message-ID: "Ellen" wrote in message news:h6f4a0$6mc$1@news.spamcop.net... > Mike Easter wrote: >> Charles wrote: >>> "Wazoo" >> >>>> Nothing 'new' has come up that can be talked about openly, per the >>>> paid-staff folks. >>> Sounds ominous. .... >> >> Such a caste system of hierarchies works in many societies, why not a >> web forum? >> >> > > remembering always that the center is a black hole ..... > Is that's 'coz it's so dense? From nobody at spamcop.net Tue Aug 18 21:31:58 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Steven Underwood) Date: Tue Aug 18 21:35:03 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Are forum.spamcop.net now deprecated? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Mike Easter" wrote in message news:h6em19$os8$1@news.spamcop.net... > > One of the 'wonderful' (insert sarcastic grimace) things about such as a > moderated forum is that you have these inner circles; here are the real > insiders, here are the insiders who aren't on that inside but are inside > of this other middleside, then here are the middlesiders who are inside > the outsiders, and then here is everyone else out yonder. > > Such a caste system of hierarchies works in many societies, why not a > web forum? > > > -- > Mike Easter > kibitzer, not SC admin > There is no additional information on the inner circles of the forum this time :( From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Wed Aug 19 07:06:35 2009 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Lou) Date: Wed Aug 19 07:10:04 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Release of Spamcop Version 4.6.0-028 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Borgholio wrote, On 8/18/2009 3:52 AM: > > Would you be able to point out where we can find the changelog? Thanks! LOL From borgholio at storymind.com Wed Aug 19 13:25:09 2009 From: borgholio at storymind.com (Borgholio) Date: Wed Aug 19 13:25:06 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Release of Spamcop Version 4.6.0-028 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lou wrote: > Borgholio wrote, On 8/18/2009 3:52 AM: >> >> Would you be able to point out where we can find the changelog? Thanks! > > LOL No really, what's so great about 4.6? From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Wed Aug 19 14:03:41 2009 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Twayne) Date: Wed Aug 19 14:05:03 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Are forum.spamcop.net now deprecated? References: Message-ID: "Ellen" wrote in message news:h6f4a0$6mc$1@news.spamcop.net > Mike Easter wrote: >> Charles wrote: >>> "Wazoo" >> >>>> Nothing 'new' has come up that can be talked about openly, per the >>>> paid-staff folks. >>> Sounds ominous. >> >> One of the 'wonderful' (insert sarcastic grimace) things about such >> as a moderated forum is that you have these inner circles; here are >> the real insiders, here are the insiders who aren't on that inside >> but are inside of this other middleside, then here are the >> middlesiders who are inside the outsiders, and then here is everyone >> else out yonder. Such a caste system of hierarchies works in many >> societies, why not a >> web forum? >> >> > > remembering always that the center is a black hole ..... > > :-) > > > Ellen LOL!! Good 'un! From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Aug 19 16:17:00 2009 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Wed Aug 19 16:20:10 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Spam from ".gov.in"??? References: Message-ID: posted to spamcop & .spam; f/ups to spamcop Kenneth Brody wrote: > The "received" lines appear to be correct in that this came from > "mail.keralapwd.gov.in". I see satcom-systems.net > mail.keralapwd.gov.in > fast.net > cesmail.net Source 217.21.66.246 rDNS 217.21.66.246.satcom-systems.net of Gilat Satcom - Please send abuse notifications to abuse@ipplanet.com - abuse-mailbox: abuse@gilat.net -- abuse.net abuse@gilat.net abuse-gilat@012.net (for gilat.net) Additional abuse.net addies for ipplanet lir@ipplanet.net abuse@ipplanet.com postmaster@ipplanet.com (for ipplanet.com) What is your question? -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Wed Aug 19 19:06:21 2009 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Lou) Date: Wed Aug 19 19:10:03 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Release of Spamcop Version 4.6.0-028 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Borgholio wrote, On 8/19/2009 11:25 AM: > Lou wrote: >> Borgholio wrote, On 8/18/2009 3:52 AM: >>> >>> Would you be able to point out where we can find the changelog? Thanks! >> >> LOL > > No really, what's so great about 4.6? I have no idea. But just of the top of my head: Reasons not to have a public changelog 1. SpamCop v4.6 is Cisco-Ironport proprietary software 2. Knowledge of how it works might help spammers 3. A change from what? Based on the Forum and NG not many understand what v4.5 does/did 4. ... From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Aug 19 20:07:11 2009 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Wed Aug 19 20:10:04 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Release of Spamcop Version 4.6.0-028 References: Message-ID: David Dean wrote: > IOW, security through obscurity: > > > > I think we should assume that the enemy already knows the system... I think a great many security experts believe that the more different kinds of layers there are, if the 'extra' layers do not impose significant disadvantages, the better. The business of obscurity counts as some kind of a layer, depending on where the obscurity hits. In the case of the SC parsing algorithms, those of us (outside amateur hobbyists) who 'test' the algos by playing with them for our curiosity and interest probably spend more time researching the results of a spamcop parse on this or that particular spam item than any spam operator does. The spamming operation itself gets its feedback thru' mechanisms separate and different from how I get my feedback about how the SC algos work. It would be a big advantage to a spamming operation to have the actual spamcop parsing algo code. It would be a different kind of advantage to have the insight of those who 'play with' SC's parsing algo/s for the fun of it/ hobby, like me or others who have similar interests and curiosities. Surely you don't think that the SC algo/s should be open to the public? -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Wed Aug 19 21:41:42 2009 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Wazoo) Date: Wed Aug 19 21:45:03 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Release of Spamcop Version 4.6.0-028 References: Message-ID: "Richard W" wrote in message news:h6d9uj$pdu$1@news.spamcop.net... > The long awaited new version of SpamCop (v4.6) will being going > into production release Tuesday, August 18, 2009. This means the > SpamCop reporting service and website will be offline and > unavailable for approximately eight hours beginning at 9:00 a.m. > PDT. Submitted six spams via the cut/paste into the web-form, full details mode selected. After hitting the Submit button, three came back with a refreshed screen citing "unreported Spam" Following that link resulted in a "full technical details" parse result page stating that reports had already been sent. Appearances are that the full database isn't quite in sync, updating fast enough, or there's too much time spent between servers talking to each other. From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Wed Aug 19 22:41:39 2009 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Patto) Date: Wed Aug 19 22:45:04 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Release of Spamcop Version 4.6.0-028 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wazoo wrote: > "Richard W" wrote in message > news:h6d9uj$pdu$1@news.spamcop.net... >> The long awaited new version of SpamCop (v4.6) will being going >> into production release Tuesday, August 18, 2009. This means the >> SpamCop reporting service and website will be offline and >> unavailable for approximately eight hours beginning at 9:00 a.m. >> PDT. > > Submitted six spams via the cut/paste into the web-form, full > details mode selected. > After hitting the Submit button, three came back with a refreshed > screen citing "unreported Spam" > Following that link resulted in a "full technical details" parse > result page stating that reports had already been sent. > > Appearances are that the full database isn't quite in sync, updating > fast enough, or there's too much time spent between servers talking > to each other. That happened with the first processed spam message this morning. Going back to the original reporting URL cleared it. From DeathToSpam at crazyhat.net Thu Aug 20 01:24:24 2009 From: DeathToSpam at crazyhat.net (DevilsPGD) Date: Thu Aug 20 01:25:05 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Release of Spamcop Version 4.6.0-028 References: Message-ID: In message "Mike Easter" was claimed to have wrote: >David Dean wrote: > >> IOW, security through obscurity: >> >> >> >> I think we should assume that the enemy already knows the system... > >I think a great many security experts believe that the more different >kinds of layers there are, if the 'extra' layers do not impose >significant disadvantages, the better. The disadvantage is that the best anyone can ever claim is that they built a system that they themselves cannot defeat. Peer review is beneficial, obscurity impedes that. The difference between us and the enemy is that we need every possible hole closed to win, spammers only need to find one left open to win. >The business of obscurity counts as some kind of a layer, depending on >where the obscurity hits. In the case of the SC parsing algorithms, >those of us (outside amateur hobbyists) who 'test' the algos by playing >with them for our curiosity and interest probably spend more time >researching the results of a spamcop parse on this or that particular >spam item than any spam operator does. True. Spam operators only care if they find a hole, and once they do, how to reproduce it. >The spamming operation itself gets its feedback thru' mechanisms >separate and different from how I get my feedback about how the SC algos >work. > >It would be a big advantage to a spamming operation to have the actual >spamcop parsing algo code. It would be a different kind of advantage to >have the insight of those who 'play with' SC's parsing algo/s for the >fun of it/ hobby, like me or others who have similar interests and >curiosities. > >Surely you don't think that the SC algo/s should be open to the public? Absolutely. If they're well designed, they can withstand scrutiny from all sides. If not, spammers will figure it out anyway. From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Thu Aug 20 02:08:51 2009 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Wazoo) Date: Thu Aug 20 02:10:03 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Release of Spamcop Version 4.6.0-028 References: Message-ID: "Wazoo" wrote in message news:h6i9kh$v2t$1@news.spamcop.net... > > Submitted six spams via the cut/paste into the web-form, full > details mode selected. > After hitting the Submit button, three came back with a refreshed > screen citing "unreported Spam" > Following that link resulted in a "full technical details" parse > result page stating that reports had already been sent. > > Appearances are that the full database isn't quite in sync, > updating fast enough, or there's too much time spent between > servers talking to each other. Experience repeated several hours later ... 50% no problem ... Guess I need to start keeping track of which server is involved with the parse/report output to see if that's where the issue might fall? From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Fri Aug 21 08:59:09 2009 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Wazoo) Date: Fri Aug 21 09:00:07 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Release of Spamcop Version 4.6.0-028 References: Message-ID: "Wazoo" wrote in message news:h6ip9d$j8v$1@news.spamcop.net... > "Wazoo" wrote in message > news:h6i9kh$v2t$1@news.spamcop.net... >> >> Submitted six spams via the cut/paste into the web-form, full >> details mode selected. >> After hitting the Submit button, three came back with a refreshed >> screen citing "unreported Spam" >> Following that link resulted in a "full technical details" parse >> result page stating that reports had already been sent. >> >> Appearances are that the full database isn't quite in sync, >> updating fast enough, or there's too much time spent between >> servers talking to each other. > > Experience repeated several hours later ... 50% no problem ... > > Guess I need to start keeping track of which server is involved > with the parse/report output to see if that's where the issue > might fall? Doesn't appear to be rooted in the parsing code, perhaps not the parsing systems. Just ran through two submittals with the same results .. first one ran fine, second returned the "unreported spam" refreshed page, and again, following the link to 'Report Now' showed me the "if reported today" parse result page. Both were processed on the same server, produced by prod-sc-www1 .... So I'm back to suggesting that it's a network traffic / database issue. Although described somewhat differently, there is a new Forum Topic with multiple users noticing a "glitch" New Glitch, unusual amount of already reported spam http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10560 From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Sat Aug 22 19:33:31 2009 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Miss Betsy) Date: Sat Aug 22 19:35:04 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: enable quick reporting on mailhosted accounts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: service[at]admin.spamcop.net "Bill" wrote in message news:h63pq3$p24$1@news.spamcop.net... > you know, I read about this somewhere, but for the life of me (or maybe > just due to a brainfart) I can't seem to find it again and I'd like to get > QR enabled for my account again.. > > anyone have the info handy? > > Thanks > Bill > > From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Sat Aug 22 19:35:40 2009 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Miss Betsy) Date: Sat Aug 22 19:40:03 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Are forum.spamcop.net now deprecated? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It is an issue for those who do use the forum. I don't know what the format issue is. Wazoo tries to keep up, but doesn't seem to get any support. Miss Betsy an almost new internet user "Bar0" wrote in message news:h6c2jd$9on$1@news.spamcop.net... > Not an issue, but a bit curious, > > The entryway from the SC Main Page for me to the fora, which I rarely > follow, was the help button. The forum links appear to be gone, and > forum.spamcop.net seems to be a different format than previously. From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Sat Aug 22 19:37:44 2009 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Miss Betsy) Date: Sat Aug 22 19:40:03 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: spam abuse addresses not working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As far as I can tell, there is a problem with the timing - perhaps if you tried again, you would get a good address. Miss Betsy an almost new internet user "RandallW" wrote in message news:h5sm1e$s3u$1@news.spamcop.net... > I tried to do a manual report for 194.181.22.7; the parser shows > andrzej.markowski@3w.com.pl and mtraba@3w.com.pl, but my complaints > resulted in a 'relaying denied' message back to me. > > I tried a report for 89.130.38.241; the parser shows abuse@uni2.es; the > result was "relay not permitted; no such user". > From nobody at spamcop.net Sat Aug 22 20:08:07 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (bar0) Date: Sat Aug 22 20:10:03 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Are forum.spamcop.net now deprecated? References: Message-ID: "Miss Betsy" wrote in message news:h6pvbu$1cp$1@news.spamcop.net... > It is an issue for those who do use the forum. I don't know what the > format issue is. Wazoo tries to keep up, but doesn't seem to get any > support. > > Miss Betsy > an almost new internet user > > "Bar0" wrote in message > news:h6c2jd$9on$1@news.spamcop.net... >> Not an issue, but a bit curious, >> >> The entryway from the SC Main Page for me to the fora, which I rarely >> follow, was the help button. The forum links appear to be gone, and >> forum.spamcop.net seems to be a different format than previously. > I'm not fond of fora, in general but previously the format was like a table, now it looks like a blog listing. I check in as a lurker on occasion, because I can't manage the passwords I must remember, never mind any optionals. And now and then I like to see some blocked whiner. Makes me feel SC is doing some good. From user at domain.invalid Sun Aug 23 00:30:43 2009 From: user at domain.invalid (Farelf) Date: Sun Aug 23 00:35:03 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Are forum.spamcop.net now deprecated? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: bar0 wrote: > "Miss Betsy" wrote in message > news:h6pvbu$1cp$1@news.spamcop.net... >> It is an issue for those who do use the forum. I don't know what the >> format issue is. Wazoo tries to keep up, but doesn't seem to get any >> support. >> >> Miss Betsy >> an almost new internet user >> >> "Bar0" wrote in message >> news:h6c2jd$9on$1@news.spamcop.net... >>> Not an issue, but a bit curious, >>> >>> The entryway from the SC Main Page for me to the fora, which I rarely >>> follow, was the help button. The forum links appear to be gone, and >>> forum.spamcop.net seems to be a different format than previously. > > I'm not fond of fora, in general but previously the format was like a table, > now it looks like a blog listing. I check in as a lurker on occasion, > because I can't manage the passwords I must remember, never mind any > optionals. And now and then I like to see some blocked whiner. Makes me feel > SC is doing some good. > > I (again) think the view you are thinking of/looking for might be http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Sun Aug 23 17:38:26 2009 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Wazoo) Date: Sun Aug 23 17:40:04 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Are forum.spamcop.net now deprecated? References: Message-ID: "bar0" wrote in message news:h6q19a$2p1$1@news.spamcop.net... > >>> The entryway from the SC Main Page for me to the fora, which I >>> rarely follow, was the help button. The forum links appear to be >>> gone, and forum.spamcop.net seems to be a different format than >>> previously. >> > I'm not fond of fora, in general but previously the format was > like a table, now it looks like a blog listing. I check in as a > lurker on occasion, because I can't manage the passwords I must > remember, never mind any optionals. And now and then I like to see > some blocked whiner. Makes me feel SC is doing some good. As suggested by others, it would seem that you are probably talking about making a recent visit to the "Portal" page, most easily found at http://forum.spamcop.net This was tossed up a few years back as an entrance to 'everything' .... Software changes, FAQ entries, and lack of actual "help/input" from 'the world' have left it as pretty much incomplete. The last threads here involving me asking for input on what could be placed there pretty much resulted in complaints about formatting, weird browser reactions, and, oh yeah, hate the Forum. Not a lot to actually work with. Anyway, my guess is that the bookmark/favorite link you're looking for is actually http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/ (which is in fact offered up on the Portal page.) From me at privacy.net Mon Aug 24 09:26:07 2009 From: me at privacy.net (Michael R N Dolbear) Date: Mon Aug 24 09:30:04 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Are forum.spamcop.net now deprecated? References: Message-ID: <01ca2412$54575020$LocalHost@default> bar0 wrote > now it looks like a blog listing. I check in as a lurker on occasion, > because I can't manage the passwords I must remember, never mind any > optionals. If you use the same computer the forum will remember you for years. I think I last logged in when the forum software was upgraded. -- Mike D From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Aug 24 11:45:13 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Ellen) Date: Mon Aug 24 11:50:11 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: spam abuse addresses not working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RandallW wrote: > I tried to do a manual report for 194.181.22.7; the parser shows > andrzej.markowski@3w.com.pl and mtraba@3w.com.pl, but my complaints resulted > in a 'relaying denied' message back to me. > > I tried a report for 89.130.38.241; the parser shows abuse@uni2.es; the > result was "relay not permitted; no such user". > > well ............... inetnum: 194.181.22.0 - 194.181.22.255 netname: INTERNET-MARKETING-3W descr: Creating Internet-based financial services and applications country: PL Tons of spam from the /24 -- probably bot generated. Rerouted the /24 to abuse@nask.pl 89.130.38.241 Using abuse net on abuse@orange.es abuse net orange.es = abuse@uni2.es Using abuse net on abuse@ya.com abuse net ya.com = abuse@orange.es, abuse@ya.com I expect the bounce may be a temporary situation -- we have sent them lots of reports over the years Ellen SpamCop From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Aug 24 20:19:02 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (bar0) Date: Mon Aug 24 20:20:03 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: spam abuse addresses not working References: Message-ID: "Ellen" wrote in message news:h6ucj0$36v$1@news.spamcop.net... > RandallW wrote: >> I tried to do a manual report for 194.181.22.7; the parser shows >> andrzej.markowski@3w.com.pl and mtraba@3w.com.pl, but my complaints >> resulted in a 'relaying denied' message back to me. >> >> I tried a report for 89.130.38.241; the parser shows abuse@uni2.es; the >> result was "relay not permitted; no such user". > > well ............... > > > inetnum: 194.181.22.0 - 194.181.22.255 > netname: INTERNET-MARKETING-3W > descr: Creating Internet-based financial services and > applications > country: PL > > Tons of spam from the /24 -- probably bot generated. Rerouted the /24 to > abuse@nask.pl > > > > 89.130.38.241 > Using abuse net on abuse@orange.es > abuse net orange.es = abuse@uni2.es > Using abuse net on abuse@ya.com > abuse net ya.com = abuse@orange.es, abuse@ya.com > > I expect the bounce may be a temporary situation -- we have sent them lots > of reports over the years Internet Marketing says it all. I'd be quite happy if any reports were not sent their way. From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Wed Aug 26 01:14:41 2009 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Patto) Date: Wed Aug 26 01:15:03 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Too many links Message-ID: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z3256194271z52bab984f5a0d572c010d0c1836e0793z http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z3256154426zcb82f9f7b85d00636d282fc8423142ebz etc. I have the impression that the "Too many links" message comes up more often with the new SC version. It seems that now 10 links does it. How happy news for the spammers - just insert 11 links or more (it is usually the same link repeated), and SC will just ignore the spam link! From user at domain.invalid Wed Aug 26 02:29:50 2009 From: user at domain.invalid (Farelf) Date: Wed Aug 26 02:30:04 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Too many links In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Patto wrote: > http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z3256194271z52bab984f5a0d572c010d0c1836e0793z > http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z3256154426zcb82f9f7b85d00636d282fc8423142ebz > etc. > > I have the impression that the "Too many links" message comes up more > often with the new SC version. It seems that now 10 links does it. Or 8 links, in your second example. From bert at iphouse.com Wed Aug 26 09:01:31 2009 From: bert at iphouse.com (Bert Hyman) Date: Wed Aug 26 09:05:02 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Still presented with same spam multiple times Message-ID: I forwarded 4 spam emails to my reporting address this morning. Logging in to members.spamcop.net, 3 of the 4 were presented to me more than once; I got to see one of them 3 times. Others have reported the same thing since the recent system update, but I just thought I'd add my report to the pile since it's still going on. -- Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com From colin at NOSPAMgrandecom.com Thu Aug 27 00:09:42 2009 From: colin at NOSPAMgrandecom.com (Colin Bloch) Date: Thu Aug 27 00:15:03 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Still presented with same spam multiple times In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'll chime in with another. It has its moments where it seems to improve (I submit batches of anywhere from 10-40 a couple of times a day) but I'd say I'm averaging an extra 30% or so extra time clicking repeatedly to clear what the interface claims to be spam that has already been reported. Having looked at this daily since the upgrade, I still haven't seen a pattern. Sometimes I'll have to hit the Report Spam link 2-3 times to clear a single spam, and then I go through 10 in a row without incident. There doesn't appear to be any (at least identifiable) rhyme or reason to it. It would be very much appreciated if there was some SC admin response to (a) acknowledge that this is a known issue, and (b) let us know if there is anything we as reporters can do to assist in a remedy. On 08/26/2009 08:01 AM, Bert Hyman wrote: > I forwarded 4 spam emails to my reporting address this morning. > > Logging in to members.spamcop.net, 3 of the 4 were presented to me > more than once; I got to see one of them 3 times. > > Others have reported the same thing since the recent system update, but > I just thought I'd add my report to the pile since it's still going on. > From gezgin at spamcop.net.which.is.not.invalid Thu Aug 27 12:19:48 2009 From: gezgin at spamcop.net.which.is.not.invalid (Gezgin) Date: Thu Aug 27 12:20:03 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Item stuck at the head of my whitelist Message-ID: There's an entry at the beginning of my whitelist that reads "=?utf-8?q?yata=c5=9f online ma=c4=9faza?=" And no matter how often I try I can't delete it. How did it get there? And how do I get rid of it? -- Bob http://www.kanyak.com From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Thu Aug 27 19:01:57 2009 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Wazoo) Date: Thu Aug 27 19:05:04 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Still presented with same spam multiple times References: Message-ID: "Colin Bloch" wrote in message news:k6Odnet39_CNmgvXnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@posted.grandecom... > I'll chime in with another. Would have been better to "chime in" on the original thread/complaint ..??? > It would be very much appreciated if there was some SC admin > response > to (a) acknowledge that this is a known issue, and (b) let us know > if > there is anything we as reporters can do to assist in a remedy. There is a second-hand report of just such an admission over in the Forum. New Glitch, unusual amount of already reported spam http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10560 Linear Post #25 specifically From me at privacy.net Fri Aug 28 14:33:09 2009 From: me at privacy.net (Michael R N Dolbear) Date: Fri Aug 28 14:35:04 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Item stuck at the head of my whitelist References: Message-ID: <01ca27e0$ca429840$LocalHost@default> Gezgin wrote > There's an entry at the beginning of my whitelist that reads > > > "=?utf-8?q?yata=c5=9f online ma=c4=9faza?=" > > > And no matter how often I try I can't delete it. > > How did it get there? And how do I get rid of it? Probably got there when you did a "Release and Whitelist" on an email that had an UTF-8 encoded "From:" Report it as a problem by clicking 'Problem' on the SC Webmail menu bar and see what they can do. It is unlikely to cause any difficulty since it is hardly likely to match any userid+domain. HTH -- Mike D From colin at NOSPAMgrandecom.com Fri Aug 28 19:09:41 2009 From: colin at NOSPAMgrandecom.com (Colin Bloch) Date: Fri Aug 28 19:10:08 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Still presented with same spam multiple times In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 08/27/2009 06:01 PM, Wazoo wrote: > > Would have been better to "chime in" on the original > thread/complaint ..??? Probably, had I known another existed, or had anybody chastised those participating in the thread I responded to. I didn't see either however. >> It would be very much appreciated if there was some SC admin >> response >> to (a) acknowledge that this is a known issue, and (b) let us know >> if >> there is anything we as reporters can do to assist in a remedy. > > There is a second-hand report of just such an admission over in the > Forum. > > New Glitch, unusual amount of already reported spam > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10560 > Linear Post #25 specifically Thanks. Seems odd to me that this kind of bug isn't deemed worthy of any kind of blurb on a status page somewhere, if not directly on the parser page. That would go a long way towards keeping the length of threads such as this one down, or new ones from forming. CAB From gezgin at spamcop.net.which.is.not.invalid Sat Aug 29 02:05:32 2009 From: gezgin at spamcop.net.which.is.not.invalid (Gezgin) Date: Sat Aug 29 02:10:08 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Item stuck at the head of my whitelist References: <01ca27e0$ca429840$LocalHost@default> Message-ID: "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote > Probably got there when you did a "Release and Whitelist" on an email > that had an UTF-8 encoded "From:" > Report it as a problem by clicking 'Problem' on the SC Webmail menu bar > and see what they can do. Have done. Thanks for the suggestion. > HTH Me2 -- Bob http://www.kanyak.com From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Sun Aug 30 21:56:19 2009 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Wazoo) Date: Sun Aug 30 22:00:09 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Glitch in Reporting --> was: Re: Release of Spamcop Version 4.6.0-028 References: Message-ID: "Wazoo" wrote in message news:h6m5mn$egb$1@news.spamcop.net... > > So I'm back to suggesting that it's a network traffic / database > issue. > > Although described somewhat differently, there is a new Forum > Topic with multiple users noticing a "glitch" > > New Glitch, unusual amount of already reported spam > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10560 For those demanding some sort of 'official' notification, Don finally made a Post over in the Forum. http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=10560&view=findpost&p=72723 From bert at iphouse.com Mon Aug 31 14:31:16 2009 From: bert at iphouse.com (Bert Hyman) Date: Mon Aug 31 14:35:08 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Autoresponder says it's ready, but spam's not presented at Web site Message-ID: I forwarded a few emails to my reporting address today and received the Autoresponder's notes "[SpamCop] has accepted n email[s] for processing" in due time, but when I visited the Web site, nothing was there. Just for grins, I clicked on the link in the autoresponder's message [Use links to finish spam reporting (members use cookie-login please!):] and found the spam there and ready to be reported. This has happened on maybe 3 or 4 (out of maybe 6) tries today. -- Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Mon Aug 31 22:24:19 2009 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Patto) Date: Mon Aug 31 22:25:08 2009 Subject: [Scspamcop] Re: Google spam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Larry in AZ wrote: > Lots of spam lately that Spamcop wants to report to abuse@google.com. > > IPs block is 209.85.128.0 - 209.85.255.255 > > Is this Gmail or somethng else..? Difficult to say without a tracker... Anyway, abuse@google.com does not normally want SC reports.