[SC-Help] Re: Ironport filtering for chinese abuse desk?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <ccug16$mgl$1 at news.spamcop.net>, "Ellen" <nobody at spamcop.net> writes:
> 
> "Miss Betsy" <nobody at spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:ccubvs$i5c$1 at news.spamcop.net...
>> I made a manual lart to a chinese abuse desk.  It was returned as being
>> undeliverable - mail box full.  However, the original email caught my
>> eye.  Should I report them to the bonded sender program?  Or do you
>> think Ironport automatically knows?
>>
>> Received: from ironport1.jsmail.com.cn([10.100.0.29]) by js.cn(AIMC
>> 2.9.5.2)
>>  with SMTP id jm1240eed380; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 00:37:21 +0800
>> Received: from sccimhc91.asp.att.net (63.240.76.165)
>>   by ironport1.jsmail.com.cn with ESMTP; 10 Jul 2004 01:00:08 +0800
>>
>> full headers in .spam
>>
> 
> Having Ironport hardware does not automatically mean that the entity is part
> of bonded sender. It just looks like these folks have bought a server to
> handle their email.

I doubt that the Ironport company has any control over people using
the string "ironport" in their subdomain names.  It might not even
be using their hardware.