[SC-Help] Paypal/Ebay reporting error (deputies?)

[Mike Easter]

reconstructed to make a dialogue out of this;  one of the reasons that
topposting communicates poorly is because it doesn't place the exact
words in front of the poster while they are typing, and it doesn't
juxtapose their response directly below what they are responding to.

David Butler wrote:
> "Spam Hater"

> You appear confused on how this works.

Someone is confused;  and I'm not 100% crystal clear myself, but I'm
pretty sure I agree with SH as below -- almost completely postive.

>> Right, so why are you using SpamCop to report the phishing attempt to
>> PayPal???  SpamCop is for reporting SPAM!!  While a side effect of
>> reporting will be that PayPal gets notified, another side effect is
>> that the PayPal site gets listed in the statistics department and
>> who knows what blocklists are using that info to do bad things?  The
>> PayPal site is an innocent bystander in this context and should be
>> treated as such, in my opinion...

> The phishing link gets reported SOLELY to the site of the
> phishing host

Yep, the phishing site host is a spamvertiser.

> and to whomever is being phished, in this case Paypal
> (or incorrectly, IMNSHO to Ebay).

No.

The wording and purpose of a spamcop report to a provider for a link
contained in a spam which isn't unchecked as an IB is as if that
provider's client is spamvertising, not the 'subject' of a phish.  That
is, a provider getting a spamcop report about their client appearing in
a spam as a spamvertiser is not the same thing as an 'entity' such as
paypal or a bank being notified [at their proper phish address or in
their preferred way] about a phish.

The fact of the matter is that if you carefully research each phish and
determine how or when a phish entity wants to be notified, many times
they don't want to be notified about the ones they already know about,
or they want to be notified in a particular way.  They don't want their
provider to receive a SC report which sounds like they were a
spamvertiser in a spam.

> There is no reportage to blocking
> lists and such from links that are reported. This probably is in the
> FAQ pages somewhere. Block list info ONLY comes from reporting the
> SOURCE of the spam, NOT the links.

I'm sure SH understands completely what the SCbl is all about.  What he
is telling you up above is that spamvertised/reported links get placed
on the SC statistic page.  From there they are scraped by the sc-surbl
and then go into blocklists which aid body combing software to block an
item because it is a known spamvertiser.  ebay and paypal shouldn't be
contributed to the sc-surbl because their URL appears as part of the
phishing process.  Appearing innocently as part of a spam or scam is
*NOT* the same thing as spamvertising, and shouldn't be treated or
spamcop notified as such.

> The two kinds of reportage are totally separate. This has been
> discussed a few times if you look up the archives...

Spamvertising reportage and spamsourcing of course aren't the same kind
of reportage.

What SH and I are talking about is that paypal/ebay is an IB in a phish,
not a spamvertiser, and shouldn't be reported as a spamvertiser as a
method of 'communicating' with ebay/paypal about a phish.

> Make sense?

Don't top post.  Trim and post inline and I think you'll see where you
are going wrong.


-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin