[SC-Help] Re: Help -- Am I reporting myself?

[Seahawk]

Hey Mike,

Thank you for the quick feedback -- I appreciate you taking the time to work 
on my problem.

Yes, I have been doing the "quick" reporting.  Frankly I have been getting 
too many spams to report by hand as I used to (I get several hundred per 
day).

At this point I am just going to suspend reporting spam and I respect your 
point.  The other part of that argument however, is that if the "quick" 
report shouldn't be used because it is not reliable, then of course, it 
shouldn't be provided as an option to be used; we should go back to the old 
method.  Of course, as the reporter, I have the final responsibility and I 
recognize that such reporting can sometimes be less than perfect.

I have been resisting changing my e-mail because I don't feel like I should 
have to cave into the spammers, but that is probably the only alternative 
left.

Thanks again for your help!



"Mike Easter" <MikeE at ster.invalid> wrote in message 
news:d4s543$3kl$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> The .spam group is just for posting spams, discussions take place in
> spamcop or .help, or even in .mail if it is about a mail issue.  I'm
> going to crosspost this to .spam and .help and put f/ups to .help
>
> Seahawk wrote:
> Subject: Help -- Am I reporting myself?
>
> Yes
>
>> my ISP said they were getting a
>> lot of spam complaints about by account and they provided a sample
>> spamcop report (e-mail below).
>
> This is about this spam item:
>
> http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z756267518zb2feeede0a3655990a78c951d01da47dz
>
> which has these abbreviated Received tracelines:
>
>  Abbreviated Received lines *comment
>  from unknown (192.168.1.103) by blade1.cesmail.net *serves you
>  from mout.perfora.net (217.160.230.41) by mailgate2.cesmail.net
> *serves you
>  from dsl43.rbh1.pppoe.execulink.com[66.203.183.43] by mx.perfora.net
> *sourceline
>  from (217.160.230.10) by mx9.uti.com *bogusline
>
> and which SC currently correctly IDs the source as
>
> If reported today, reports would be sent to:
> Re: 66.203.183.43 (Administrator of network where email originates)
> ipauthorityar at execulink.com
>
> but which appears to have been badly reported because...
>
> Reports regarding this spam have already been sent:
> Re: 217.160.230.10 (Administrator of network where email originates)
>   Reportid: 1410230009 To: abuse at schlund.de
>
> The tracker which I posted is a mailhosts tracker.  Because the spamitem
> parses correctly now, it isn't easy to say why you reported your own
> provider 217.160.230.10  rDNS  mx00.perfora.net  at  abuse at schlund.com
> but you did and you shouldn't have.
>
> The proper way to be a reporter is to be aware of who/what you are
> reporting and to not report your own provider if the parser makes a
> mistake.  That provider reporting will cause you trouble with your
> provider -- and you will need to be able to develop a plan by which you
> cease to do that and explain to them that plan in a way that they
> believe they can trust you to be a client -- either by not being a
> spamcop reporter or by developing a plan by which you can be both a
> spamcop reporter and a client.
>
> Your provider is also insisting that you communicate back with them in 3
> days what your plan is to cease behaving in improper way which endangers
> their ability to deliver mail for all of their clients.
>
> How is it that you would report your own provider?  Do you not look at
> the reports which SC offers to send?  Are you some kind of quick
> reporter?  If so, you should cease to be that.
>
>
> -- 
> Mike Easter
> kibitzer, not SC admin
>