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

[Anon_]

"Seahawk" <tcarr at spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:d4us44$h68$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> 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.

**
Quick reporting is fine as long as your isp doesn't scr***w up the headers
and cause himself to be reported.

I really is unfortunate that an isp scr**p puts you in the wrong light.

-- 
A SpamCop user and forum reader,
Not Admin
***

>
> 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
> >
>
>