[SC-Help] Re: Are Spam submissions by e-mail working?

[Brian Hetrick]

"WazoO" <nobody at devnull.spamcop.net> wrote ...
> "Brian Hetrick" <bhetrick at notinnedmeats.iname.com> wrote in message
> news:csm3ku$f0$1 at news.spamcop.net...
>>  My email submissions to SpamCop go out through my
>> ISP's SMTP server, but the replies come back via a mail
>> service SMTP server;
>
> I don't do e-mail submittals or have an e-mail account, so
> I've no idea what server you might be talking about with
> the "mail service SMTP server" ....  we are back to the
> way the SpamCop system exists these days, JT's e-mail,
> newsgroup, and Forum hosting out in Georgia, the core
> of the parsing/reporting side in California, Julian up in
> Washington State, mirrors of some things around the
> world, Akamai services used for connections around
> the world ... that there would be a server or two
> dedicated to outgoing mail would be to hard to
> imagine .. just not sure if this is what you meant???

I batch a bunch of spams into a series of attachments to a single mail
message. I send it through my ISP account. The mail goes from my home
PC to my ISP's SMTP engine to SpamCop/Ironport. Headers (as quoted by
SpamCop) on a reporting mail are, for example:

Received: from vmx2.spamcop.net (sc-smtp2.eq.ironport.com
[192.168.18.82])
by sc-app4.eq.ironport.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BA915112
for <submit.[redacted]@spam.spamcop.net>; Wed, 19 Jan 2005
05:14:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net (204.127.202.56)
  by vmx2.spamcop.net with ESMTP; 19 Jan 2005 05:14:19 -0800
Received: from obehol
(h000d88411df4.ne.client2.attbi.com[24.62.160.45])
          by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP
          id <20050119131417012000v3bpe>; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:14:17
+0000

Now, I have told SpamCop my address is brian at brianhetrick.com. The
brianhetrick.com domain is hosted by 9esolution, and the MX points to
a machine known as "1n-189.servernode.net" which handles both SMTP and
POP3, and at which my address is "local." Headers (as appearing on a
"SpamCop has accepted" notice) are:

Received: from [64.74.133.250] (helo=vmx2.spamcop.net)
 by 1n-189.servernode.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
 id 1CrFh7-0003t8-LL
 for [brian at] brianhetrick.com; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:16:22 -0500
Received: from sc-app4.eq.ironport.com (HELO spamcop.net)
(192.168.19.204)
  by vmx2.spamcop.net with SMTP; 19 Jan 2005 05:16:15 -0800

So, my email to SpamCop and SpamCop's emails to me travel through
different routes. In particular if the 9esolution.com machine goes
down then I can send SpamCop mail but SpamCop cannot send me mail.

> Though not knowing, I'd more likely go with that your spam
> submittal goes to an Inbox and once it's been recognized, the
> "have recieved a spam" e-mail is kicked out.

That's what I would think, too, but the evidence argues against it.

> This was the original intent of the e-mail submittal process .. the
> user could process all his/her spam at once, say when coming into
> the office .. get back to doing some productive work .. then as time
> permitted, go and handle the actual review of the parse results and
> send the complaints on their way.

This is exactly how I use it.

>> One result of this approach is that the spams are not available
>> through the web interface until the reply email has been
>> successfully
>> sent.
>
> I know that this isn't true.  Many folks have stated that even
> if this second e-mail never shows up (and have even stated
> that you don't have to wait for that e-mail to arrive) you can
> hit the site directly and use the Report-Now function.

This is contrary to my recent experience, and is the reason I have
hypothesized the SpamCop internal structure I have. At least for the
last several days, when the machine handling SMTP/POP3 (and also
HHTP, sadly) for my domain has been bouncing up and down, the spam I
have reported through email doesn't appear through the web interface
until second before the acknowledgement mail appears in my mailbox
-- even if this is half a day after I sent in the email with spam
attachments.

> That said, if you have some issues that might be explained
> with time-stamp data, that would have to be provided so
> someone could take a look at it.

I don't have an issue. I was posing a possible factor involved in the
original poster's issue.