[SC-Help] Re: Rejected by abuse@uic.edu

[Mike Easter]

Miss Betsy wrote:
> "Monato"

>> Did I make a mistake, or is this some problem of the parser?

I don't have it figured out yet, but I think the abuse desk made a
mistake.

>> The following message was rejected because it either included
>>   attachments or styled text.
>>
>>      Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:51:16 +0100
>>      To: abuse at uic.edu
>>      From: <1632352693 at reports.spamcop.net>
>>      Subject: ***SPAM*** [SpamCop (128.248.224.75) id:1632352693]D a
>>   y T r a d e r   w a t c h
>>
>> Please resend your message without any attachments and in plain text.

That is a spamcop report they are rejecting and alleging that it has
attachment or styled text, but I think that is wrong.  I've never
received a spamcop report, but I think it is in plaintext and contains a
link to the actual spam and doesn't have an attachment.

> It looks to me that the spamcop report was rejected because it had
> an attachment.

Or styled [presumably html] text.

> You could email them directly (in plain text) and tell them that
> they rejected a spamcop report.  Explain why the report was sent
> and why it is a good idea to accept spamcop reports.  You can
> suggest that they contact the deputies <at> admin.spamcop.net if
> they have any questions about receiving spamcop reports (or look at
> the spamcop web page explanations).

I'm not very sympathetic to an abuse desk which is (presumably)
incorrectly rejecting abuse reports.  The typical reporter would be
configured to not get any kind of 'auto-ack' so I'm guessing that this
desk either acted like a sentient human or Montato is configured to
receive the autoacks.  It seems like this type of correspondence ought
to be going on between the abuse desk and the spamcop deputy -- not the
reporter -- and if the abuse desk doesn't want to receive spamcop
reports they can work that out with the deputy.

> You can also include the spam you received as part of the email (if
> you know how to get the original headers) to show them what you
> were reporting.

That would be tantamount to a manual report, which is another subject.
My attitude would be that the abuse desk needs to be figuring out how to
interact with spamcop reports, and that that isn't my, the reporter's,
responsibility to teach them.

If I spent any time at all on the 'project' it wouldn't be very much.
I'm thinking it wouldn't be any.


-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin