[SpamCop-List] Re: Why will not SC report http://uk.geocities.com/ ?

[Mike Easter]

spamcop wrote:
> "Mike Easter"
>> spamcop wrote:

>>> Why will not SC report http://uk.geocities.com/ ?
>>
>> SC may or not try to resolve URLs it has deobfuscated.  When it tries
>> to, it may or not be able to resolve URLs which are otherwise
>> resolvable.  If you tinker with an unresolved URL, you may gain
>> information.
>>
> Maybe so BUT usually it states it "can't resolve"  In cases like
> these all it states is:

'Can't resolve' is a different result than not /attempting/ to resolve.
My words above say may or not /try/ - and when it tries to it may or not
be /able/.  Can't resolve is when it isn't able.  Sometimes when it
isn't able the link is otherwise resolvable, sometimes not.

In this case it doesn't attempt to resolve something which it can
resolve when parsed directly.

There's a bigger discussion here if you like
http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=4345 FAQ Entry: The
Link Analysis Process

>> Some theorize that the parsing algorithm might have load-induced
>> priorities, but no one in charge of the algorithm has explained the
>> nuances of some of the above 'may or may not' differences.
>>
> Doubt it as SC can identify the URL

Deobfuscation is a completely different step than resolving.

>> Paid SC reporters can perform such an operation and use the
>> addresses as additional notifies;  free reporters would have to
>> manually notify if they wanted to notify about the spamvertiser.
>
> No different if paid or not paid. I tried and got "abuse at yahoo.com
> does not wish to receive user-copied reports."

The business of notifying a spamvertiser provider is only useful if the
provider wants to hear about the notifications.

> I am rather sick of yahoo allowing bots to auto signup on geocities
> and getting flooded with geocities link spams.

But there's not much you can do about it.

-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin