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

[Ant]

"spamcop" wrote:

> <MikeE at ster.invalid> wrote:
>> You can put that URL directly into the parser and SC will resolve it to
>> 66.218.77.68 and provide reporting addresses, so that means the URL /is/
>> SC resolvable.
>>
>> Reporting addresses:
>> mail-abuse at yahoo-inc.com
>> postmaster at yahoo.com
>>
>> 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

This has been happening since March, and has previously been discussed
here. Nobody from Spamcop has said anything about it. For the spams I
report it seems to be getting worse. The URLs (not only geocities) are
always found by the parser, but seldom is anything done with them.

So far this month I've reported 19 uk.geocities spams. Most were plain
text, but a few were html. Of this total, two (one plain-text with the
same IP as above, and one html) were offered reporting addresses.

This is what the parser said:

 [refresh/show] Cached whois for 66.218.77.68 : network-abuse at cc.yahoo-inc.com
 Using abuse net on network-abuse at cc.yahoo-inc.com
 abuse net cc.yahoo-inc.com = postmaster at yahoo-inc.com
 Using best contacts postmaster at yahoo-inc.com
 postmaster at yahoo-inc.com redirects to yahoo[at]admin.spamcop.net

And then:

 Re: http://uk.geocities.com/... [etc.]
 To: Internal spamcop handling: (yahoo) (Notes)

 Spam report id 1487310437 sent to: yahoo[at]admin.spamcop.net

The internal handling could mean that Yahoo have a reporting address
reserved for Spamcop which they don't want to advertise, or it could
mean something else. I don't know if this is significant.

I also find the parser quirk irritating. There may be good reason for
the behaviour, and if so, I think the parser should display a message.
It doesn't need to give a reason if that would be giving away secrets,
but it should make it clear that the non-resolution is intentional.