[SpamCop-List] Re: I am getting more messages from this .pk server about listserver messages I can do nothing about.

[Geoffrey Hyde]

"Mike Easter" <MikeE at ster.invalid> wrote in message 
news:dnanek$l7$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> Geoffrey Hyde wrote:
>> "Mike Easter"
>>> Geoffrey Hyde wrote:
>>>> This is to me a spam email, as there
>>>> is NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING that I can do about it.
>>>
>>> What you should do is use an invalid addy in your postings to that
>>> group or newsserver.  Which I said back then.
>>
>> Which would do nothing but infuriate some poor random user somewhere
>> who does get my message due to the server not figuring out who it
>> should go to.
>
> Your message is going to appear on the newsserver and the webforum and
> the mailing list.  What do you mean 'get my message not figuring out who
> it should go to'?  The mailing list recipients are those who sign up for
> lugnet.robotics.  If this scenario unfolds in which a mailing list
> recipient's mailbox server wants to belatedly bounce to a From, the
> belated bounce would be emailed to an invalid addy, which goes nowhere.

So you say.  But then again, I came across a situation which would enable 
the recipient to see my email regardless of whether there was a valid 
address or not.

>>The worst case scenario is that nobody gets it and
>> nobody does anything about it and it just fills up some mailbox
>> somewhere until a human administrator examines it and determines it
>> was my munged from address that filled the mailbox up in the first
>> place, so cancels my account.
>
> That scenario doesn't work at all.  And antispam mungeing is expected
> and normal behavior -- antispam mungeing of a From doesn't cause you
> adverse effects.

If I wanted it munged, yes.  But I don't want it munged.  QED.

>> I don't need unexpected account cancellations thank you very much, Mr.
>> Easter.  So I would really prefer to leave things unmunged - spammers
>> may have my address but they WILL get reported.
>
> You are reporting a server which is doing nothing wrong.  That is *not*
> a good scenario.  It is arguably bad reporting by spamcop, which /can/
> get you in trouble.

IF it is bad SC reporting, as you say, the SC admins will have to improve 
their servers to handle the problems.  Their SC parser isn't built to handle 
listserver messages at all.  And I wouldn't doubt that they could handle 
this problem somewhat differently IF they choose to.

>> Unfortunately, the only possible resolution here is if the .pk server
>> wakes up and stops bouncing listserver email to places that a human
>> observer could quite easily see it should NOT go to.
>
> The .pk server is receiving a mail which was posted by you, with your
> From and belatedly bouncing it to you.  That is not /exactly/
> misdirected.

Not quite, the headers don't properly indicate the From: field and I would 
say there is quite a bit of noncompliant header information in there.

> The problem is that you are intereacting with a system which is causing
> that to happen.  Using SpamCop as a bludgeon against the .pk server is
> not the same thing as using SC for 'normal' misdirected bounces.

I am not the person asking it to send me an email message about a failure 
message triggered by another user.  If you cannot see this, you cannot see 
that I see this as spam.  Again, QED.  (Unless you get a clue, and start 
reading things properly.)

> Normally misdirected bounces are bouncing an item to an abused forged
> From.  In this case the bounces are going to the /real/ From, not a
> forged one..

Or in this case, a From which has not been properly inserted in the headers 
of the email message, a From which should indicate the lugnet server as the 
origiator of the email, not me.  Again, QED.

>> And why, of all places, does it have to be .pk - or Pakistan?  Because
>> everyone elsewhere seems to know how to properly configure their
>> mailserver in order to avoid misdirected bounces like this one.  If I
>> could, I'd have it SC reported to admin at lugnet.com, since you seem to
>> have identified them as the listserver owner.
>
> I think that lugnet needs to be dealing with this situation.  It is
> their setup which is causing your news post to go flying around the mail
> system and causing trouble for mail servers.

Got that right.  But how to convince you that this problem is something I 
can't do anything about, and is therefore spam?  (QED, btw.)

>> I'm pretty sure this spam email is breaking more than a few RFC
>> protocols. If the mailserver at lugnet is the sender, it should be
>> the recipient, or at the very least the Reply-to:, which it isn't.
>
> Correct.  The ideal situation would be that the lugnet process would be
> stamping the mail in a proper way, and that the .pk server would be
> rejecting a mail it can't deliver and that the rejection would be
> 'signalled' to the lugnet server, which should know if a mailing list
> recipient's mail isn't working properly.

You're getting warmer.  And closer to the real problem at hand.  But take 
this bit of advice with you when you examine these emails - I did not ask 
for the lugnet server to set me up as the Failure-notice recipient. 
Therefore, it is causing me to be spammed by the .pk mailserver.  Spam. 
And, once again, QED.

> But, as a general rule, the advisability of your From being munged is an
> almost universal bit of advice.  Very very few people think you should
> be posting to 'some' newsservers with an unmunged From.  I can see that
> you use an unmunged From here, and this is a private newsserver like the
> lugnet one -- so maybe it is your conviction that this type of
> newsserver should get a real From -- so I can't argue strongly about
> that decision.  I'm just saying that IMO this is not a normal spamcop
> misdirected bounce.  It is not misdirected because it is directed at a
> true unforged From, not a bogus or forged From.  So, if the bounce isn't
> misdirected, then it isn't reportable.

I don't /want/ or /need/ an unmunged From: - why do I want one?  You haven't 
answered that question at all, and unless you have something more concrete 
than not receiving stupid mailserver bounces, again, QED.

> I say that if you wish you can leave your addy unmunged for this
> newsserver, but you can't spamcop report the bounce which isn't
> misdirected.

I can if I think it is spam.  And I've ample evidence, backed up by you, 
which will make further emails of this type be SC reported, unless SC fixes 
the parser to handle mailserver bounce messages.  FWIW, the listserver 
protocol is probably very out-of-date, I still consider these to be spam 
messages, and by no means did I sign up anywhere for any of it.  So you can 
take your "this isn't spam" and "this isn't spamcop reportable" and STUFF 
IT!!

QED.

Cheers ...

Geoffrey Hyde