[SpamCop-List] Re: over 50% spam skips over URL

[HHAnderson]

"Mike Easter" <MikeE at ster.invalid> wrote in message 
news:d81qb4$pe5$1 at news.spamcop.net...

... clip ...|
| Re: http://pbqa.she7d9s3pkazpta.sophbisoph8.com (Administrator of
| network hosting website referenced in spam)
|   To: postmaster at chinatietong.com (Notes)
|   To: crnet_mgr at chinatietong.com (Notes)
|   To: crnet_tec at chinatietong.com (Notes)
|
| which I cancelled.
|
| My theory is that it is a matter of assigning resources.  Depending upon
| how short the supply of resources, the parser will abort any effort to
| try to resolve a url -- if it 'feels like it'.
|
| ... clip ...

Mike, maybe it has something to do with the name server, as when I did it at 
3am this morning the IP resolved for the url was 221.11.133.42 and not 
222.51.98.245 as it was resolved when you (& I) did it 6 hours later.  I had 
also pinged the url earlier and now, and the pinged IP was 221.11.133.42 
earlier and 222.51.98.245 now.  Also the reporting addresses earlier were: 
abuse at cnc-noc.net and abuse at chinanet.cn.net, and not the chinatietong.com 
ones they are now.  Do you know if it's possible that Spamcop might use more 
than one namesever and if the results from both are not the same IP it may 
revert to the no report condition?  Just a theory, but as there are many 
namesevers there has to be a window of time when some have been dynamically 
updated and others haven't yet been.   But, as Eddie said, whatever the 
case, the parser should be enhanced/(bug fixed) to indicate the reason for 
the none resolution.  IMHO :)
    You seem to be on top of this board, so do you know if my out of sync 
namesevers theory has been expounded in prior discussions of this condition?
Harvey