From nobody at nowhere.invalid Wed Feb 1 00:06:14 2006 From: nobody at nowhere.invalid (Steven Maesslein) Date: Tue Jan 31 18:10:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Comcast, etc. References: <1iavuhd45fed7$.dlg@news.spamcop.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:53:46 -0800, N. Miller coughed into spamcop and left this in <1iavuhd45fed7$.dlg@news.spamcop.net>: > Comcast supposedly monitors their customers; but they are not doing a > very good job of it. At some point, they will have to implement a > system wide block on outbound port 25 to non-local (to Comcast) SMTP > servers. I have heard that it is under consideration by management; > but they are moving very slowly on the matter. Last I heard of it, marketing told management that it would cost too much to field the customer support calls, so they shelved the idea of blanket port 25 blocking. -- Steve QUARK: The sound made by a well-bred duck: From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Wed Feb 1 11:40:39 2006 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Patto) Date: Tue Jan 31 21:45:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Comcast, etc. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Steven Maesslein wrote: > ... they do cater specifically for spammers. Just like the > rest of APNIC "controlled" space. I *am* in APNIC space. And thank you - I am not a spammer, nor to I cater for spammers! From / at /.cn Wed Feb 1 16:15:52 2006 From: / at /.cn (Petzl) Date: Wed Feb 1 00:20:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Comcast, etc. References: Message-ID: "Stephen Bye" wrote in message news:dronbd$8nn$1@news.spamcop.net... > Forgive my naivety, but what's the deal with companies like Comcast and > Kornet? Do they deliberately sign up spammers, or do they kick themselves > 20 times a day, saying "Damn! We fell for it again!"? > Does any "real" e-mail ever come from them, or is it practical to just > block the whole domain? > > -- > Stephen Bye > stephenbye@byedesign.freeserve.co.uk > Problems with both Comcast and Kornet is not their legitimate mail servers it is all the Trojans zombies that infect their customers Blocking port 25 is the solution for this his page is informative http://pages.infinit.net/filmore/educateYourISP.htm This signature has some good protection for windows users Petzl -- SECURE YOUR WINDOWS COMPUTER NOW!! Keep Windows UPDATED AVG 7.0 Free Edition" Anti-Virus Check your computer for "SpyWare" (free MS Product) a good firewall for windows(free version available) Use a Password Saver on USB removable drive to store passwords From nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de Wed Feb 1 06:50:53 2006 From: nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de (Frank Ellermann) Date: Wed Feb 1 00:55:01 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: FDA Quits: Filtering Reports, Rejecting Spam References: <43DF5A26.88F1498F@SpamCop.devnull.diespammerdie.net> <43DF9C61.3B720F26@SpamCop.devnull.diespammerdie.net> Message-ID: <43E04C3D.3E47@xyzzy.claranet.de> Michael Brennan wrote: > Just in case it's the unwrapped -line issue instead of a new > no-spam policy, I'll try them with a few more submissions. Please tell us what you find, I'd delete the "viagra" nick in my address book (= FDA + SC) if they finally dropped the ball. Didn't use it for some months, but it used to work in 2005 (?) Bye, Frank From kram at kramselkub.moc Wed Feb 1 00:41:09 2006 From: kram at kramselkub.moc (Mark Buckles) Date: Wed Feb 1 03:45:08 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Blacklist by Subject? Message-ID: I am a new subscriber to SpamCop's e-mail filtering service - already I love it! Question: I see that I can set up a blacklist to block e-mail by listing a sender's adress; is there a way to refuse the acceptance of e-mail according to the content of the subject line? The reason I ask is because I get a lot of e-mail with strange characters in the subject. Example: http://www.markbuckles.com/misc/spam.jpg (note: I have all the DNS Blacklist options selected, and SpamAssassin level set to 5) It would be nice to be able to configure filters that would disallow delivery of such e-mail. eg: if subject contains ?, do not receive. If there is a way to do this, please tell me how. Also, is there a way to deny acceptance of e-mail according to country of origin? Thanks! Best Regards, Mark Buckles San Diego From jzeitlin at spamcop.net Wed Feb 1 03:53:45 2006 From: jzeitlin at spamcop.net (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?E=F6nw=EB?=) Date: Wed Feb 1 03:55:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: average reporting time References: Message-ID: On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:54:58 +0100, Steven Maesslein wrote: >On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:16:48 +0200, gezgin coughed into spamcop and left >this in : > >> Are you on a dial-up connection or do you have full-time (ADSL/cable etc) >> access? > >Even that wouldn't make much difference, I think. > >I have a permanent connection to the 'Net and most of my spam is >reported to SC the *second* it arrives here (in spam traps) by an >automated process, and yet my average is still stuck fast at 2h. > >Personally, I don't pay much attention to it anyway. I haven't ever since I was at 8 hours, after many thousands of spam items processed - and over the course of TWO items, I went first to thirteen hours and then to twenty-seven. In the intervening ... three? ,,, years, I've worked it down to 17. It's unsual for a spam to sit more than about ten hours. -- E?nw? (SpamCop subscriber, not staff/admin) From nobody at nowhere.invalid Wed Feb 1 11:29:08 2006 From: nobody at nowhere.invalid (Steven Maesslein) Date: Wed Feb 1 05:30:15 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Comcast, etc. References: <1iavuhd45fed7$.dlg@news.spamcop.net> <1tnjvo0t6db6m.dlg@news.spamcop.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:34:06 -0800, N. Miller coughed into spamcop and left this in <1tnjvo0t6db6m.dlg@news.spamcop.net>: > That was a year ago. Comcast management may be warming to the idea, now. > They already, reportedly, block their own customers from connecting to > their MX servers. Comcast customers can only connect to Comcast message > submission servers from Comcast connections. *sigh* I suppose that's to be expected from a cable company. They never will learn that some customers need to be able to send mail while on the road and that the way to do that is by SMTP AUTH. So, instead of cutting off the abusive behaviour, they're punishing their own customers who are trying to do the Right Thing(tm). Morons. -- Steve Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing. From nobody at nowhere.invalid Wed Feb 1 11:32:32 2006 From: nobody at nowhere.invalid (Steven Maesslein) Date: Wed Feb 1 05:35:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Comcast, etc. References: Message-ID: On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 11:40:39 +0900, Patto coughed into spamcop and left this in : > I *am* in APNIC space. You have my condolences. > And thank you - I am not a spammer, nor to I cater for spammers! You are definitely in the minority! -- Steve Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing. From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Feb 1 05:25:05 2006 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Wed Feb 1 08:25:04 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Blacklist by Subject? References: Message-ID: Mark Buckles wrote: > I am a new subscriber to SpamCop's e-mail filtering > service - already I love it! > > Question: I see that I can set up a blacklist to > block e-mail by listing a sender's adress; is > there a way to refuse the acceptance of e-mail > according to the content of the subject line? What you have displayed in the link below is subjects which contain 8 bit ascii chars > The reason I ask is because I get a lot of e-mail > with strange characters in the subject. Example: > http://www.markbuckles.com/misc/spam.jpg I use SpamPal which has a user configurable regex plugin which contains a line: SUBJECT: 220.0 {([\x80-\xff].*){6,}} [SUBJ_FULL_OF_8BITS Subject is full of 8-bit characters] which means that regex would assign a value of 220.0 [of 500 for spam] for the appearance of 8 bit chars and I could tune that value up or down -- or I could tune up or down the 'breaking point' for spam value. I'm not experienced with SC mail's filter system, but my understanding is that you can't 'reconfigure' the SA SpamAssassin filter rules, you can only adjust what level of value you want to recognize as spam. SA has a lot of different kinds of rules to cover issues like these, but I don't think you can independently configure them. The SA rules which SC uses and their values are the same for all SC mail users. I think. > (note: I have all the DNS Blacklist options selected, > and SpamAssassin level set to 5) > > It would be nice to be able to configure filters > that would disallow delivery of such e-mail. > eg: if subject contains ?, do not receive. > > If there is a way to do this, please tell me how. > > Also, is there a way to deny acceptance of e-mail > according to country of origin? Yes, but I think there was a problem with that filter or list recently. Maybe it is fixed now. This discussion group is about general questions about spamcop; there is another ng about questions about the SC mail service, and some of the people who support mail questions prefer to support those questions in the webforum. I'll post this reply to both groups and make followups to spamcop.mail. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nobody at spamcop.net Wed Feb 1 10:13:25 2006 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Wed Feb 1 10:15:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Comcast, etc. References: <1iavuhd45fed7$.dlg@news.spamcop.net> <1tnjvo0t6db6m.dlg@news.spamcop.net> Message-ID: Steven Maesslein wrote: > I suppose that's to be expected from a cable company. They never will > learn that some customers need to be able to send mail while on the > road and that the way to do that is by SMTP AUTH. So, instead of > cutting off the abusive behaviour, they're punishing their own > customers who are trying to do the Right Thing(tm). > > Morons. You can't send email on the road using the Comcast Webmail site? I'll admit I've only ever used the online mail for checking/reading mail, don't really know for sure if you can send, but I can't imagine one not being able to.....but I assume your complaint is not being able to use a proper email client to send mail thru the Comcast servers, correct? From newspost at deletethispart.hypercreations.com Wed Feb 1 15:46:14 2006 From: newspost at deletethispart.hypercreations.com (D. T.) Date: Wed Feb 1 10:50:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] SC email server down again Message-ID: Can't POP the SC email server, nor can I reach the webmail system. It's not an issue with my connection, because I tried reaching the webmail page from other connections also. DT From news at REMOVECAPSalanharper.com Wed Feb 1 07:54:11 2006 From: news at REMOVECAPSalanharper.com (Alan Harper) Date: Wed Feb 1 10:55:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: SC email server down again References: Message-ID: <010220060754116640%news@REMOVECAPSalanharper.com> > Can't POP the SC email server, nor can I reach the webmail system. It's not > an issue with my connection, because I tried reaching the webmail page from > other connections also. > me too 7:53AM PST From dont_spam at thecow.me.uk Wed Feb 1 16:07:33 2006 From: dont_spam at thecow.me.uk (steve auvache) Date: Wed Feb 1 11:15:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: SC email server down again References: <010220060754116640%news@REMOVECAPSalanharper.com> Message-ID: Alan Harper wrote >> Can't POP the SC email server, nor can I reach the webmail system. It's not >> an issue with my connection, because I tried reaching the webmail page from >> other connections also. >> > >me too 7:53AM PST My name is Steve and I have a confession to make. It is all my fault. I know it is me and I know when I do it as well. It is when I get one of those spams that generate 20 or 30 places to complain to. I like those, they give me a sort of warm fuzzy feeling inside they do but every time I click on the justdoit button the whole system falls over for half an hour. From newspost at deletethispart.hypercreations.com Wed Feb 1 16:13:51 2006 From: newspost at deletethispart.hypercreations.com (D. T.) Date: Wed Feb 1 11:15:04 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: SC email server down again References: <010220060754116640%news@REMOVECAPSalanharper.com> Message-ID: steve auvache wrote in news:YkAETNDFzN4DFwHy@thecow.me.uk: > It is when I get one of those spams that generate 20 or 30 places to > complain to. I like those, they give me a sort of warm fuzzy feeling > inside they do but every time I click on the justdoit button the whole > system falls over for half an hour. Funny, but unlikely. What you're referring to would have nothing to do with the mail server, which is entirely separate from the reporting system. DT From newspost at deletethispart.hypercreations.com Wed Feb 1 16:15:26 2006 From: newspost at deletethispart.hypercreations.com (D. T.) Date: Wed Feb 1 11:20:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: SC email server down again References: Message-ID: It's back up. There was clearly something wrong with the mail server, as POP, IMAP, and webmail were all broken. Maybe someone will "confess" about it on the "SpamCop Email System News" page, here: http://mail.spamcop.net/news.php but probably not... DT From click1510 at earthlink.net Wed Feb 1 08:22:14 2006 From: click1510 at earthlink.net (CO-DBA-SC-EL) Date: Wed Feb 1 11:25:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: SC email server down again References: Message-ID: Not quite back up yet as of 8:22 PST. POP3 loginstill fails. C_O "D. T." wrote in message news:Xns975D5E2ADD13Anewsaddresshypercrea@216.154.195.61... > It's back up. There was clearly something wrong with the mail server, as > POP, IMAP, and webmail were all broken. Maybe someone will "confess" about > it on the "SpamCop Email System News" page, here: > > http://mail.spamcop.net/news.php > > but probably not... > > DT From click1510 at earthlink.net Wed Feb 1 08:24:33 2006 From: click1510 at earthlink.net (CO-DBA-SC-EL) Date: Wed Feb 1 11:25:05 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: SC email server down again References: Message-ID: AhAh! Now it works 8:23 PST! Thanks all. C_O "D. T." wrote in message news:Xns975D5E2ADD13Anewsaddresshypercrea@216.154.195.61... > It's back up. There was clearly something wrong with the mail server, as > POP, IMAP, and webmail were all broken. Maybe someone will "confess" about > it on the "SpamCop Email System News" page, here: > > http://mail.spamcop.net/news.php > > but probably not... > > DT From pxpearson at spamxcop.net Wed Feb 1 08:33:03 2006 From: pxpearson at spamxcop.net (Peter Pearson) Date: Wed Feb 1 11:35:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Blacklist by Subject? References: Message-ID: Mark Buckles wrote: > . . . is > there a way to refuse the acceptance of e-mail > according to the content of the subject line? I have a Python script that establishes an IMAP connection to Spamcop's mail server, downloads subject lines from mail in my Held folder, and issues instructions to move into my "Spam for Sure" folder all messages whose subject lines have certain properties. (I wanted to treat as spam all messages whose subject lines mixed digits among letters.) In practice, I don't use it much, because it provided only a small improvement over Spamcop's filtering. But I'd be happy to share it with anybody interested. You presumably know that Spamcop's filters allow you to sort messages according to things appearing in the subject lines, and to blacklist certain countries (SpamCop Tools / Select your email filtering blacklists). -- Remove the two x's to get a good email address. From usenet at okean.invalid Wed Feb 1 08:57:42 2006 From: usenet at okean.invalid (Michael Wise) Date: Wed Feb 1 12:00:07 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Comcast, etc. References: Message-ID: In article , Steven Maesslein wrote: > > I *am* in APNIC space. > > You have my condolences. > > > And thank you - I am not a spammer, nor to I cater for spammers! > > You are definitely in the minority! Are you suggesting NZ an AU are spammer hotbeds? I get far more spam on my and my clients' servers from your provider's (Proxad) IP space in any given month than I do from AU or NZ in an entire year. --Mike From nobody at spamcop.net Wed Feb 1 09:09:43 2006 From: nobody at spamcop.net (maulaf) Date: Wed Feb 1 12:10:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Clever spam ploy Message-ID: It is spam, however legit it looks. Sent to a single person (me, not Lea Reeder, to whom it is addressed in the body), with no apparent header obfuscations, with a very curt and official looking message to Lea about her "Account Summary", suggesting an error on the sender's part -- a clear tempation to the recipient to click. http://www.spamcop.net/mcgi?action=gettrack&reportid=1643341057 maulaf From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Feb 1 09:17:12 2006 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Wed Feb 1 12:20:04 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Clever spam ploy References: Message-ID: maulaf wrote: > It is spam, however legit it looks. > http://www.spamcop.net/mcgi?action=gettrack&reportid=1643341057 If you want to show us a spam, you should provide the tracking url, not a link to the reportid as above. If you are logged in as the reporting account and click that link you gave above, it will take you to the spam in question. At the top of that spam parse is a tracking url which has the environment and configuration of Here is your TRACKING URL - it may be saved for future reference: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z867666044z803573ec5fce6fffc843edbbeb8a31cez That is a tracking url and if you display the one for your link above, we can all see the item. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nobody at spamcop.net Wed Feb 1 09:45:41 2006 From: nobody at spamcop.net (maulaf) Date: Wed Feb 1 12:50:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Clever spam ploy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike Easter wrote: > If you want to show us a spam, you should provide the tracking url, not > a link to the reportid as above. Sorry, new at this. Better next time. From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Wed Feb 1 12:47:10 2006 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Pop) Date: Wed Feb 1 12:50:05 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] OT? Wuest + Some FYI on Claria, Gator & SiteAdvisor Message-ID: Hi, Post involves spam detection, but much more, so wasn't sure whether to post it here or over in Geeks. Feel free to set f-u's to my post if you think it's necessary. For those who may be interested in GAIN/Gator/Claria et al, whose infestation I recently suffered thru, I can leave a couple of references. One came from the MS Secuirity ng: http://www.benedelman.org/ I mention this one simply because of the amassed information he has and the apparent relibaility of his data - definitely good! But, from that site I got to: http://www.siteadvisor.com/preview/ Which is a gem in istelf! 1. Is anyone familiar with SiteAdvisor? What do you think of it? In its Site Map, you can look up any web site they've crawled (and add your own if the one you want isn't listed) and they will give you information on the amount of spam they've received, popups situation, annoyances and download pushes. I tested it with a few sites I'm aware of and for the most part it looks pretty accurate. The only listing I disagreed with (but a serious problem IMO) was Yahoo: They, and the anonyumous comments, called the site basically clean but that's where the GAIN crapola infestation came from. Might be a problem of age though; the comments weren't recent. I signed up just to correct that situation !! Anyway, they're offering OE and I think it was FFox plug-ins and I was wondering if anyone here had tried them out? I don't want to download something that does exactly what it purports to prevent, if I can help it! I think it looks OK; what say you folk? I've so far found that Yahoo is in bed with GAIN and MSN WAS but apparently is not NOW, considering doing the same thing. There apparenlty was some interest in Vista haveing defaults to "Ignore" GAIN, but still be capable of removing it, but that thankfully seems to have fallen by the wayside. I simply can NOT believe the headway GAIN Is making in its advertising success, even in the courts. It's pathetic and shows the true abilities of our gvt to do anything about crapola. IMO, anyway, and my experience has been pretty consistane where gvt is involved. Regards, Pop From nobody at spamcop.net Wed Feb 1 12:10:35 2006 From: nobody at spamcop.net (John Anderson) Date: Wed Feb 1 13:15:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Is Spamcop down? Message-ID: Is Spamcop down, or is part of the internet down? I cannot reach Spamcop. From nobody at spamcop.net Wed Feb 1 12:15:03 2006 From: nobody at spamcop.net (John Anderson) Date: Wed Feb 1 13:20:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Comcast, etc. References: Message-ID: NZ and AU should get on a different ip block, so that we can remove the rest of that area from the internet! China, especially, should be totally banned from the internet! From nobody at nowhere.invalid Wed Feb 1 19:33:06 2006 From: nobody at nowhere.invalid (Steven Maesslein) Date: Wed Feb 1 13:35:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Comcast, etc. References: Message-ID: On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 08:57:42 -0800, Michael Wise coughed into spamcop and left this in : > Are you suggesting NZ an AU are spammer hotbeds? AU and NZ are the only reasonably clean parts of APNIC. While there have been issues with AU ISPs, I have to admit that I've received virtually nothing spammy from NZ. AU and NZ should try to set up their own RIR and get the hell out of APNIC. Think AfriNIC - when that RIR was created and started taking control of the netblocks that were controlled by ARIN and RIPE before, it became that much easier to identify African IP space to block. > I get far more spam on my and my clients' servers from your provider's > (Proxad) IP space in any given month than I do from AU or NZ in an > entire year. Alas, I can't argue with that. Then again, have you ever seen me actually praising their abuse desk? I'm one of the first to say that they suck donkey balls. I set myself up as an "Interested 3rd party" for reports about the netblock I'm in, and I sometimes see the same IP address (static, so the same user) spewing crud for weeks on end. It sucks but there isn't much choice in this neck of the woods. -- Steve Don't some of these fortunes just drive you nuts?! Wouldn't you like to see some of them deleted from the system? You can! Just mail to "fortune" with the fortune you hate most, and we MIGHT make sure it gets expunged. From newspost at deletethispart.hypercreations.com Wed Feb 1 18:39:18 2006 From: newspost at deletethispart.hypercreations.com (D. T.) Date: Wed Feb 1 13:40:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Is Spamcop down? References: Message-ID: Michael Vilain wrote in news:vilain- 2C20E3.10214801022006@news.cesmail.net: > It's slow and the reporting gate isn't responding for me either. I > attempted to manually report three emails and they timed out. Not > notice on the site or on the email system or the Forum. Although there wasn't a specific announcement of the latest reporting server "hiccup" in the Forums, the "SpamCop Statistics" graphic displayed in the Forums here: http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php? act=module&automodule=custom&page=stats shows a definite gap. Those have been happing for quite some time. DT From usenet at okean.invalid Wed Feb 1 10:55:41 2006 From: usenet at okean.invalid (Michael Wise) Date: Wed Feb 1 14:00:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Comcast, etc. References: Message-ID: In article , "John Anderson" wrote: > NZ and AU should get on a different ip block, so that > we can remove the rest of that area from the internet! They are on different blocks...or are you saying they should move their countries away from the Pacific ocean so as not to be in APNIC...thereby saving lazy admins the work or avoiding blocking them. > China, especially, should be totally banned from the internet! Yes, and ample sources with which to do that surgically and precisely already exist. --Mike From usenet at okean.invalid Wed Feb 1 10:58:29 2006 From: usenet at okean.invalid (Michael Wise) Date: Wed Feb 1 14:00:06 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Comcast, etc. References: Message-ID: In article , Steven Maesslein wrote: > > Are you suggesting NZ an AU are spammer hotbeds? > > AU and NZ are the only reasonably clean parts of APNIC. While there have > been issues with AU ISPs, I have to admit that I've received virtually > nothing spammy from NZ. I don't see much in the way of spam from JP either...other than the occasional infected box I see with most ISPs. > > AU and NZ should try to set up their own RIR and get the hell out of > APNIC. Why? The last I looked, both countries are still located in the Pacific region. --Mike From nobody at spamcop.net Wed Feb 1 13:07:36 2006 From: nobody at spamcop.net (John Anderson) Date: Wed Feb 1 14:10:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Is Spamcop down? References: Message-ID: Finally got a response from an e-mail spam posting. Spamcop reporting is back up. From nobody at nowhere.invalid Wed Feb 1 21:34:59 2006 From: nobody at nowhere.invalid (Steven Maesslein) Date: Wed Feb 1 15:35:06 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Comcast, etc. References: Message-ID: On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 10:58:29 -0800, Michael Wise coughed into spamcop and left this in : > Why? The last I looked, both countries are still located in the Pacific > region. And? RIPE stands for "R?seaux IP Europ?ens" (European IP networks) and yet that RIR managed Africa's IP space for ages. Africa is not in Europe as far as I remember. RIPE still manages IP space in the Middle-East to this day, yet the Middle-East isn't in Europe. IP space in sub-saharan Africa used to be handled by ARIN (American Registry of Internet Numbers), yet Zimbabwe for example wasn't in America last time I looked. My point is that the world changes and that nothing prevents an RIR's effective reach including more than or not including parts of what its name would suggest. Therefore, there's nothing to stop APNIC dropping the "Pacific" part, and AU and NZ setting up their own RIR, OceaNIC for example. How's that for a good name? :) APNIC has been permanently tainted because of .in, .id, .cn, .hk, .tw, .my and .kr. -- Steve Why is it that when you transport something by car it's called shipment, but when you transport it by ship it's called cargo? From usenet at okean.invalid Wed Feb 1 13:19:19 2006 From: usenet at okean.invalid (Michael Wise) Date: Wed Feb 1 16:20:06 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Comcast, etc. References: Message-ID: In article , Steven Maesslein wrote: > > Why? The last I looked, both countries are still located in the Pacific > > region. > > And? > > RIPE stands for "Réseaux IP Européens" (European IP networks) and yet > that RIR managed Africa's IP space for ages. Do they now? No? Then why bring it up? > Africa is not in Europe as > far as I remember. RIPE still manages IP space in the Middle-East to > this day, yet the Middle-East isn't in Europe. > > IP space in sub-saharan Africa used to be handled by ARIN (American > Registry of Internet Numbers), yet Zimbabwe for example wasn't in > America last time I looked. Yes, and both CN and KR have ARIN-assigned net blocks as well. I'm not sure In understand your logic. Are you saying it makes sense to take people OUT of RIR's which fit them geographically because either historically or presently there are countries whose IPs are controlled by RIRs not in the same geogrphic area? > > My point is that the world changes and that nothing prevents an RIR's > effective reach including more than or not including parts of what its > name would suggest. Therefore, there's nothing to stop APNIC dropping > the "Pacific" part, and AU and NZ setting up their own RIR, OceaNIC for > example. How's that for a good name? :) True, but there's nothing to stop some mail admins from stop being lazy when the info they need to surgically block the "bad guys" in APNIC space exists. > APNIC has been permanently tainted because of .in, .id, .cn, .hk, .tw, > .my and .kr. Then block those countries. The info with which to do that is readily available and has been for years. --Mike From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Thu Feb 2 12:15:22 2006 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Patto) Date: Wed Feb 1 22:15:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Clever spam ploy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike Easter wrote: > maulaf wrote: >> It is spam, however legit it looks. > >> http://www.spamcop.net/mcgi?action=gettrack&reportid=1643341057 > > If you want to show us a spam, you should provide the tracking url, not > a link to the reportid as above. > > If you are logged in as the reporting account and click that link you > gave above, it will take you to the spam in question. At the top of > that spam parse is a tracking url which has the environment and > configuration of > > Here is your TRACKING URL - it may be saved for future reference: > http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z867666044z803573ec5fce6fffc843edbbeb8a31cez > > That is a tracking url and if you display the one for your link above, > we can all see the item. Thanks, Mike, for extracting the tracker. To the original poster: where do you see anything legitimate-looking in that spam? Just the deliberate spelling "mistakes" is a dead giveaway. From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Feb 1 20:59:44 2006 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Thu Feb 2 00:00:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Clever spam ploy References: Message-ID: Patto wrote: > Mike Easter wrote: >> maulaf wrote: >>> It is spam, however legit it looks. >> >>> http://www.spamcop.net/mcgi?action=gettrack&reportid=1643341057 >> If you want to show us a spam, you should provide the tracking url, >> not a link to the reportid as above. >> That is a tracking url and if you display the one for your link >> above, we can all see the item. > > Thanks, Mike, for extracting the tracker. I didn't successfully extract the tracker -- that can't be done by anyone but the one who owns the reportid; I used one of my own - not the same. > To the original poster: where do you see anything legitimate-looking > in that spam? Just the deliberate spelling "mistakes" is a dead > giveaway. Disregard anything you are seeing in 'my' spam -- I used my tracker as an example tracker -- it isn't the spam in question. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From redford_stone at INVERSE_OF_COLDmail.com Thu Feb 2 07:16:48 2006 From: redford_stone at INVERSE_OF_COLDmail.com (Redstone) Date: Thu Feb 2 02:20:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] abuse-noverbose@uu.net refuses spamcop reports (Ping Ellen) Message-ID: http://www.spamcop.net/sc? id=z867996338z4df3aab925454335efb71c1f184eeabfz abuse-noverbose@uu.net redirects to abuse@uu.net abuse-noverbose@uu.net refuses spamcop reports Spam report id 1644010398 sent to: spamcop@imaphost.com Spam report id 1644010415 sent to: spam@uce.gov Spam report id 1644010425 sent to: abuse@uu.net Got the above response after reporting a spam in my wife's email account. Is this correct? uu.net/mci.com does not want SC reports anymore or is this a case of MCI-sends-spamcop-report-to-spammer and the spammer responds by screwing with the abuse handling settings? (More interesting is that the other uu.net abuse address is unaffected.) From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Thu Feb 2 01:31:35 2006 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (WazoO) Date: Thu Feb 2 02:35:04 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: abuse-noverbose@uu.net refuses spamcop reports (Ping Ellen) References: Message-ID: "Redstone" wrote in message news:Xns975DECD66578Etinlc@216.154.195.61... > > http://www.spamcop.net/sc? > id=z867996338z4df3aab925454335efb71c1f184eeabfz > > abuse-noverbose@uu.net redirects to abuse@uu.net > abuse-noverbose@uu.net refuses spamcop reports > Spam report id 1644010398 sent to: spamcop@imaphost.com > Spam report id 1644010415 sent to: spam@uce.gov > Spam report id 1644010425 sent to: abuse@uu.net > > Got the above response after reporting a spam in my wife's email > account. Is this correct? uu.net/mci.com does not want SC reports > anymore or is this a case of MCI-sends-spamcop-report-to-spammer and the > spammer responds by screwing with the abuse handling settings? > > (More interesting is that the other uu.net abuse address is unaffected.) Actually, the "other" uu.net address is the key, meaning that you have in fact sent your notify. The 'no-verbose' is basically the 'same' address, just no big auto-ack returned. Allowing both reports to go out would simply be double-reporting to the same folks. From nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de Thu Feb 2 09:12:30 2006 From: nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de (Frank Ellermann) Date: Thu Feb 2 03:15:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: OT? Wuest + Some FYI on Claria, Gator & SiteAdvisor References: Message-ID: <43E1BEEE.72E0@xyzzy.claranet.de> Pop wrote: > I simply can NOT believe the headway GAIN Is making in its > advertising success, even in the courts. It's pathetic and > shows the true abilities of our gvt to do anything about > crapola. IMO, anyway, and my experience has been pretty > consistane where gvt is involved. As soon as industry sponsored "anti" alliances are founded you can be absolutely certain that they are controlled by the worst "pro" offenders. "Anti-spyware" is the latest gimmick, I don't even check who it is this time. An "anti-abuse" initiative had spamcast as proud member. Something wannabe "anti-spam" was doubleclick. As soon as you see doubleclick / spamcast / gator / verisign etc. all you can do is run, shields up, all phasers fire - hm, maybe don't fire with "shields up".., Bye, Frank From nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de Thu Feb 2 09:33:56 2006 From: nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de (Frank Ellermann) Date: Thu Feb 2 03:40:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Comcast, etc. References: Message-ID: <43E1C3F4.5355@xyzzy.claranet.de> Steven Maesslein wrote: > APNIC has been permanently tainted because of .in, .id, .cn, > .hk, .tw, .my and .kr. .in is rather harmless from my POV, for a huge country they're doing well wrt net abuse. Arguing with TLDs or even RIRs is dubious, RIPE "contains" .fr, and wannaspew is mostly .fr. It also "contains" .ru, there are a few bad guys in .ru (hi Leo). ARIN "contains" Florida, and that's really bad news, worse than all ccTLDs you've enumerated put together. Well, maybe .cn is an exception, OTOH .cn is a tiny bit larger than Florida. Most zombies "belong to" ARIN just because most Win PCs are .us and .ca, when that changes we'll see a more "natural" distribution. Bye, Frank From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Thu Feb 2 18:30:55 2006 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Patto) Date: Thu Feb 2 04:35:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Clever spam ploy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike Easter wrote: > Patto wrote: >> Mike Easter wrote: >>> maulaf wrote: >>>> It is spam, however legit it looks. >>>> http://www.spamcop.net/mcgi?action=gettrack&reportid=1643341057 > >>> If you want to show us a spam, you should provide the tracking url, >>> not a link to the reportid as above. > >>> That is a tracking url and if you display the one for your link >>> above, we can all see the item. >> Thanks, Mike, for extracting the tracker. > > I didn't successfully extract the tracker -- that can't be done by > anyone but the one who owns the reportid; I used one of my own - not > the same. > >> To the original poster: where do you see anything legitimate-looking >> in that spam? Just the deliberate spelling "mistakes" is a dead >> giveaway. > > Disregard anything you are seeing in 'my' spam -- I used my tracker as > an example tracker -- it isn't the spam in question. I see - should have read your post more carefully. From nobody at nowhere.invalid Thu Feb 2 11:37:17 2006 From: nobody at nowhere.invalid (Steven Maesslein) Date: Thu Feb 2 05:40:13 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Comcast, etc. References: <43E1C3F4.5355@xyzzy.claranet.de> Message-ID: On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 09:33:56 +0100, Frank Ellermann coughed into spamcop and left this in <43E1C3F4.5355@xyzzy.claranet.de>: > .in is rather harmless from my POV, for a huge country they're > doing well wrt net abuse. Different people have different sources of spam. I get a steady stream from Bharti, VSNL, Dishnet, Sancharnet and Sify. /me checks logs... Yep. A VSNL IP address tried to spam me 241 times in the space of 90 minutes on Tuesday, and.... one on Bharti broadspam 308 times over the course of the day. > Arguing with TLDs or even RIRs is dubious, RIPE "contains" .fr, and > wannaspew is mostly .fr. It also "contains" .ru, there are a few bad > guys in .ru (hi Leo). Each unto his own. I block APNIC and LACNIC outright. I also block parts of AfriNIC and .ru as and when I find them, .es, .it, .il, all of wanadoodoo and a few other networks, and it gives me satisfactory results. This isn't going to change unless a user of mine asks for it. -- Steve Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side and a dark side, and it holds the universe together. -- Carl Zwanzig From redford_stone at INVERSE_OF_COLDmail.com Thu Feb 2 10:44:57 2006 From: redford_stone at INVERSE_OF_COLDmail.com (Redstone) Date: Thu Feb 2 05:45:04 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: abuse-noverbose@uu.net refuses spamcop reports (Ping Ellen) References: Message-ID: "WazoO" wrote in news:drscgn$ctt$1 @news.spamcop.net: > > Actually, the "other" uu.net address is the key, meaning that you > have in fact sent your notify. The 'no-verbose' is basically the > 'same' address, just no big auto-ack returned. Allowing both > reports to go out would simply be double-reporting to the > same folks. > That other one was for reporting the link in the reported spam. The first (non-verbose) address was for the IP address from which the spam originated. (Both on MCI/UU obviously.) Good point about the problem with double-reporting. But what if there is a situation where it is only originating IP address rather than both? (i.e. only reporting address is the non-verbose address.) From redford_stone at INVERSE_OF_COLDmail.com Thu Feb 2 10:47:45 2006 From: redford_stone at INVERSE_OF_COLDmail.com (Redstone) Date: Thu Feb 2 05:50:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: blackholes.us status? References: Message-ID: "Petzl" wrote in news:driget$hmv$1@news.spamcop.net: > > Yes SpamCop's email has a number of spam filters that one choose to > use (I use them all) > If you choose to use SpamAssasin I would advise you also create an > effective whitelist as I find many of SpamAssassin blocks are false > positives I'm in Sydney Australia I believe this gives me an advantage > for accuracy in blocking spam as I whitelist a number of domains > That said ALL spam detected is easily and quickly reported via SpamCop > VER folder which means if not already blocked by SamCop it is about to > be (while it is being sent by spammer not after) > Good advice for those seriously considering using SC's email service. (Which I may just get for my wife.) From nobody at spamcop.net Thu Feb 2 02:50:06 2006 From: nobody at spamcop.net (N. Miller) Date: Thu Feb 2 05:55:04 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Comcast, etc. References: <1iavuhd45fed7$.dlg@news.spamcop.net> <1tnjvo0t6db6m.dlg@news.spamcop.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:29:08 +0100, Steven Maesslein wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:34:06 -0800, N. Miller coughed into spamcop and > left this in <1tnjvo0t6db6m.dlg@news.spamcop.net>: >> That was a year ago. Comcast management may be warming to the idea, now. >> They already, reportedly, block their own customers from connecting to >> their MX servers. Comcast customers can only connect to Comcast message >> submission servers from Comcast connections. > *sigh* > > I suppose that's to be expected from a cable company. They never will > learn that some customers need to be able to send mail while on the road > and that the way to do that is by SMTP AUTH. So, instead of cutting off > the abusive behaviour, they're punishing their own customers who are > trying to do the Right Thing(tm). > > Morons. Why would a Comcast customer need to connect to a Comcast MX server to send email off-Comcast network? That is what messge submission servers are for. Last I checked, Comcast customers _can_ connect to Comcast message submission servers for relay off nework; using port 465 with SSL, just in case they are trying to send from their relative's dynamic IP address space in SBC land, where SBC blocks outbound port 25 to off-SBC network servers. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum From nobody at spamcop.net Thu Feb 2 08:32:28 2006 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Ellen) Date: Thu Feb 2 08:35:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: abuse-noverbose@uu.net refuses spamcop reports (Ping Ellen) References: Message-ID: "Redstone" wrote in message news:Xns975DECD66578Etinlc@216.154.195.61... > > http://www.spamcop.net/sc? > id=z867996338z4df3aab925454335efb71c1f184eeabfz > > abuse-noverbose@uu.net redirects to abuse@uu.net > abuse-noverbose@uu.net refuses spamcop reports > Spam report id 1644010398 sent to: spamcop@imaphost.com > Spam report id 1644010415 sent to: spam@uce.gov > Spam report id 1644010425 sent to: abuse@uu.net the abuse-noverbose address is dead -- everything should be remapped to abuse@uu.net. The "I know..." is a an artifact, I will see about getting it removed. Ellen SpamCo From nospam at nospam.org Thu Feb 2 20:52:35 2006 From: nospam at nospam.org (Ejo) Date: Thu Feb 2 14:55:04 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Spam to old Email address. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John Karr wrote: > I have an old mailbox on my personal domain which I haven't used for > anything in about 5 years. I've been noticing a fair amount of my incoming > spam is being addressed to that account. I have my email client set to > delete anything for that account but I would like to go further and donate > the address to spamcop as a honeypot address, or if that isn't practical to > configure things so that anything sent to that address automatically gets > reported as spam. This is an address I used for joining a mailing list that > no longer exists and was never used in correspondence, making it highly > unlikely that any legitimate mail would ever be sent to this address. > > I prefer to keep these old addresses because they may appear in address books of customers that I don't want to scare off. Fairly recently I received an Invitation To Tender on a really old e-mail address. It survived all junk filters and the message was real. A similar discussion is that our university decided in its infinite wisdom to reformat addresses like john.dow@code.tudelft.nl into something like john.dow@tudelft.nl. Only the managers are in favor of this idea because they think you should show a corporate identity. I bitterly protested against this, at least I want to have the possibility to tell them what I think should go in the alias tables exactly for the reason I gave. Still I have to talk with folks that believe that you can send bounce notification messages to senders that have used your old address. That would certainly cause your new address to be known within no time to all spammers in the world. Ejo From Nobody at SpamCop.devnull.diespammerdie.net Thu Feb 2 14:00:17 2006 From: Nobody at SpamCop.devnull.diespammerdie.net (Michael Brennan) Date: Thu Feb 2 15:05:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: FDA Quits: Filtering Reports, Rejecting Spam References: <43DF5A26.88F1498F@SpamCop.devnull.diespammerdie.net> <43DF9C61.3B720F26@SpamCop.devnull.diespammerdie.net> <43E04C3D.3E47@xyzzy.claranet.de> Message-ID: <43E264D1.E23C1993@SpamCop.devnull.diespammerdie.net> Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Michael Brennan wrote: > > > Just in case it's the unwrapped -line issue instead of a new > > no-spam policy, I'll try them with a few more submissions. > > Please tell us what you find, I'd delete the "viagra" nick in > my address book (= FDA + SC) if they finally dropped the ball. > > Didn't use it for some months, but it used to work in 2005 (?) Frank, I sent several more submissions in since those posts, and haven't had FDA upchuck on me again. I think you might have been right about the line wrap. Tho' I'm not at all sure, and the FDA website pages had been recently updated, suggesting they might be changing their acceptance policy on complaints. Stay tuned, but so far I've not received any more rejections like the one cited and quoted above. Michael From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Thu Feb 2 14:50:39 2006 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (WazoO) Date: Thu Feb 2 15:55:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Is Spamcop down? References: Message-ID: "Michael Vilain" wrote in message news:vilain-2C20E3.10214801022006@news.cesmail.net... > > Why do we have to check multiple places for status instead of looking in > just one. The "difference of opinion" between the owner of the email > system (that uses a web forum) and the spam reporting system (that uses > this news group) should be resolved. Why should a customer have to > figure out this mess? There is no "difference of opinion" involved. The newsgroups, the Forum, SpamCop e-mail accounts are all hosted on JT's systems in Georgia. The Reporting system is hosted on IronPort owned and maintained hardware in California. This dates back to business decisions made by Julian eons ago, prior to the IronPort deal. There have been many conversations about data, status, access over the years, some of them even done in these newsgroups. End result is all the attempts I've made with the access and tools allowed me, all on JT's side of the house, to try to do up some kind of one-place for data spot, but .... back to the great divide ... as soon as some folks see the word "forum" in the URL, that's enough to raise the flag. Others have stated that some of these things are used (so I keep maintaining them) but as the IronPort side of the house doesn't own the current support venues, here you are. http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=home was whipped up to offer a quick spot for all kinds of 'new' folks to find answers. http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2238 was a hack to do a single-page access point to the FAQ that some couldn't find, others couldn't navigate to an answer, others not finding data or finding that data was obsolete. It started with just the 'Official' FAQ, but has had additional content added as time went on. http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=faq was an attempt to provide yet another interface to the same FAQ. http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=4473 Most recent version of a SpamCop.net Glossary I started way back when ... http://forum.spamcop.net/dict/ Yet another interface to the above data, installed when the size of the Glossary became an issue. As you read this, there is work on-going on yet other tools to be announced shortly for finding information about the SpamCop.net toolset and functions . just noting that all this work is being done by folks still volunteering their time and energy to do things that IronPort has apparently not seen fit to invest the time, money, personnel into doing. As the core of paid SpamCop.net staff is still less than a handful, that's where things set. From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Thu Feb 2 15:58:07 2006 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Pop) Date: Thu Feb 2 16:00:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Could someone glance at this tracker pls? Message-ID: Hello all, http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z868347901z08ca6dd73a6410ae3fabfb1f646ca7e9z I'm mildly confused (not unusual these days!) about the above tracker. It IS a spam, right? . Not feeling well today unfortunately. I do receive ads from Quill, and that's fine, but I don't think that one's got anything to do with Quill, meaning it's spam to me. Would someone take a quick look and see if you think I'm all wet? I didn't see anything in the source that looked spammy, but I'm terrrible at reading code. I did open the mail, but in plain text, expecting something from Quill but I am pretty sure there's no payload, but ... I didn't see anything wrong except that it doesn't look like Quill.com servers. TIA & Regards, Pop From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Thu Feb 2 15:05:17 2006 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (WazoO) Date: Thu Feb 2 16:10:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Is Spamcop down? References: Message-ID: "D. T." wrote in message news:Xns975D768F2A0E9newsaddresshypercrea@216.154.195.61... > > Although there wasn't a specific announcement of the latest reporting > server "hiccup" in the Forums, the "SpamCop Statistics" graphic displayed > in the Forums here: > > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php? > act=module&automodule=custom&page=stats > > shows a definite gap. Those have been happing for quite some time. Jeff G. was doing a blow-blow for quite a while in documenting those dips and outages, but that got old. That there has been no feedback/input on what is actually going on there, the guesses at the background are still that. I can recall when a momentary drop would generate many newsgroup postings, not sure why that isn't so these days ... suspecting that taking credit for putting the graphic on the Forum front page isn't the reason for the change in newsgroup posting events (and of course can't ignore that the Forum server has had some issues of late also .... and that the e-mail system has been hammered on a bit in the last few days ... ) From MikeE at ster.invalid Thu Feb 2 13:24:32 2006 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Thu Feb 2 16:25:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Could someone glance at this tracker pls? References: Message-ID: Pop wrote: > http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z868347901z08ca6dd73a6410ae3fabfb1f646ca7e9z > > I'm mildly confused (not unusual these days!) about the above > tracker. It IS a spam, right? . It is a straightup [From = source = spamvertiser] item promoting quill. If it is solicited, it isn't spam; if it is unsolicited, it is quill spam. Only /you/ know what you have solicited from quill. > I do receive ads from Quill, and that's fine, but I don't > think that one's got anything to do with Quill, meaning it's spam > to me. I don't understand that -- but if you don't want promotionals from quill, you can call their 800 and tell them to drop you. "If you prefer not to receive future e-mail from Quill.com, safely use this link or call 1.800.982.3400 (prompt 3)." Or, you can not call and not click on the link and continue to report their mail as spam. > I didn't see anything wrong except that it > doesn't look like Quill.com servers. From: "Quill.com" source 66.35.244.68 rDNS om-quill.rgc3.net spamvertiser links www.quill.com provider Staples,Inc " quill.rsc01.net provider Savvis I don't think you are going to be able to take the attitude that quill can spam you with some unsolicited and not other because you want some of their unsolicited promotionals but not other -- or that you can solicit promotional from quill, but report some of it as spam. So, asking someone else if something is spam or not and/or should be reported or not doesn't really work very well. 'We' can analyze it for header bogosity, but we can't analyze it for solicitedness. I would say that Quill is having some 3rd party marketing outfit do something for them. Whether the 3rd party is a spammer for quill or not is not easy to say from here. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nandore at hotmail.com Thu Feb 2 17:05:16 2006 From: nandore at hotmail.com (Nan Doré) Date: Thu Feb 2 16:35:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] How to activate spamcop account? Message-ID: I am unable to login to webmail.spamcop.net with my ID and PW. Is it a premium service ? Nan From Nobody at SpamCop.devnull.diespammerdie.net Thu Feb 2 15:49:16 2006 From: Nobody at SpamCop.devnull.diespammerdie.net (Michael Brennan) Date: Thu Feb 2 16:50:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: OT? Wuest + Some FYI on Claria, Gator & SiteAdvisor References: Message-ID: <43E27E5C.33B88393@SpamCop.devnull.diespammerdie.net> Pop wrote: > > http://www.siteadvisor.com/preview/ > Which is a gem in istelf! > 1. Is anyone familiar with SiteAdvisor? What do you think of > it? > Anyway, they're offering OE and I think it was FFox plug-ins and > I was wondering if anyone here had tried them out? > I don't want to download something that does exactly what it > purports to prevent, if I can help it! > I think it looks OK; what say you folk? > Looking at these links myself......thanks for posting them, Michael From nobody at nowhere.invalid Thu Feb 2 23:22:19 2006 From: nobody at nowhere.invalid (Steven Maesslein) Date: Thu Feb 2 17:25:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: How to activate spamcop account? References: Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 17:05:16 -0500, Nan Dor? coughed into spamcop and left this in : > I am unable to login to webmail.spamcop.net with my ID and PW. > Is it a premium service ? If you have a spamcop filtered e-mail account then that's suficient to get into the webmail service. The filtered e-mail account is a pay service ($30/yr). The webmail part is thrown in with the deal - it doesn't cost extra. -- Steve A grammarian's life is always intense. From jeffg at spamcop.net Thu Feb 2 17:10:02 2006 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Thu Feb 2 17:25:06 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: How to activate spamcop account? References: Message-ID: Nan Dor? wrote: > Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 17:05:16 -0500 [22:05:16 UTC -0000] > X-Trace: news.spamcop.net 1138915871 12839 134.117.137.230 (2 Feb 2006 21:31:11 GMT) > NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 21:31:11 +0000 (UTC) Please fix your clock, it appears to be running fast by about 34 minutes and 5 seconds. > I am unable to login to webmail.spamcop.net with my ID and PW. > > Is it a premium service ? Yes, it is a premium service, in that you have to pay for it, and I am able to login to it just fine. Please see http://mail.spamcop.net for details. -- Thanks and Best Regards, Jeff G. http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=findpost&pid=37585 From jeffg at spamcop.net Thu Feb 2 17:27:47 2006 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Thu Feb 2 17:35:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Could someone glance at this tracker pls? References: Message-ID: Pop wrote: > I do receive ads from Quill, and that's fine, but I don't > think that one's got anything to do with Quill, meaning it's spam > to me. It looks like that message was being distributed by Responsys on behalf of Quill. Exactly what did you agree to receive and ask not to receive from Quill? -- Thanks and Best Regards, Jeff G. http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=findpost&pid=37585 From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Thu Feb 2 20:43:58 2006 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Pop) Date: Thu Feb 2 20:45:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Could someone glance at this tracker pls? References: Message-ID: "Pop" wrote in message news:drtros$au5$1@news.spamcop.net... : Hello all, : : http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z868347901z08ca6dd73a6410ae3fabfb1f646ca7e9z : : I'm mildly confused (not unusual these days!) about the above : tracker. It IS a spam, right? . Not feeling well today : unfortunately. : I do receive ads from Quill, and that's fine, but I don't : think that one's got anything to do with Quill, meaning it's spam : to me. : : Would someone take a quick look and see if you think I'm all wet? : I didn't see anything in the source that looked spammy, but : I'm terrrible at reading code. I did open the mail, but in plain : text, expecting something from Quill but I am pretty sure there's : no payload, but ... I didn't see anything wrong except that it : doesn't look like Quill.com servers. : : TIA & Regards, : : Pop : : Thanks Mike & Jeff; and my apologies for being so vague. I still don't know what I should have asked for sure, but at least I take it from the responses that there wasn't any forgery and things look on the up and up as far as following the "rules', such as they may be. Yes, I do let them send me ads, and I do order from Quill fairly frequently. Quill and vikingop both seem to have the best price/quality ratio of anywhere I've used so they're preferred mailers. Also I might have just this minute realized what happened: I sent in a change of e-mail address - I'll bet that's what triggered these particular ads. Either that or they've farmed their ads out, which I don't care for. I'll visit the site and see what I can adjust - if that's no good, I'll just unsub from everything; it's not that important. I'm suspecting a combo of the two things happened - checking my logs, that sort of spam started about a week after I changed my e-mail address on my account there. Maybe I'm too picky, but I don't like it when anyone farms out their advertising and it comes from different servers all of a sudden, especially if they don't notify me of it. Thanks again, Pop From rwcs at spamcop.net Fri Feb 3 13:01:24 2006 From: rwcs at spamcop.net (BMW) Date: Fri Feb 3 13:05:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] How does one get their privileges back? Message-ID: What a fool, I turned on SpamAssassin at my email host. Used results to route SPAM to SC. Confused the snot out of SC. So SC admin removes my reporting privileges (without warning). I have: ** Apologized to SC admin. ** Apologized to my Hosting Company. ** Turned off SpamAssassin at my host. ** Notified SC admin of the changes. ** Refreshed my Mail Hosts List So what else do I have to do to get back the service I'm paying for? Who's butt did I forget to kiss? How was I supposed to know SC barfs if there are existing SpamAssassin Headers in the mail? Beat me, Beat me! Bob From MikeE at ster.invalid Fri Feb 3 10:15:57 2006 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Fri Feb 3 13:20:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: How does one get their privileges back? References: Message-ID: BMW wrote: > What a fool, I turned on SpamAssassin at my email host. Used results > to route SPAM to SC. Confused the snot out of SC. I presume that confusion might have resulted in your reporting your mailhost as source. > So SC admin > removes my reporting privileges (without warning). Naturally you can understand that. When you signed up you agreed to be responsible here http://www.spamcop.net/anonsignup.shtml If I break these rules, SpamCop will immediately and permanently revoke my access to SpamCop. That page is the same for both free and paid reporters - I assumed because the only 'severe' punishment [something besides warning] that can occur to free reporters is revocation of reporting privileges. Somewhere else in the faq it sez that paid reporters might be fined, but I don't see that right now. That is, there are more disciplines available for paid reporters if you include the fining. Generally disciplining isn't discussed here in the ng/s, so there isn't any way for any of us who are outside the inner processes to know about what kinds of things get disciplined how, except to understand what can happen. Naturally the 'threat' of a discipline to prevent problems is better than there being problems and discipline. Ideally no one would make mistakes and no one would be disciplined. > I have: > ** Apologized to SC admin. > ** Apologized to my Hosting Company. > ** Turned off SpamAssassin at my host. > ** Notified SC admin of the changes. > ** Refreshed my Mail Hosts List That sounds pretty good so far. > So what else do I have to do to get back the service I'm paying for? I would imagine the question is, "How do we know this person can properly oversee their reporting?" If the SC admin can't 'imagine' the answer to that question, then there's a problem. If you are overseeing your reports and you also know how to tell if your own provider is being reported, that's one thing. If you are quick reporting, then there isn't any oversight and that's another. > Who's butt did I forget to kiss? How was I supposed to know SC barfs > if there are existing SpamAssassin Headers in the mail? Beat me, > Beat me! The nature of your error vis whatever you didn't oversee in the reporting process isn't completely and transparently apparent to me from your description, but a reporter can't blame a parsing algorithm for the mistakes for which the reporter 'should' be overseeing. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nobody at spamcop.net Fri Feb 3 10:49:47 2006 From: nobody at spamcop.net (N. Miller) Date: Fri Feb 3 13:50:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: How does one get their privileges back? References: Message-ID: <1nopcvs59a2z7.dlg@news.spamcop.net> On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:01:24 -0500, BMW wrote: > How was I supposed to know SC barfs if > there are existing SpamAssassin Headers in the mail? I have no trouble with SpamCop parsing email that has SpamAssassin headers in it: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z868252250zc66333089ef7ba7c120c08c736f5f751z However, I did have trouble with the SpamCop parser wanting to report my mail provider when I first started reporting spam to that account. That was before SC implemented "Mailhosts"; and I had to bird dog the parser, unchecking the incorrect reports before sending the complaints on to the destinations. Since SC has implemented "Mailhosts", the parser no longer wants to report my mail provider. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum From dirigo at spamcop.net Fri Feb 3 18:25:27 2006 From: dirigo at spamcop.net (Phil) Date: Fri Feb 3 18:25:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Can't POP email... Anybody else have this problem? Message-ID: I can't POP my SpamCop email account for some time. I get this error: SpamCop, Logging into POP Server, CAPA [06:13:23 PM] SSL Negotiation Failed: Certificate Error: Cert Chain not trusted. Try adding this certificate to your certificate database for SSL to succeed Certificate Error: Unknown and unprovided root certificate. Certificate bad: Destination Host name does not match host name in certificate Cause (-6995) Anybody got a clue where to look to fix this error? Thanks, Phil Davis From nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de Sat Feb 4 01:21:13 2006 From: nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de (Frank Ellermann) Date: Fri Feb 3 19:25:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: FDA Quits: Filtering Reports, Rejecting Spam References: <43DF5A26.88F1498F@SpamCop.devnull.diespammerdie.net> <43DF9C61.3B720F26@SpamCop.devnull.diespammerdie.net> <43E04C3D.3E47@xyzzy.claranet.de> <43E264D1.E23C1993@SpamCop.devnull.diespammerdie.net> Message-ID: <43E3F379.6C55@xyzzy.claranet.de> Michael Brennan wrote: > Stay tuned, but so far I've not received any more rejections > like the one cited and quoted above. Will do, thanks for info, Frank From nobody at spamcop.net Fri Feb 3 19:37:37 2006 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Ellen) Date: Fri Feb 3 19:50:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: How does one get their privileges back? References: Message-ID: "BMW" wrote in message news:ds05pj$23i$1@news.spamcop.net... > What a fool, I turned on SpamAssassin at my email host. Used results to > route SPAM to SC. Confused the snot out of SC. So SC admin removes my > reporting privileges (without warning). I have: > ** Apologized to SC admin. > ** Apologized to my Hosting Company. > ** Turned off SpamAssassin at my host. > ** Notified SC admin of the changes. > ** Refreshed my Mail Hosts List > So what else do I have to do to get back the service I'm paying for? > Who's butt did I forget to kiss? How was I supposed to know SC barfs if > there are existing SpamAssassin Headers in the mail? Beat me, Beat me! > The problem occured because you had Spamassassin set to attach the original message rather than leave the original received headers inline. The parser has no problem with spamassassin headers adding X-headers as long as the original received headers are there. You can set your spamassassin prefs to add X-headers and turn it back on -- I believe the paramater is report-safe 0 but you should check out the docs and make sure of that. Of course, you should -- as every reporter should -- always look at the results of the parse to ensure that the reporting addresses are correct. Your account was suspended because you were reporting your own ISP. We always suspend in cases like that to limit the damage from that point forward until we can get in touch with the user and get the problem resolved. I notice your account was re-activated. It probably hasn't occured to you but we *do* have to sleep and have real lives every so often and we also receive large amounts of mail so while we try mightily to respond instantaneously it just doesn't always happen. I notice you resumed reporting spam at about 2PM EST, not long after you posted. Ellen SpamCop From jeffg at spamcop.net Fri Feb 3 22:44:56 2006 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Fri Feb 3 23:00:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Can't POP email... Anybody else have this problem? References: Message-ID: Phil wrote: > I can't POP my SpamCop email account for some time. I get this error: > > SpamCop, Logging into POP Server, CAPA [06:13:23 PM] > > SSL Negotiation Failed: Certificate Error: Cert Chain not trusted. Try > adding this certificate to your certificate database for SSL to > succeed Certificate Error: Unknown and unprovided root certificate. > > Certificate bad: Destination Host name does not match host name in > certificate Cause (-6995) > > Anybody got a clue where to look to fix this error? It's working for me in OE, using SSL on Port 995 with servername pop.spamcop.net - please try using that as your "Destination Host name". -- Thanks and Best Regards, Jeff G. http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=findpost&pid=37585 From tc at tc.com Sat Feb 4 10:01:08 2006 From: tc at tc.com (TC) Date: Sat Feb 4 05:05:34 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Spamcop's totally stopped working - Firefox problem? Message-ID: Hey everyone, Spamcop has completely stopped working for me. All I get is a page headed "error", and this message: "An error occurred while processing your request. Reference #97.83514350.1139046504.441e5a0 " The number changes each time. I get this no matter what I do - if I type www.spamcop.net into my Firefox address bar, I get the error message. If I follow a reporting link from my mail client, I get the error message. Now, I'm not a tech expert, but I've done some basic stuff: I tried doing everything using IE instead of FF, and everything works fine. No error messages or anything. So, clearly, something's up with Firefox and Spamcop. Can anyone shed any light on it? The error message, I assume, is being generated by Spamcop's web server and not Firefox (unless this is a weird, never-before-seen type of error message - certainly, within Firefox I usually get more help than that in my error messages). Just to make sure, I cleared my history, removed and reinstated my cache, removed the Spamcop cookies, rebooted etc. I've saved this til last: The *only* thing that's changed is that Firefox released a "stability and security" upgrade, which I auto-updated to. I'd appreciate some help - I don't like IE, and in all honesty I'd rather stop using SC than have to use 2 browsers. I'll provide any other info you folks need. Clearly, the problem is either a personal one to do with the way FF interacts with SC on *my* computer, or there's a wider problem. Thanks for your time... From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Sat Feb 4 04:24:19 2006 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (WazoO) Date: Sat Feb 4 05:30:10 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Spamcop's totally stopped working - Firefox problem? References: Message-ID: "TC" wrote in message news:ds1u1a$qe$1@news.spamcop.net... > > Spamcop has completely stopped working for me. All I get is a page headed > "error", and this message: > > "An error occurred while processing your request. > Reference #97.83514350.1139046504.441e5a0 " > > The number changes each time. I get this no matter what I do - if I type > www.spamcop.net into my Firefox address bar, I get the error message. If I > follow a reporting link from my mail client, I get the error message. > > Now, I'm not a tech expert, but I've done some basic stuff: I tried doing > everything using IE instead of FF, and everything works fine. No error > messages or anything. http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=module&automodule=custom&page=stats shows no sign of a major (or minor) dropout that would suggest that all users would be having/seeing the same issue. So the next guess would be that the Akamai server serving your locale is having issues. You've not provided enough data to try to trace that possibility down from this side of the screen. Nothing to do with IE or FF ..... From nobody at nowhere.invalid Sat Feb 4 11:29:10 2006 From: nobody at nowhere.invalid (Steven Maesslein) Date: Sat Feb 4 05:30:15 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Spamcop's totally stopped working - Firefox problem? References: Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:01:08 -0000, TC coughed into spamcop and left this in : > I'll provide any other info you folks need. Clearly, the problem is either a > personal one to do with the way FF interacts with SC on *my* computer, or > there's a wider problem. I don't think there's a wider problem. SC works fine with Firefox here. I wouldn't even be able to use IE on this machine even if I was mad enough to want to. -- Steve Shin, n. : a device for finding furniture in the dark. From / at /.cn Sat Feb 4 22:09:53 2006 From: / at /.cn (Petzl) Date: Sat Feb 4 06:10:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Spamcop's totally stopped working - Firefox problem? References: Message-ID: "WazoO" wrote in message news:ds1vei$1r3$1@news.spamcop.net... > "TC" wrote in message news:ds1u1a$qe$1@news.spamcop.net... >> >> Spamcop has completely stopped working for me. All I get is a page headed >> "error", and this message: >> >> "An error occurred while processing your request. >> Reference #97.83514350.1139046504.441e5a0 " >> >> The number changes each time. I get this no matter what I do - if I type >> www.spamcop.net into my Firefox address bar, I get the error message. If >> I >> follow a reporting link from my mail client, I get the error message. >> >> Now, I'm not a tech expert, but I've done some basic stuff: I tried doing >> everything using IE instead of FF, and everything works fine. No error >> messages or anything. > > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=module&automodule=custom&page=stats > shows no sign of a major (or minor) dropout that would suggest that all > users would be having/seeing the same issue. So the next guess would > be that the Akamai server serving your locale is having issues. You've > not provided enough data to try to trace that possibility down from > this side of the screen. > > Nothing to do with IE or FF ..... > I'm a SpamCop Email abuser and I'm getting ******* Gateway Timeout The proxy server did not receive a timely response from the upstream server. Reference #1.ec2686cb.1139051231.39d8d1 ******** From tc at tc.com Sat Feb 4 12:30:30 2006 From: tc at tc.com (TC) Date: Sat Feb 4 07:35:04 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Spamcop's totally stopped working - Firefox problem? References: Message-ID: Hi. Yeah, it does make me think that it's entirely on my machine - but the thing is, Spamcop is the only site I'm having any issues with at all. And to get such an odd error message... WazoO - you said I didn't provide enough info. To be honest, I'm not sure *what* info I should provide - if this is a problem with my PC, I guess I should take it away from a Spamcop newsgroup. What sort of stuff would I need to post in order to ascertain that this is, or isn't, a problem with me and Spamcop, as opposed to just me? :) Again, thanks for any help. It pains me to have to just delete spam rather than report it... "Steven Maesslein" wrote in message news:slrndu90fm.4hp.nobody@127.0.0.1... > On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:01:08 -0000, TC coughed into spamcop and left this > in : > >> I'll provide any other info you folks need. Clearly, the problem is >> either a >> personal one to do with the way FF interacts with SC on *my* computer, or >> there's a wider problem. > > I don't think there's a wider problem. SC works fine with Firefox here. > I wouldn't even be able to use IE on this machine even if I was mad > enough to want to. > > -- > Steve > > Shin, n. : a device for finding furniture in the dark. From nospam at domain.invalid Sat Feb 4 13:37:46 2006 From: nospam at domain.invalid (Paul White) Date: Sat Feb 4 08:40:08 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Spamcop's totally stopped working - Firefox problem? References: Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:01:08 -0000, "TC" wrote: >Spamcop has completely stopped working for me. All I get is a page headed >"error", and this message: > >"An error occurred while processing your request. >Reference #97.83514350.1139046504.441e5a0 " I also saw this problem here a few days ago but experienced this with both IE and Firefox. The only site affected was www.spamcop.net. I can connect to the Internet using more than one ISP and naturally did so. With the other ISP there was no problem at all. I was totally baffled for several hours and raised the problem with my ISP, who still have not replied. The problem cleared the following day and all is well now. One thing I did try was doing a 'tracert' to www.spamcop.net from each ISP. This produced totally different routings which didn't surprise me but to two totally different IP addresses which did surprise me. What IP address is your PC trying to connect to? I have 213.253.9.72 for www.spamcop.net here. I got the error when my PC was trying to connect something completely different. Any help? -- Paul White From tc at tc.com Sat Feb 4 15:40:07 2006 From: tc at tc.com (TC) Date: Sat Feb 4 10:45:14 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Spamcop's totally stopped working - Firefox problem? References: Message-ID: "Paul White" wrote in message news:c0b9u1992s6275khfv2nfv03gl0as4mk26@4ax.com... > On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:01:08 -0000, "TC" wrote: > >>Spamcop has completely stopped working for me. All I get is a page headed >>"error", and this message: >> >>"An error occurred while processing your request. >>Reference #97.83514350.1139046504.441e5a0 " > > I also saw this problem here a few days ago but experienced this with > both IE and Firefox. The only site affected was www.spamcop.net. I can > connect to the Internet using more than one ISP and naturally did so. > With the other ISP there was no problem at all. I was totally baffled > for several hours and raised the problem with my ISP, who still have > not replied. The problem cleared the following day and all is well > now. > > One thing I did try was doing a 'tracert' to www.spamcop.net from each > ISP. This produced totally different routings which didn't surprise me > but to two totally different IP addresses which did surprise me. What > IP address is your PC trying to connect to? I have 213.253.9.72 for > www.spamcop.net here. I got the error when my PC was trying to connect > something completely different. > > Any help? > -- > Paul White Hi Paul, Yeah, that's quite a lot of help (cos it means I'm not alone!) - and also, it ties in with WazoO's suggestion about particular servers. Only trouble is, it seems that if it *is* outside of "me" and my machine, there's not much I can do about it. The IP address that I get from a traceroute of www.spamcop.net is 84.53.143.144 - for spamcop.net I get 80.67.86.39, and I can see it routed through akamai; the 84.53.... address routes out of my ISP, onto 195.66.224.202 and that's it. Does that mean anything to anyone? Actually, I have to say that while typing this message, I tried several times to go to spamcop.net and failed.... but just now, I succeeded, and now everything seems to be working fine. I won't consider the issue "closed" just yet, but at least I can get some reporting done :) From jeffg at spamcop.net Sat Feb 4 12:37:11 2006 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Sat Feb 4 12:40:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Spamcop's totally stopped working - Firefox problem? References: Message-ID: SpamCop uses Akamai's EdgePlatform reverse proxy servers (regional web caches) to provide better responsiveness and protection for the users of www.spamcop.net, members.spamcop.net, and mailsc.spamcop.net, which are said to be "akamaized" sites. Those reverse proxy servers are systems (currently numbering over 15,000) which are housed at lots of ISPs' facilities (currently numbering over 1,100) around the world (generally in pairs, currently in 69 countries), and the hosting ISPs' nameservers direct queries to akamaized sites to those reverse proxy servers in their locations. Things get interesting when one of those reverse proxy servers has an issue with contacting a backend server, and the other of the pair doesn't, as most user systems don't have a very easy way to specify which server to query (I don't consider manipulating the HOSTS file very easy). Restarting the browser, dns resolver, OS, and computer are some of the ways to convince the user's computer to try the other reverse proxy server. You can check if a particular reverse proxy server is alive for web browsiby browsing to its IP Address. For more info about Akamai technology, please see http://www.akamai.com/en/html/technology/overview.html . The info above is from my new FAQ Entry "How does SpamCop interact with Akamai?" at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5901 . -- Thanks and Best Regards, Jeff G. http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=findpost&pid=37585 From eddie at eddie.web Sat Feb 4 14:02:30 2006 From: eddie at eddie.web (eddie) Date: Sat Feb 4 14:05:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] The New Illiterates Message-ID: Some spam is simply poorly translated into English, and some is purposely misspelled to try to outsmart filters, but this recent deluge of Valentine drugs goes beyond that to complete illiteracy. I picture a 12-year old slacker who learned his English phonetically or picked it up from bathroom walls :) Here is a short sample of a recent spew. I trust I am not violating any SC rules by doing this. "Do You have enough pwoer to provide your patrner high quality S-EX on St.Valentine day? Get a MOONSTER pwoer, nothing can bring your ererction down! Show your partner the PWOER of your LOEV and she will always remember You. Loev will ALWAYS be associated with YOU! " My question is who would even think of answering this? Another 12-year old spamkiddy? Maybe it's time for God to drown us all again. We seem to be going the wrong way :) From dirigo at spamcop.net Sat Feb 4 14:46:12 2006 From: dirigo at spamcop.net (Phil) Date: Sat Feb 4 14:45:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Can't POP email... Anybody else have this problem? References: Message-ID: "Jeff G." wrote in message news:ds18rt$mkv$1@news.spamcop.net... > Phil wrote: > > I can't POP my SpamCop email account for some time. I get this error: > > > > SpamCop, Logging into POP Server, CAPA [06:13:23 PM] > > > > SSL Negotiation Failed: Certificate Error: Cert Chain not trusted. Try > > adding this certificate to your certificate database for SSL to > > succeed Certificate Error: Unknown and unprovided root certificate. > > > > Certificate bad: Destination Host name does not match host name in > > certificate Cause (-6995) > > > > Anybody got a clue where to look to fix this error? > > It's working for me in OE, using SSL on Port 995 with servername > pop.spamcop.net - please try using that as your "Destination Host name". > > -- > Thanks and Best Regards, Jeff G. > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=findpost&pid=37585 > Jeff, I looked the settings over and found that I was using mail.spamcop.net so I changed it to pop.spamcop.net and set the root certificate to trusted and all is working now, thanks for the suggestion. I still get an error on the root certificate: "Certificate Error: Unknown and unprovided root certificate. But ignoring this error because Certificate is trusted". So I suspect there is still something amiss but for now its working. Thanks for suggestion. Phil From spam_hjp at yahoo.com Sat Feb 4 15:32:50 2006 From: spam_hjp at yahoo.com (Jim) Date: Sat Feb 4 15:35:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Can't POP email... Anybody else have this problem? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes I am having problems to. I amusing TB. My setting was pop.spamcop.net and then I tried pop. My AVG Pro Scanner just hangs. From wb8tyw at qsl.network Sat Feb 4 18:16:14 2006 From: wb8tyw at qsl.network (John E. Malmberg) Date: Sat Feb 4 18:20:12 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: The New Illiterates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: eddie wrote: > > My question is who would even think of answering this? Another 12-year > old spamkiddy? Maybe it's time for God to drown us all again. We seem to > be going the wrong way :) The sender probably answered a classified advertisement on how to get rich on the internet by buying this no-risk affiliate kit and probably has no idea what the thing is actually doing on their computer. They may not even have owned a computer until they answered that advertisement. They probably spent their last $350 to $2000 on the spamware, and are sitting back waiting forever for the commissions promised by the spamware seller to come in. They may also have purchased some product to distribute in advance of getting orders from real customers, and some may even use it. Of course the likely hood of any of that being something other than dust from the floor or outside packed in a pill form is very low. And in the mean time they are only earning paltry commissions if they can sucker another person to be an affiliate, and the only way to do that is to spend hard cash on newspaper advertisements or mailing. It will probably take them about a year to realize that they have lost their money with no hope of making it back, and are running the risk of being arrested for their part in the scam, so that they do not want to tell the police. Think pyramid scam, or envelope stuffing scam. No one actually buys the stuff being advertised through spam. And the scam-artist at the top, the only one making any money blames the anti-spammers for causing the advertisements to be blocked and for running up the hit counters on the web sites, so the referral counts can not be trusted. So of the spammers that it is easy to find proof on, none of them have any money for the ISP to recover the cost of finding them, and most of the spammers only have the slightest idea of how to really contact the next step in the pyramid. And every time the main-stream media runs a story about how much money the "Spam Kings" are claiming to have made from spamming, a new bunch of suckers answers the advertisements in the newspapers and the "free offers" catalogs. -John wb8tyw@qsl.network Personal Opinion Only From info at adult-music-greece.com Sun Feb 5 01:38:16 2006 From: info at adult-music-greece.com (kiriakos kappa) Date: Sat Feb 4 18:40:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] I'm no damn spamer! Message-ID: hey! I'm trying to send an e-mail to a friend (djsets.gr) and this damn program tells me that I'm $%^*$ spamer!!! what is this? can't I communicate with people anymore because my web domain has the term 'adult' in it?? I want to be removed from this thing NOW! after all we have work to do From johnl at in.newsgroup.only Sat Feb 4 23:47:02 2006 From: johnl at in.newsgroup.only (JohnL) Date: Sat Feb 4 18:50:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: I'm no damn spamer! References: Message-ID: "kiriakos kappa" wrote in news:ds3dtb$rrn$1@news.spamcop.net: > hey! I'm trying to send an e-mail to a friend (djsets.gr) and this > damn program tells me that I'm $%^*$ spamer!!! what is this? can't I > communicate with people anymore because my web domain has the term > 'adult' in it?? > > I want to be removed from this thing NOW! after all we have work to do > > Uh, you better check more carefully. you're not listed at SC. see... http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblock&ip=70.86.143.146 From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Sat Feb 4 19:20:17 2006 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Pop) Date: Sat Feb 4 19:25:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: The New Illiterates References: Message-ID: "eddie" wrote in message news:ds2to8$ius$1@news.spamcop.net... : Some spam is simply poorly translated into English, and some is : purposely misspelled to try to outsmart filters, but this recent deluge : of Valentine drugs goes beyond that to complete illiteracy. I picture a : 12-year old slacker who learned his English phonetically or picked it up : from bathroom walls :) : : Here is a short sample of a recent spew. I trust I am not violating any : SC rules by doing this. : : "Do You have enough pwoer to provide your patrner high quality S-EX on : St.Valentine day? Get a MOONSTER pwoer, nothing can bring your ererction : down! Show your partner the PWOER of your LOEV and she will always : remember You. Loev will ALWAYS be associated with YOU! " : : : My question is who would even think of answering this? Another 12-year : old spamkiddy? Maybe it's time for God to drown us all again. We seem to : be going the wrong way :) Just spam filter evasion, nothing more. Sos as usaul from thme. From jeffg at spamcop.net Sat Feb 4 21:54:05 2006 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Sat Feb 4 22:00:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Can't POP email... Anybody else have this problem? References: Message-ID: Jim wrote: > Yes I am having problems to. I amusing TB. My setting was > pop.spamcop.net and then I tried pop. My AVG Pro Scanner just hangs. IIUC AVG Free can't accept local connections using SSL and can't intercept connections using SSL, but it can connect to your POP3 Server using SSL if you connect to it locally without encryption. I assume that AVG Pro has at least some of the same restrictions. Please see "Grisoft Freeweb: FAQ 6.12: How to create servers for scanning e-mails - SSL communication" at http://free.grisoft.com/doc/5616/lng/us/tpl/v5 for details. -- Thanks and Best Regards, Jeff G. http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=findpost&pid=37585 From eddie at eddie.web Sat Feb 4 22:06:42 2006 From: eddie at eddie.web (eddie) Date: Sat Feb 4 22:10:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: The New Illiterates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Pop wrote: > "eddie" wrote in message > news:ds2to8$ius$1@news.spamcop.net... > : Some spam is simply poorly translated into English, and some is > : purposely misspelled to try to outsmart filters, but this > recent deluge > : of Valentine drugs goes beyond that to complete illiteracy. I > picture a > : 12-year old slacker who learned his English phonetically or > picked it up > : from bathroom walls :) > : > : Here is a short sample of a recent spew. I trust I am not > violating any > : SC rules by doing this. > : > : "Do You have enough pwoer to provide your patrner high quality > S-EX on > : St.Valentine day? Get a MOONSTER pwoer, nothing can bring your > ererction > : down! Show your partner the PWOER of your LOEV and she will > always > : remember You. Loev will ALWAYS be associated with YOU! " > : > : > : My question is who would even think of answering this? Another > 12-year > : old spamkiddy? Maybe it's time for God to drown us all again. > We seem to > : be going the wrong way :) > > Just spam filter evasion, nothing more. Sos as usaul from > thme. > > I disagree. Reason?: The word partner occurs twice but is misspelled only once. The grammar is also horrible. The word You is always capitalized, for no reason. There is no space between St. and Valentine. I still think it's an illiterate kiddy who doesn't even know what an erection is. :) If you are correct and the misspellings are on purpose, then nobody would ever read beyond the first sentence, which, of course they don't anyway, unless, like me, they are making fun of it. From g.hyde at bigpond.net.au Sun Feb 5 13:12:49 2006 From: g.hyde at bigpond.net.au (Geoffrey Hyde) Date: Sat Feb 4 22:20:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: I'm no damn spamer! References: Message-ID: I checked with spamcop on the addresses used in your news post here, and what I get is that one is aliased to 'reverse.theplanet.com' - which is your "adult" site which I guess you must be referring to. However, it's not listed in SpamCop or any blocklist that SpamCop knows about. The other one, the nntp posting-host, is also the same as the first one. What you need to do is sign up for a free SpamCop account (or use a paid account if you have one at SpamCop already) using the address with which you are receiving the message that you're a spammer. (It has to be an address that you own, and not an address that someone else owns.) Remembering to CANCEL it, process the message with SpamCop in question and get it's tracking URL as described below: Copy the message source from your email client, and paste the entire message into the "report spam" box, then press submit. On the Address bar of that page you should find a URL - this will be the TRACKING URL that people will want to look at when trying to figure out what is going wrong. Please do not post the spam email into this newsgroup, if you absolutely must do that, post it in spamcop.spam newsgroup, and refer to it from a post here. "kiriakos kappa" wrote in message news:ds3dtb$rrn$1@news.spamcop.net... > hey! I'm trying to send an e-mail to a friend (djsets.gr) and this damn > program tells me that I'm $%^*$ spamer!!! what is this? can't I > communicate with people anymore because my web domain has the term 'adult' > in it?? > > I want to be removed from this thing NOW! after all we have work to do > From nobody at nowhere.not Sun Feb 5 04:30:20 2006 From: nobody at nowhere.not (Robert Blair) Date: Sat Feb 4 23:35:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: The New Illiterates References: Message-ID: On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 03:06:42 UTC, eddie wrote: > I disagree. I disagree with you and agree with Pop. Just misspelling to avoid filters. -- Robert Blair From nobody at spamcop.net Sun Feb 5 08:44:10 2006 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Dar) Date: Sun Feb 5 11:45:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: The New Illiterates References: Message-ID: I don't agree or disagree with anyone. I just look at it as a bonus. These are words/phrases to block with spam filters that are the least risky for blocking legitimate email. Dar From bill_beyer at excite.cXoYmZ Sun Feb 5 12:09:53 2006 From: bill_beyer at excite.cXoYmZ (Bill Beyer) Date: Sun Feb 5 15:05:13 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] New Paypal phish... Message-ID: at least to me. http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z870000962z18de9ebdbad01bdb27e114f917b33105z I had to cut n paste and "gently" massage this spam before submitting it. I left one of the obfuscated links intact which evidently utilizes a redirect using google search. All of the links to the phishing site looked like the original until I removed the redirect URL prior to submitting. From eddie at eddie.web Sun Feb 5 15:28:10 2006 From: eddie at eddie.web (eddie) Date: Sun Feb 5 15:30:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: The New Illiterates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Robert Blair wrote: > On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 03:06:42 UTC, eddie wrote: > > >>I disagree. > > > I disagree with you and agree with Pop. Just misspelling to avoid > filters. > > And spelling "You" with a capital "Y" does the trick? Howzat work? And the bad grammar - how does that help? Are filters now grammar-sensitive? And what about misspelling "partner" only once out of two times? I look at it the other way, if the email doesn't pass my spellchecker, it's spam. When I see "alot" I know it's an illiterate spamkiddy. That's they way illiterates spell today. I have a list of the most common misspellings. They use "loose" when they mean "lose," as another example. I manage a few messageboards and I know how today's kids spell - or rather don't. All they know about spelling they learned online. As I recall, the original "Frea Speach" was not misspelled on purpose. No matter, between my spellchecker and the SC filters, they cannot get through my system. I still claim illiteracy. Just look at US test scores. From nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de Sun Feb 5 21:41:26 2006 From: nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de (Frank Ellermann) Date: Sun Feb 5 15:45:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: The New Illiterates References: Message-ID: <43E662F6.6F3B@xyzzy.claranet.de> eddie wrote: > Maybe it's time for God to drown us all again. We seem to > be going the wrong way :) Be careful with your prayers. That loeving pwoer, you know. From nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de Sun Feb 5 21:49:39 2006 From: nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de (Frank Ellermann) Date: Sun Feb 5 15:55:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: The New Illiterates References: Message-ID: <43E664E2.17D2@xyzzy.claranet.de> eddie wrote: > And spelling "You" with a capital "Y" does the trick? DEnglish, I also tried it for some time... :-( Maybe there are more languages where that's polite (?) > Are filters now grammar-sensitive? Scoring POWER and LOVE probably won't hit PWOER and LOEV. > I have a list of the most common misspellings. URL ? From nobody at nowhere.invalid Sun Feb 5 22:08:20 2006 From: nobody at nowhere.invalid (Steven Maesslein) Date: Sun Feb 5 16:10:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: The New Illiterates References: <43E664E2.17D2@xyzzy.claranet.de> Message-ID: On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:49:39 +0100, Frank Ellermann coughed into spamcop and left this in <43E664E2.17D2@xyzzy.claranet.de>: > DEnglish, I also tried it for some time... :-( > Maybe there are more languages where that's polite (?) Oft auf Niederl?ndisch / vaak in het Nederlands. Wie geht's heute mit Ihnen? Hoe gaat het vandaag met U? -- Steve Spotted in a toilet of a London office: TOILET OUT OF ORDER. PLEASE USE FLOOR BELOW. From nobody at spamcop.net Sun Feb 5 17:40:03 2006 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Ellen) Date: Sun Feb 5 17:45:11 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: New Paypal phish... References: Message-ID: "Bill Beyer" wrote in message news:ds5lpc$bn$1@news.spamcop.net... > at least to me. > > http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z870000962z18de9ebdbad01bdb27e114f917b33105z > > I had to cut n paste and "gently" massage this spam before submitting it. I > left one of the obfuscated links intact which evidently utilizes a redirect > using google search. All of the links to the phishing site looked like the > original until I removed the redirect URL prior to submitting. > > It is against the SC TOS/AUP to massage, change, alter or otherwise modify spam to cause the parser to find a url and reporting address that it would not have found based on the analysis of the original unaltered spam. Altering spam can lead to an account cancellation. Please do not continue to do this. Ellen SpamCop From bill_beyer at excite.cXoYmZ Sun Feb 5 20:46:49 2006 From: bill_beyer at excite.cXoYmZ (Bill Beyer) Date: Sun Feb 5 23:45:17 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: New Paypal phish... References: Message-ID: "Ellen" wrote in message news:ds5usm$5jk$1@news.spamcop.net... > > > "Bill Beyer" wrote in message > news:ds5lpc$bn$1@news.spamcop.net... > > at least to me. > > > > http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z870000962z18de9ebdbad01bdb27e114f917b33105z > > > > I had to cut n paste and "gently" massage this spam before submitting it. > I > > left one of the obfuscated links intact which evidently utilizes a > redirect > > using google search. All of the links to the phishing site looked like the > > original until I removed the redirect URL prior to submitting. > > > > > > It is against the SC TOS/AUP to massage, change, alter or otherwise modify > spam to cause the parser to find a url and reporting address that it would > not have found based on the analysis of the original unaltered spam. > Altering spam can lead to an account cancellation. Please do not continue to > do this. > > Ellen > SpamCop Mea culpa. From now on I'll just submit the spam as is and report the obfuscated link directly to the hosting ISP. AFAIC phishers have a special place in hell reserved just for their slimy butts and I'll go above and beyond to get them shut down. From vogt at spamcop.net Mon Feb 6 17:02:01 2006 From: vogt at spamcop.net (Gerald Vogt) Date: Mon Feb 6 03:05:15 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] White-listing does not work... Message-ID: The white listing function for held email does not work - or at least not the way I would expect it. When I whitelist a sender address I want email from this address not be blocked. Spamcop however blocks any email from this sender because the IP address 204.174.223.204 is in the bl.spamcop.net. A mailing list with quite some volume goes through this IP address with the same sender address appearing in the held mail view. Since the IP address has been listed I have to "forward and whitelist" all those mailing list mails. As there a quite a few going through it is very easy to miss one just as it happened a few minutes ago. So now it will take even longer until they are delisted again. If I whitelist a sender address I want any email from this sender address to be forwarded regardless whether or not a host in between is listed in the blocking list. What else would be the purpose of the whitelist?? Can someone please remove my last report of the above IP?? Gerald From ddotrdotnewman at qub.ac.uk Mon Feb 6 09:38:44 2006 From: ddotrdotnewman at qub.ac.uk (David R. Newman) Date: Mon Feb 6 04:40:07 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Spamcop's totally stopped working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: TC wrote: > Hey everyone, > > Spamcop has completely stopped working for me. All I get is a page headed > "error", and this message: > > "An error occurred while processing your request. > Reference #97.83514350.1139046504.441e5a0 " I get exactly the same type of message today (with a different reference), every time I try to connect to Spamcop. Even a plain http://www.spamcop.net/ gets me: An error occurred while processing your request. Reference #97.85514350.1139218537.140580e4 I am in Queen's University Belfast, in the United Kingdom. My connectivity is via the JANET proxy servers (for all the universities in the UK). From / at /.cn Tue Feb 7 00:05:35 2006 From: / at /.cn (Petzl) Date: Mon Feb 6 08:10:04 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: White-listing does not work... References: Message-ID: "Gerald Vogt" wrote in message news:ds6vpm$mcv$1@news.spamcop.net... > The white listing function for held email does not work - or at least not > the way I would expect it. The whitelist function only looks at reply email addresses voht@spamcep.nat if entered oly accepts that specific address spamcep.nat will accept all emails ending in that domain nat will accept all email ending in "nat" Petzl From vogt at spamcop.net Mon Feb 6 22:22:45 2006 From: vogt at spamcop.net (Gerald Vogt) Date: Mon Feb 6 08:25:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: White-listing does not work... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Petzl wrote: > The whitelist function only looks at reply email addresses What are "reply email addresses". Do you mean Reply-To, From, Sender or Return-Path Headers? Either way, all mailing list mails have the same Reply-To, Return-Path and From addresses. Reply-To and From are identical. Return-Path is something else but always the same address, too. I expect the "Forward and whitelist sender" function from the "Held Email" page to whitelist the correct address that is relevant for spamcop. I think, that should be the purpose of this function else it would be next to useless. Once whitelisted I expect those email with the same email address in the relevant header to be forwarded regardless if there's an IP address listed in the blacklist or not. Gerald From lslapiko at lslapiko.com Mon Feb 6 09:48:28 2006 From: lslapiko at lslapiko.com (lslapiko) Date: Mon Feb 6 09:50:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Spamcop blocks my e-mail... Message-ID: Hey, My e-mail to the domain thenoise-boston.com is getting blocked by Spamcop although I'm sending a single e-mail to a single person. The IP address it doesn't like is 63.115.7.109. I don't know why this is happening...is there anything I can do about it? Thanks! From jeffg at spamcop.net Mon Feb 6 10:23:41 2006 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Mon Feb 6 10:30:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Spamcop blocks my e-mail... References: Message-ID: lslapiko wrote: > My e-mail to the domain thenoise-boston.com is getting blocked by > Spamcop although I'm sending a single e-mail to a single person. The > IP address it doesn't like is 63.115.7.109. I don't know why this is > happening...is there anything I can do about it? That IP Address is not currently listed by the SCBL, and doesn't have Report History. Can you please post the actual error message in the actual bounce message (munging user names but keeping domain names and IP Addresses)? -- Thanks and Best Regards, Jeff G. http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=findpost&pid=37585 From jeffg at spamcop.net Mon Feb 6 10:45:07 2006 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Mon Feb 6 10:50:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: White-listing does not work... References: Message-ID: Gerald Vogt wrote: > Return-Path is something else but always the same address, too. Please try whitelisting that email address, and see "Yahoo Groups Mail Blocked?" at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2472&view=findpost&p=15986 . -- Thanks and Best Regards, Jeff G. http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=findpost&pid=37585 From pxpearson at spamxcop.net Mon Feb 6 08:05:29 2006 From: pxpearson at spamxcop.net (Peter Pearson) Date: Mon Feb 6 11:05:04 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: White-listing does not work... References: Message-ID: Gerald Vogt wrote: > . . . I expect the "Forward > and whitelist sender" function from the "Held Email" page to whitelist > the correct address that is relevant for spamcop. I think, that should > be the purpose of this function else it would be next to useless. Once > whitelisted I expect those email with the same email address in the > relevant header to be forwarded regardless if there's an IP address > listed in the blacklist or not. That's what I'd expect, too, and I think that's the way it works for me. However, one discrepancy: the button I use is "Release and whitelist", not "Forward and whitelist" (e.g., dodin.org/mediawiki/index.php/Examplaire_de_gestion_de_held_mail). When a friend shows up in my Held Mail folder, I click this button and he never shows up there again. -- Remove the two x's to get a good email address. From nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de Mon Feb 6 17:22:14 2006 From: nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de (Frank Ellermann) Date: Mon Feb 6 11:25:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Spamcop's totally stopped working References: Message-ID: <43E777B6.3514@xyzzy.claranet.de> David R. Newman wrote: > Even a plain http://www.spamcop.net/ gets me: > An error occurred while processing your request. > Reference #97.85514350.1139218537.140580e4 > I am in Queen's University Belfast, in the United Kingdom. > My connectivity is via the JANET proxy servers (for all the > universities in the UK). As soon as you've reached connectivity between you (or JANET) and SC is working. Something behind SC's Web server is in trouble, e.g. a problem between SC and its user database on another server. From my POV (two hours later) this works again at the moment, also now (seven hours later). Bye, Frank From kenbrody at spamcop.net Mon Feb 6 11:34:36 2006 From: kenbrody at spamcop.net (Kenneth Brody) Date: Mon Feb 6 11:40:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Spamcop blocks my e-mail... References: Message-ID: <43E77A9C.73D97F1E@spamcop.net> "Jeff G." wrote: > > lslapiko wrote: > > My e-mail to the domain thenoise-boston.com is getting blocked by > > Spamcop although I'm sending a single e-mail to a single person. The > > IP address it doesn't like is 63.115.7.109. I don't know why this is > > happening...is there anything I can do about it? > > That IP Address is not currently listed by the SCBL, and doesn't have > Report History. Can you please post the actual error message in the > actual bounce message (munging user names but keeping domain names and > IP Addresses)? And don't forget that, unless it's a SpamCop mailbox that you're sending to, SpamCop can't "block" anything. It may be that the recipient's ISP is blocking e-mail based on SpamCop's blacklist, but that's the ISP's decision. -- +-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+ | Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | | | kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | #include | +-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+ Don't e-mail me at: From PossumTrot at dont.spam.me Mon Feb 6 10:10:17 2006 From: PossumTrot at dont.spam.me (Possum Trot) Date: Mon Feb 6 13:15:02 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Yahoo and AOL Plan Would Charge Senders a Fee to Route E-Mail _ Around Spam Filters_ Message-ID: http://tinyurl.com/d3ht9 1/4 to 1 cent? How about making that in dollars or Euros. From nobody at nowhere.not Mon Feb 6 18:44:19 2006 From: nobody at nowhere.not (Robert Blair) Date: Mon Feb 6 13:45:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Yahoo and AOL Plan Would Charge Senders a Fee to Route E-Mail _ Around Spam Filters_ References: Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 18:10:17 UTC, "Possum Trot" wrote: > http://tinyurl.com/d3ht9 That is great for their bottom line, charge for something that they should be doing all the time. Another reason NOT to use YAHOO and AOL. > 1/4 to 1 cent? How about making that in dollars or Euros. 1 cent = USD 0.01 1/4 cent = USD 0.0025 -- Robert Blair From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Feb 6 11:10:36 2006 From: nobody at spamcop.net (N. Miller) Date: Mon Feb 6 14:15:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Yahoo and AOL Plan Would Charge Senders a Fee to Route E-Mail _ Around Spam Filters_ References: Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 18:44:19 +0000 (UTC), Robert Blair wrote: > On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 18:10:17 UTC, "Possum Trot" > wrote: > >> http://tinyurl.com/d3ht9 > > That is great for their bottom line, charge for something that they > should be doing all the time. > > Another reason NOT to use YAHOO and AOL. > > >> 1/4 to 1 cent? How about making that in dollars or Euros. > > 1 cent = USD 0.01 > 1/4 cent = USD 0.0025 My impression is that the charges will only apply to bulk email being sent into their domains. Essentially, paying AOL and Yahoo! to be whitelisted by AOL and Yahoo! for email to aol.com and yahoo.com destinations. I could be wrong... -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Feb 6 11:13:51 2006 From: nobody at spamcop.net (N. Miller) Date: Mon Feb 6 14:15:08 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Spamcop blocks my e-mail... References: Message-ID: <18m97alp3xwe8$.dlg@news.spamcop.net> On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 09:48:28 -0500, lslapiko wrote: > Hey, > > My e-mail to the domain thenoise-boston.com is getting blocked by Spamcop > although I'm sending a single e-mail to a single person. Not even possible. SpamCop _could_ block email to such domains as SC runs MX servers for. SpamCop has no control over email to other domains. > The IP address it doesn't like is 63.115.7.109. I don't know why this is > happening...is there anything I can do about it? Could be backscatter to spam traps. I will let others with more inside knowledge than I have address that. Unless you are the administrator for the server being listed by SC, there is not a lot that you can do, other than find alternate service. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum From user at domain.invalid Mon Feb 6 13:02:37 2006 From: user at domain.invalid (user@domain.invalid) Date: Mon Feb 6 16:05:13 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Why Blacklisted? Message-ID: Some of our outbound e-mail has been getting kicked back with info in the header saying that we have been blacklisted by SpamCop. I do not understand what is going on; we don't engage in spamming. Example e-mail header: ----------------------------------------------------------- Remote host said: 550 This system is configured to reject mail from 216.173.237.166 [216.173.237.166] (Host blacklisted - Found on Realtime Black List server '166.237.173.216.bl.spamcop.net') ----------------------------------------------------------- 216.173.237.166 is not our IP address; our address is 67.116.196.138 Why the IP address discrepancy? Info from SpamCop website: http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblock&ip=216.173.237.166 Thanks. Best Regards, Mark Buckles Harlan Labs San Diego http://www.harlanlabs.com From PossumTrot at dont.spam.me Mon Feb 6 13:16:20 2006 From: PossumTrot at dont.spam.me (Possum Trot) Date: Mon Feb 6 16:20:04 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Yahoo and AOL Plan Would Charge Senders a Fee to Route E-Mail _ Around Spam Filters_ References: Message-ID: "Robert Blair" wrote in message news:TECQXhvKj0FX-pn2-RCpzfwid4csY@dsl-206-55-144-107.tstonramp.com... > On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 18:10:17 UTC, "Possum Trot" > wrote: > >> http://tinyurl.com/d3ht9 > > That is great for their bottom line, charge for something that they > should be doing all the time. > > Another reason NOT to use YAHOO and AOL. > > >> 1/4 to 1 cent? How about making that in dollars or Euros. > > 1 cent = USD 0.01 > 1/4 cent = USD 0.0025 > > > -- > Robert Blair What I meant was that they should charge 1/4 to 1 dollar, not 1/4 to 1 cent cent per spam. They'll argue the trash is not spam, but it's spam if I say it is and it will all get reported. From jeffg at spamcop.net Mon Feb 6 16:37:17 2006 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Mon Feb 6 16:40:03 2006 Subject: [SpamCop-List] Re: Why Blacklisted? References: Message-ID: user@domain.invalid wrote: > Some of our outbound e-mail has been getting kicked back > with info in the header saying that we have been blacklisted > by SpamCop. I do not understand what is going on; we don't > engage in spamming. > > Example e-mail header: > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Remote host said: 550 This system is configured to reject mail > from 216.173.237.166 [216.173.237.166] (Host blacklisted - > Found on Realtime Black List server '166.237.173.216.bl.spamcop.net') > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > 216.173.237.166 is not our IP address; our address is 67.116.196.138 > Why the IP address discrepancy? > > Info from SpamCop website: > http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblock&ip=216.173.237.166 Yes, your IP Address is 67.116.196.138, which corresponds to adsl-67-116-196-138.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net, is apparently an Asynchronous Digital Subscriber Line connected to Pacific Bell in San Diego, CA, USA, part of SBC and now AT&T. However, in this case you are sending out your email through SBC Webhosting mailserver mail26c.sbc-webhosting.com [216.173.237.166], which is currently listed by the SCBL and will continute to be listed for at least 20 hours. "Causes of listing System has sent mail to SpamCop spam traps in the past week (spam traps are secret, no reports or evidence are provided by SpamCop) Additional potential problems (these factors do not directly result in spamcop listing) System administrator has already delisted this system once Because of the above problems, express-delisting is not available Listing History In the past 269.0 days, it has been listed 35 times for a total of 27.3 days Other hosts in this "neighborhood" with spam reports 216.173.237.5 216.173.237.6 216.173.237.9 216.173.237.67 216.173.237.69 216.173.237.70 216.173.237.74 216.173.237.103 216.173.237.130 216.173.237.152 216.173.237.164 216.173.237.165 216.173.237.167 216.173.237.180" Report History for mail26c.sbc-webhosting.com [216.173.237.166] follows: Submitted: Wednesday 2006/02/01 07:16:36 -0500: [Zumbrunlaw.com Inquiry] 1643052612 ( 64.143.33.244 ) To: spamcop@imaphost.com 1643052592 ( 64.143.33.244 ) To: abuse@sbcglobal.net 1643052588 ( 216.173.237.166 ) To: abuse@sbcglobal.net 1643052578 ( 204.202.242.68 ) To: abuse#verio.net@devnull.spamcop.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Submitted: Wednesday 2006/01/04 01:04:52 -0500: Mail Delivery Failure 1608729753 ( 216.173.237.166 ) To: spamcop@imaphost.com 1608729748 ( 216.173.237.166 ) To: abuse@sbcglobal.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Submitted: Friday 2005/12/30 16:34:31 -0500: Mail Delivery Failure 1603922885 ( 216.173.237.166 ) To: spamcop@imaphost.com 1603922873 ( 216.173.237.166 ) To: abuse@sbcglobal.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Submitted: Monday 2005/12/26 06:01:48 -0500: failure notice 1598728605 ( 216.173.237.166 ) To: [concealed user-defined recipient] 1598728601 ( 216.173.237.166 ) To: abuse@sbcglobal.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Submitted: Monday 2005/12/12 03:01:19 -0500: Selser Schaefer Contact Form 1583429095 ( 64.143.67.171 ) To: spamcop@imaphost.com 1583429074 ( 64.143.67.171 ) To: abuse@sbcglobal.net 1583429069 ( 216.173.237.166 ) To: abuse@sbcglobal.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Submitted: Thursday 2005/12/08 04:25:47 -0500: [J-K Web Contact] PickOfTheWeek5897@jkpolysource.com 1579113860 ( 64.143.147.75 ) To: spamcop@imaphost.com 1579113845 ( 64.143.147.75 ) To: abuse@sbcglobal.net 1579113843 ( 216.173.237.166 ) To: abuse@sbcglobal.net 1579113840 ( 204.202.242.37 ) To: abuse#verio.net@devnull.spamcop.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Submitted: Thursday 2005/12/08 00:33:03 -0500: [Zumbrunlaw.com Inquiry] 1578913315 ( 64.143.33.244 ) To: spamcop@imaphost.com 1578913312 ( 216.173.237.166 ) To: abuse@sbcglobal.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Submitted: Wednesday 2005/12/07 18:52:42 -0500: Newsletter subscription 1578838082 ( 64.143.40.118 ) To: spamcop@imaphost.com 1578838076 ( 64.143.40.118 ) To: abuse@sbcglobal.net 1578838074 ( 216.173.237.166 ) To: abuse@sbcglobal.net 1578838073 ( 204.202.242.36 ) To: abuse#verio.net@devnull.spamcop.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Submitted: Wednesday 2005/12/07 18:51:01 -0500: Newsletter subscription 1578663944 ( 64.143.40.118 ) To: spamcop@imaphost.com 1578663935 ( 64.143.40.118 ) To: abuse@sbcglobal.net 1578663933 ( 216.173.237.166 ) To: abuse@sbcglobal.net 1578663931 ( 204.202.242.72 ) To: abuse#verio.net@devnull.spamcop.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Submitted: Tuesday 2005/11/15 09:06:49 -0500: failure notice 1556697447 ( 216.173.237.166 ) To: spamcop@imaphost.com 1556697441 ( 216.173.237.166 ) To: abuse@sbcglobal.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Submitted: Tuesday 2005/11/15 03:57:35 -0500: failure notice 1556456726 ( 216.173.237.166 ) To: abuse@sbcglobal.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Submitted: Monday 2005/11/14 16:42:07 -0500: failure notice 1556043418 ( 216.173.237.166 ) To: abuse@sbcglobal.net ------------------