This FAQ on the SpamCop web sites discourages using auto-responders
http://news.spamcop.net/cgi-bin/fom?file=329
What is the suggested method for handling messages addressed to eMail
addresses that are not valid? We want to make sure people who mistype a
valid address to a real recipient know there message won't be read by the
intended recipient.
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Sun Sep 1 19:20:14 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Mark Gardner)
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:20:14 -0400
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] (no subject)
Message-ID: <000c01c251e5$2ba1f470$07e69541@COMPAQ>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C251C2.B078D790
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
How can i set up spamcop to automatically delete emails that it has =
removed a virus from? like the 100 klez i get a day...
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C251C2.B078D790
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
How can i set up spamcop to =
automatically delete=20
emails that it has removed a virus from? like the 100 klez i get a=20
day...
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C251C2.B078D790--
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Sun Sep 1 21:55:47 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Date: 1 Sep 2002 14:55:47 -0600
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: (no subject) [should have been - automatic virus mail deletion]
References:
Message-ID:
In article , "Mark Gardner" writes:
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C251C2.B078D790
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Please do not post MIME in newsgroups or mailing lists that do not
specifically permit it. If the documentation that came with your
software is unclear regarding the method for avoiding MIME creation,
contact your software vendor.
Keinen HTML Muell bitte!
The quoted material above was all extraneous and there were 1526
more bytes at the end which I have excised for the sake of brevity.
> How can i set up spamcop to automatically delete emails that it has =
> removed a virus from? like the 100 klez i get a day...
The last I read in this newsgroup, there was no such option.
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Sun Sep 1 22:15:50 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Pete Stephenson)
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 14:15:50 -0700
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: What to use instead of auto responders for incorrect recipients
References:
Message-ID:
In article ,
"IS Manager" wrote:
> What is the suggested method for handling messages addressed to eMail
> addresses that are not valid? We want to make sure people who mistype a
> valid address to a real recipient know there message won't be read by the
> intended recipient.
Why not simply bounce the message?
--
Pete Stephenson
HeyPete.com
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Mon Sep 2 01:18:06 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Steve Lionel)
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 20:18:06 -0400
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Held for no reason?
References: <14625344.df29e0@mycomputer>
Message-ID:
"MikeV" wrote in message news:14625344.df29e0@mycomputer...
> This one got held, but the report page says it should not have be held.
What
> happened?
See this line:
> X-SpamCop-Disposition: Blocked spews.relays.osirusoft.com
This tells you that SpamCop's own blacklist would not have blocked the
message (what you queried), but you have selected the SPEWS relay list as an
additional blacklist, and it did.
Steve
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Mon Sep 2 02:17:32 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Date: 1 Sep 2002 19:17:32 -0600
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Held for no reason? (SPEWS vs. SCBL)
References: <14625344.df29e0@mycomputer>
Message-ID:
In article <14625344.df29e0@mycomputer>, MikeV writes:
> This one got held, but the report page says it should not have be held. What
> happened?
> X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.15 64.71.166.114
> X-SpamCop-Disposition: Blocked spews.relays.osirusoft.com
That says the last IP on the first line is in the list on the second line.
> 64.71.166.114 not listed in bl.spamcop.net.
> 64.71.166.114 is not and should not be listed.
That is a page describing the SpamCop List, but the header did not say
anything about the SpamCop List being involved. To look at the SPEWS
list, try:
http://spews.org/ask.cgi?x=64.71.166.114
If you don't want your mail held based on the SPEWS list you should
change your preferences. If your preferences already say that you
don't want your mail held based on the SPEWS list, then there is a
bug. Send mail to jefft@spamcop.net if that is the case.
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Mon Sep 2 01:21:40 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Steve Lionel)
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 20:21:40 -0400
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: SPAM on new Hotmail account
References: <3D724229.C4CF3599@spamcop.net>
Message-ID:
"marvo" wrote in message
news:3D724229.C4CF3599@spamcop.net...
> After one week I signed on & to check
> the incoming mail. There was the usual email from
> Hotmail saying welcome & 15 porno & other SPAMs.
> How can somebody get the email address if it is
> never used to send or receive email and not
> given out. Any ideas??????
Some possibilities:
1. Your Hotmail username had been in use in the past, and got onto spammers'
lists. (This happened with an e-mail address my wife set up a while ago on
AT&T Worldnet.)
2. Spammers are trying random combinations of names for popular services
such as Hotmail.
3. Your address was listed in a directory by Hotmail and plucked from there.
4. Hotmail sold your e-mail address to spammers.
Steve
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Mon Sep 2 04:40:22 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (JT)
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 23:40:22 -0400
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: formmail.relays.monkeys.com problems
References:
Message-ID:
"Larry Kilgallen" wrote in message
news:zQdfcR9A7P0D@eisner.encompasserve.org...
>
> SpamCop filtering is a valuable tool, but those who use it carelessly
> are most likely doing so by making _no_ selections.
There's a whole 'nother group of people, though, who just click all the
boxes. They have no idea what all the blacklists do, they just click them
all. Sure, that's a little irresponsible. I haven't done them any favors,
though, by linking to the other sites, for instance.
I'm a little concerned about just putting a warning there. What about the
hundreds of people who already are using it? They'll never see the warning
because who reviews their blacklist choices periodically?
JT
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Mon Sep 2 04:42:42 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (JT)
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 23:42:42 -0400
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: formmail.relays.monkeys.com problems
References:
Message-ID:
"ĞarkStar" wrote in message
news:akptlt$ec0$1@news.spamcop.net...
> As a web developer who has to share servers with numerous other accounts,
I
> can't say I could support the 'methodology' at all. All it would take
would
> be one user to use one bad formmail script on one occasion (and be 'found
> out'), and mine and all the other domains on that IP would be backlisted
> forever??? - nahhhh!!!! - 'order of the boot' is my vote.
Well, but the same could be said about a mail server run by your web host.
One spammer customer of your web host could get everybody's email blocked.
If a machine that you send mail from is also sending spam, expect to get
your mail blocked. We just can't tell the difference. That's why it's good
to go with a squeaky-clean webhost. Unfortunately, the cheapest ones are
also the ones the spammers use.
JT
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Mon Sep 2 04:43:38 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (JT)
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 23:43:38 -0400
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: formmail.relays.monkeys.com problems
References:
Message-ID:
"Petzl" wrote in message
news:sne1nu4mi83bnttptlqtks09nrb12i1gc5@4ax.com...
>
> Its not yet *ever* caught/listed/held any of my spam?
>
> The fact that I also use an effective *whitelist* which overrides any
> other blocklist does to me Not matter
>
> I personally would rather have a *GOOD* dailup blocklist used if it
> is an option every dialup I see is spam but always mainly blocked by
> SCBL
>
>
We can't do dialup. Because we check ALL the headers, and not just the
connecting header, it's perfectly valid to have a dialup IP address in the
headers.
JT
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Mon Sep 2 04:50:45 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (JT)
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 23:50:45 -0400
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: formmail.relays.monkeys.com problems
References:
Message-ID:
"Pete Stephenson" wrote in message
news:pete-751C84.15145031082002@news.spamcop.net...
> In article , "JT"
> wrote:
>
> > What do you guys think? Should we keep it or ditch it?
>
> I'd say "ditch it", and ditch "proxies.relays.monkeys" too, and replace
> it with opm.blitzed.org (see http://www.blitzed.org/opm/). It's managed
> by a bunch of people, rather than one. It stops an enormous amount of my
> spam, and hasn't caught false positives yet.
>
I don't know if the number of hosts in proxies.relays.monkeys.com is a
secret or not, so I won't give the number here. Let me just say that if the
stats at http://www.blitzed.org/stats/grapher.phtml?target=opm&range=d are
correct, they don't even come close to the number that RFG has in the
monkeys.com proxies list.
JT
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Mon Sep 2 04:51:31 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (JT)
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 23:51:31 -0400
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: formmail.relays.monkeys.com problems
References:
Message-ID:
"JT" wrote in message
news:akpggp$74s$1@news.spamcop.net...
> Just to followup my own post, it appears there was a long thread about
this
> issue in our own spamcop newsgroup 6 weeks ago. I missed it. Here's a post
> from the middle of the thread, but it contains a couple good URLs.
>
> http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-list/2002-July/009763.html
>
> JT
>
OK, it's gone. My discomfort, combined with the opinion of most of you
caused me to dump it.
JT
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Mon Sep 2 05:55:27 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (DJP)
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 12:55:27 +0800
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] using X-Originating-IP ?
Message-ID: <11516269281.20020902125527@spamcop.net>
just a thought - seeing as how spamcop is based on IP addresses, couldn't we
somehow get it to look for these header lines and include them as sources of
spam ?
eg: those posting spam to Yahoo!Groups using the eGroups Message Poster
will only get yahoo! listed and their ISP will get off. The same goes for
@yahoo.com and @hotmail.com email that use the web site to compose emails.
Is there a reason that the reporting side of things has already discarded
this idea ?
--
cheers,
davidp. mailto:pascoedj+sc@spamcop.net
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Mon Sep 2 06:04:06 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Arya Irani)
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 22:04:06 -0700
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] "Queue for reporting": does it work?
Message-ID:
Hi, I think I've queued a couple hundred spams for reporting, (via the Held
Mail interface)....
*....blink*
Oh you know what? ... I've been queue-ing them for reporting, assuming that
that was all I was supposed to do. I did not figure out (until now) how to
actually report them. I was just waiting for something to happen.
So, just for anyone who is slower or newer than I am to this SpamCop
business, make sure you Report all spam you enqueue using the Report Spam
link.
...man.......
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Mon Sep 2 06:35:39 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Henrik Rasmussen)
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 07:35:39 +0200
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] (no subject)
References: <000c01c251e5$2ba1f470$07e69541@COMPAQ>
Message-ID: <002201c25243$61601b10$0300000a@to067>
Spamcop disinfected mails usually contains the text "Found virus". I've set
up a filter rule saying everything fontaining "Found virus" should be
deleted.
If you are using the Horde webmail client you can set this in Options >
Filter > Edit your filter rules. Other mail programs have simmilar filtering
capabilities
Henrik
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Gardner
To: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 8:20 PM
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] (no subject)
How can i set up spamcop to automatically delete emails that it has removed
a virus from? like the 100 klez i get a day...
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Mon Sep 2 06:45:54 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Henrik Rasmussen)
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 07:45:54 +0200
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Held for no reason?
References: <14625344.df29e0@mycomputer>
Message-ID: <002401c25244$cd3fa7f0$0300000a@to067>
It seems it is listed at spews.relays.osirusoft.com.
> X-SpamCop-Disposition: Blocked spews.relays.osirusoft.com
> 64.71.166.114 not listed in bl.spamcop.net
You can deselect spews in
Options > Spamcop Tools > Select your email filtering blacklists
if you like
Henrik
----- Original Message -----
From: "MikeV"
Newsgroups: spamcop.mail
To:
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 1:41 AM
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Held for no reason?
> This one got held, but the report page says it should not have be held.
What
> happened?
>
>
============================================================================
==
> Previewing raw email. Use your browser's back button to return to menu.
>
============================================================================
==
> Return-Path:
> Delivered-To: spamcop-net-xxxxx@spamcop.net
> Received: (qmail 22752 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2002 04:08:13 -0000
> Received: from unknown (HELO in2.scg.to) (192.168.1.15)
> by alpha.cesmail.net with SMTP; 1 Sep 2002 04:08:13 -0000
> Received: (qmail 27623 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2002 04:08:11 -0000
> Received: from unknown (HELO cali-1.pobox.com) (64.71.166.114)
> by scgin.cesmail.net with SMTP; 1 Sep 2002 04:08:11 -0000
> Received: from spf8.us4.outblaze.com (205-158-62-35.outblaze.com
> [205.158.62.35])
> by cali-1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B4DD3E6E6
> for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 00:08:09 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from mango.ease.lsoft.com (mango.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.1.21])
> by spf8.us4.outblaze.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g81486667031
> for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 04:08:08 GMT
> Message-Id: <200209010408.g81486667031@spf8.us4.outblaze.com>
> Received: from mango (mango.ease.lsoft.com) by mango.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP
for
> Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <8.FF18A65B@mango.ease.lsoft.com>; 1 Sep
2002
> 0:08:01 -0400
> Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 00:07:59 -0400
> Reply-To: The Prostate Problems Mailing List
> Sender: The Prostate Problems Mailing List
> From: Automatic digest processor
> Subject: PROSTATE Digest - 30 Aug 2002 to 31 Aug 2002 (#2002-447)
> To: Recipients of PROSTATE digests
> Precedence: list
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="IcTGFRPNBAUACTXTLFQHBRCLNIaOHI"
> X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.15 64.71.166.114
> X-SpamCop-Disposition: Blocked spews.relays.osirusoft.com
>
> Metric
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> Qty
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> Most Recent
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> Oldest
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
> Sample traffic: 912 3.58 hours ago
> 7.15 days ago
>
> Trap recipients: None recorded
> Spam reports: None recorded
> Relaying reports: None recorded
> Relay closed: None recorded
>
>
> 64.71.166.114 not listed in bl.spamcop.net.
> 64.71.166.114 is not and should not be listed.
> Spam score 0.00 - spam report ratio (0.000) falls under threshold (0.020)
> More details..
>
>
>
> --
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> SpamCop-Mail mailing list
> SpamCop-Mail@news.spamcop.net
> http://news.spamcop.net/mailman/listinfo/spamcop-mail
>
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Mon Sep 2 09:37:32 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Lex van der Sluijs)
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:37:32 +0200
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] How to submit spam using web-form
Message-ID:
Hi,
As I'm receiving about 60 spam messages a day, and have had quite enough of
this, I though I would start doing something about it!
I have received my (free) authorization code by e-mail, so now I want to
report some spam.
I have tried forwarding the offending messages to the special e-mail address
provided, but I got a response back that SpamCop could not find the spam in
the message.
So now I want to report it using the web form, which the website talks
about. However, I can't find it on the site... Does anyone know where it is?
Or do you have to be a paid member to use it?
Please also reply to my e-mail address, thanks.
Lex van der Sluijs MSc
e-Stores e-business solutions
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Mon Sep 2 10:01:33 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (ĞarkStar)
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:01:33 +0100
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: formmail.relays.monkeys.com problems
References:
Message-ID:
JT wrote in message
news:akumn1$ea1$1@news.spamcop.net...
> "ĞarkStar" wrote in message
> news:akptlt$ec0$1@news.spamcop.net...
> > As a web developer who has to share servers with numerous other
accounts,
> I
> > can't say I could support the 'methodology' at all. All it would take
> would
> > be one user to use one bad formmail script on one occasion (and be
'found
> > out'), and mine and all the other domains on that IP would be backlisted
> > forever??? - nahhhh!!!! - 'order of the boot' is my vote.
>
> Well, but the same could be said about a mail server run by your web host.
> One spammer customer of your web host could get everybody's email blocked.
> If a machine that you send mail from is also sending spam, expect to get
> your mail blocked. We just can't tell the difference. That's why it's good
> to go with a squeaky-clean webhost. Unfortunately, the cheapest ones are
> also the ones the spammers use.
>
> JT
I have a very clean web host (painfully so at times - I can't even run
double opt-in lists from the servers), but the point is that no-one is
perfect, and a spammer might find a vulnerable script someone had uploaded
in ignorance and without my hosts knowledge (things can slip by in even the
best monitored systems), and I feel at least spamcop recognises this in it's
method - 'stop the spam flowing, and you'll stop being listed' seems fair -
but this idea of apparently being listed for enternity is ridiculous! Not
for me to tell spamcop how to do it's business, but I wouldn't want to be
associated with an organisation who's methodology seems diametrically
opposed to those of spamcop in this area.
I use CDO or JMail on IIS, and thus have no use for formmail.pl - just as
well, as my IP has been blocked twice by spamcop in the last six months -
both instances were dealt with very promptly and permanently by my host, and
the block expired as normal, but I guess if my host knew that a blacklisting
was 'for good', he would have lost interest in investigating any further
instances after the first one - what would be the point in wasting time?
Getting a bit off topic, but here in the UK I don't see any great
correlation between the price and 'spam friendlyness' of web hosts or
ISP's - perhaps that's just my experience/perspective though.
--
ĞarkStår
°¿°
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Mon Sep 2 10:44:25 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Petzl)
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 19:44:25 +1000
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: formmail.relays.monkeys.com problems
References:
Message-ID:
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 23:43:38 -0400, "JT" wrote:
>"Petzl" wrote in message
>news:sne1nu4mi83bnttptlqtks09nrb12i1gc5@4ax.com...
>>
>> Its not yet *ever* caught/listed/held any of my spam?
>>
>> The fact that I also use an effective *whitelist* which overrides any
>> other blocklist does to me Not matter
>>
>> I personally would rather have a *GOOD* dailup blocklist used if it
>> is an option every dialup I see is spam but always mainly blocked by
>> SCBL
>>
>>
>
>We can't do dialup. Because we check ALL the headers, and not just the
>connecting header, it's perfectly valid to have a dialup IP address in the
>headers.
>
OK its direct mailing to spamcop via dialups that are the problem
Petzl
..
--
Check your system for Virus (Free Check)
At bottom right hand side of web page click the picture
"Check for security risks"
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/
free virus detectors available eg.
http://www.grisoft.com
GET ONE if you are not using ANY!
__
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Mon Sep 2 13:02:24 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (ĞarkStar)
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 13:02:24 +0100
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] using X-Originating-IP ?
References:
Message-ID:
I'm guessing from my own experiments with X-originating, on mail sent
directly from websites, that it would be far too easy to 'forge' to be of
any overall value - I guess you could trust yahoo and hotmail not to forge
them, but spammers? ......
--
ĞarkStår
°¿°
DJP wrote in message
news:mailman.1030942441.17071.spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net...
>
> just a thought - seeing as how spamcop is based on IP addresses, couldn't
we
> somehow get it to look for these header lines and include them as sources
of
> spam ?
>
> eg: those posting spam to Yahoo!Groups using the eGroups Message Poster
> will only get yahoo! listed and their ISP will get off. The same goes for
> @yahoo.com and @hotmail.com email that use the web site to compose emails.
>
> Is there a reason that the reporting side of things has already discarded
> this idea ?
>
> --
> cheers,
> davidp. mailto:pascoedj+sc@spamcop.net
>
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Mon Sep 2 18:27:48 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (IS Manager)
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 07:27:48 -1000
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: What to use instead of auto responders for incorrect recipients
References:
Message-ID:
What does "bounce" mean?
======
"Pete Stephenson" wrote in message
news:pete-E12940.14155001092002@news.spamcop.net...
> In article ,
> "IS Manager" wrote:
>
> > What is the suggested method for handling messages addressed to eMail
> > addresses that are not valid? We want to make sure people who mistype a
> > valid address to a real recipient know there message won't be read by
the
> > intended recipient.
>
> Why not simply bounce the message?
>
> --
> Pete Stephenson
> HeyPete.com
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Mon Sep 2 19:00:27 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (RW)
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 12:00:27 -0600
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: How to submit spam using web-form
References:
Message-ID: <3D73A73B.9ED69C62@suespammers.org>
Lex van der Sluijs wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As I'm receiving about 60 spam messages a day, and have had quite enough of
> this, I though I would start doing something about it!
>
> I have received my (free) authorization code by e-mail, so now I want to
> report some spam.
>
> I have tried forwarding the offending messages to the special e-mail address
> provided, but I got a response back that SpamCop could not find the spam in
> the message.
>
> So now I want to report it using the web form, which the website talks
> about. However, I can't find it on the site... Does anyone know where it is?
> Or do you have to be a paid member to use it?
>
> Please also reply to my e-mail address, thanks.
>
> Lex van der Sluijs MSc
> e-Stores e-business solutions
This post rightly belongs in spamcop.help. cross-posted/ f'ups set
You're authorization URL should take you to the home page with the cut
and paste webform.
BTW, since you're using OE, to use the email submission system, it is
necessary to forward your spam "as an attachment".
Richard
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Mon Sep 2 19:41:42 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Pete Stephenson)
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 11:41:42 -0700
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: What to use instead of auto responders for incorrect recipients
References:
Message-ID:
In article ,
"IS Manager" wrote:
> What does "bounce" mean?
Don't bother accepting the mail...just set your server to reject it.
It sounds like your server is accepting all mail for non-existant users,
and sending back an auto-response saying the mail doesn't exist. This
appears to be a waste of resources.
For instance, when someone attempts to send mail to a completely made-up
email address at my domain, the following takes place in the SMTP
conversation:
mail from:
250 sender accepted
rcpt to:
550 user unknown.
See the "550 user unknown" error? Why can't you just have your server do
that? Most servers do that automatically.
--
Pete Stephenson
HeyPete.com
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Mon Sep 2 19:54:42 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Pete Stephenson)
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 11:54:42 -0700
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: formmail.relays.monkeys.com problems
References:
Message-ID:
In article , "JT"
wrote:
> I don't know if the number of hosts in proxies.relays.monkeys.com is a
> secret or not, so I won't give the number here. Let me just say that if the
> stats at http://www.blitzed.org/stats/grapher.phtml?target=opm&range=d are
> correct, they don't even come close to the number that RFG has in the
> monkeys.com proxies list.
Hmm, well, if there's any doubt, be safe -- keep the number secret.
I notice on http://www.monkeys.com/anti-spam/filtering/proxies.html that
RFG makes no mention of what his data source for IP addresses is. For
all I know, he's scanning 1.1.1.1-255.255.255.255 for open proxies.
While that may be effective, I am somewhat opposed to that behavior. (Of
course, because he doesn't disclose his scanning procedures, I have no
idea how he gets the information.)
Blitzed, on the other hand, is very open about what their sources are --
it's at http://www.blitzed.org/bopm/ at the very bottom. They're mostly
IRC networks with a few spamtraps (I've seen IECC listed as the spamtrap
that initiated the testing, among others), so they're not randomly
scanning IP space[1].
In reviewing my logs over the last few days[2], I'm amazed at the amount
of spam that Blitzed is blocking. Just for kicks, I put RFG's proxy list
into my DNSbl configuration right after Blitzed (so it can catch
anything that Blitzed misses), and it hasn't tagged anything.
Of course, if you're happy with RFG's list, I have no business telling
you what to do. I'm just relaying my own experience. :)
[1] I'm not suggesting that RFG does this (I don't know if he does or
not), I'm just saying Blitzed *doesn't*.
[2] Where I moved bl.spamcop.net from the first list my server checks to
the very last (so I can see what other lists IP's are on).
--
Pete Stephenson
HeyPete.com
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Mon Sep 2 23:32:41 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (IS Manager)
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 12:32:41 -1000
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: What to use instead of auto responders for incorrect recipients
References:
Message-ID:
Our POP and SMTP servers are currently hosted by Verizon Online. I believe
my only option is to have a reply [of which I specify the content] sent.
Just so I understand, what is the difference between what your server does
and the auto-responders that are discouraged in the FAQ?
"Pete Stephenson" wrote in message
news:pete-ABB55F.11414102092002@news.spamcop.net...
> In article ,
> "IS Manager" wrote:
>
> > What does "bounce" mean?
>
> Don't bother accepting the mail...just set your server to reject it.
>
> It sounds like your server is accepting all mail for non-existant users,
> and sending back an auto-response saying the mail doesn't exist. This
> appears to be a waste of resources.
>
> For instance, when someone attempts to send mail to a completely made-up
> email address at my domain, the following takes place in the SMTP
> conversation:
>
> mail from:
> 250 sender accepted
> rcpt to:
> 550 user unknown.
>
> See the "550 user unknown" error? Why can't you just have your server do
> that? Most servers do that automatically.
>
> --
> Pete Stephenson
> HeyPete.com
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Tue Sep 3 00:03:20 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (marvo)
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 19:03:20 -0400
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: SPAM on new Hotmail account
References: <3D724229.C4CF3599@spamcop.net>
Message-ID: <3D73EE37.DADC5216@spamcop.net>
Steve:
Thanks for the comments. I figure it was 2 or 3. I
picked a combination of letters & numbers & was
long enough that would only come up with a
heell of a random generator. I hope it was not
number 3. Marvo
Steve Lionel wrote:
> "marvo" wrote in message
> news:3D724229.C4CF3599@spamcop.net...
> > After one week I signed on & to check
> > the incoming mail. There was the usual email from
> > Hotmail saying welcome & 15 porno & other SPAMs.
> > How can somebody get the email address if it is
> > never used to send or receive email and not
> > given out. Any ideas??????
>
> Some possibilities:
>
> 1. Your Hotmail username had been in use in the past, and got onto spammers'
> lists. (This happened with an e-mail address my wife set up a while ago on
> AT&T Worldnet.)
>
> 2. Spammers are trying random combinations of names for popular services
> such as Hotmail.
>
> 3. Your address was listed in a directory by Hotmail and plucked from there.
>
> 4. Hotmail sold your e-mail address to spammers.
>
> Steve
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Tue Sep 3 02:27:17 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Date: 2 Sep 2002 19:27:17 -0600
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: What to use instead of auto responders for incorrect recipients
References:
Message-ID:
In article , "IS Manager" writes:
> Just so I understand, what is the difference between what your server does
> and the auto-responders that are discouraged in the FAQ?
>
>
> "Pete Stephenson" wrote in message
> news:pete-ABB55F.11414102092002@news.spamcop.net...
>> Don't bother accepting the mail...just set your server to reject it.
>> For instance, when someone attempts to send mail to a completely made-up
>> email address at my domain, the following takes place in the SMTP
>> conversation:
>>
>> mail from:
>> 250 sender accepted
>> rcpt to:
>> 550 user unknown.
What Pete suggested gives the response back to the server that tried to
deliver the mail, not to that for the probably forged "From:" address.
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Tue Sep 3 02:24:56 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Date: 2 Sep 2002 19:24:56 -0600
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: [SC-Help] Filters not working
References:
Message-ID: <$I3jKnPa8dL8@eisner.encompasserve.org>
In article , coldrink@hotmail.com writes:
> I have want email sent to specific email addresses deleted automatically. I have gone to:
> Options->Filters->Filter Rules, and created some email addresses. For example -
> "Delete messages where the To: field contains none@yee.com"
>
> However, I am still receiving messages sent to this address. Help!
Presumably by "receiving" you mean in your Webmail inbox, since those
filters do not affect mail delivered via forwarding.
I am setting followups to the spamcop.mail newsgroup where the Webmail
interface is discussed.
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Tue Sep 3 02:30:33 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Date: 2 Sep 2002 19:30:33 -0600
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Held for no reason? (SPEWS vs. SCBL)
References: <14625344.df29e0@mycomputer> <14665584.df4d28@mycomputer>
Message-ID:
In article <14665584.df4d28@mycomputer>, MikeV writes:
> On 1 Sep 2002 19:17:32 -0600, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote:
> :>That is a page describing the SpamCop List, but the header did not say
> :>anything about the SpamCop List being involved. To look at the SPEWS
> :>list, try:
> :>
> :> http://spews.org/ask.cgi?x=64.71.166.114
>
> I went there and it says it is listed but I can find nothing in the
> evidence/data file that says why. This is a mailing list for prostate cancer
> survivors that I have been on for several years. I doubt it is involved in
> spam. I guess it is a problem with their isp (OrgName: Hurricane Electric,
> OrgID: HURC) although HE in the past has been very anti-spam oriented.
Comments in news.admin.net-abuse.email characterize Hurricane Electric
as quite spam-friendly. SPEWS lists multiple IP addresses when one in
the address block sends spam. That is quite different from SpamCop.
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Tue Sep 3 03:59:59 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net)
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 22:59:59 -0400
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: "Queue for reporting": does it work?
Message-ID: <1031021999.3d7425af4009c@mail.spamcop.net>
Thanks for the tip. Sadly, I am way slower than you on learning to use the
"improved" SpamCop. Ever since I've had to go through the
mail.spamcop.net/horde window, I have no clue what to do with spam. If I click
on "Report Spam" it takes me to a new window where I'm supposed to paste in the
spam complete with headers etc. - way too much trouble for a lazy person like
me. I liked the old system so much better (just click and report!). IMHO, SC
is so user-unfriendly now, I'm just waiting for my subscription to run out. The
SC goal is so noble, and I've enjoyed reporting spam for a few years with SC,
but it is just too difficult now. Sorry, I just had to vent my frustrations...
> From: "Arya Irani"
> Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 22:04:06 -0700
>... I've been queue-ing them for reporting, assuming that
> that was all I was supposed to do. I did not figure out (until now) how to
> actually report them. I was just waiting for something to happen.
>
> So, just for anyone who is slower or newer than I am to this SpamCop
> business, make sure you Report all spam you enqueue using the Report Spam
> link.
>
> ...man.......
>
>
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Tue Sep 3 05:24:24 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Date: 2 Sep 2002 22:24:24 -0600
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: "Queue for reporting": does it work?
References:
Message-ID:
In article , suemusette@spamcop.net writes:
> Thanks for the tip. Sadly, I am way slower than you on learning to use the
> "improved" SpamCop. Ever since I've had to go through the
> mail.spamcop.net/horde window, I have no clue what to do with spam.
I never touch the horde stuff except for configuration.
The pages I use are:
Held Email : http://mailsc.spamcop.net/reportheld?action=heldlog
Report Spam : http://mailsc.spamcop.net/
Each of those has links to the other at the top.
n the latter it is mainly the Report Now link.
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Tue Sep 3 05:17:48 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Petzl)
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 14:17:48 +1000
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: formmail.relays.monkeys.com problems
References:
Message-ID:
On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 11:54:42 -0700, Pete Stephenson
wrote:
>In article , "JT"
>wrote:
>
>
>Hmm, well, if there's any doubt, be safe -- keep the number secret.
>
>I notice on http://www.monkeys.com/anti-spam/filtering/proxies.html that
>RFG makes no mention of what his data source for IP addresses is. For
>all I know, he's scanning 1.1.1.1-255.255.255.255 for open proxies.
>While that may be effective, I am somewhat opposed to that behavior. (Of
>course, because he doesn't disclose his scanning procedures, I have no
>idea how he gets the information.)
>
I check the proxy/port here
Then if open submit send to
proxies@monkeys.com
leave subject blank and in plain text msg body
Proxy:x.x.x.x:port
There recheck/confirm your results
[]
Petzl
..
--
Check your system for Virus (Free Check)
At bottom right hand side of web page click the picture
"Check for security risks"
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/
free virus detectors available eg.
http://www.grisoft.com
GET ONE if you are not using ANY!
__
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Tue Sep 3 05:45:51 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Petzl)
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 14:45:51 +1000
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: formmail.relays.monkeys.com problems
References:
Message-ID:
On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 11:54:42 -0700, Pete Stephenson
wrote:
>In article , "JT"
>wrote:
>
>
>Hmm, well, if there's any doubt, be safe -- keep the number secret.
>
>I notice on http://www.monkeys.com/anti-spam/filtering/proxies.html that
>RFG makes no mention of what his data source for IP addresses is. For
>all I know, he's scanning 1.1.1.1-255.255.255.255 for open proxies.
>While that may be effective, I am somewhat opposed to that behavior. (Of
>course, because he doesn't disclose his scanning procedures, I have no
>idea how he gets the information.)
>
I check the proxy/port here
Then if open submit send to
proxies@monkeys.com
leave subject blank and in plain text 1st line msg body
Proxy:x.x.x.x:port
They then recheck/confirm your results
[]
Petzl
..
--
Check your system for Virus (Free Check)
At bottom right hand side of web page click the picture
"Check for security risks"
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/
free virus detectors available eg.
http://www.grisoft.com
GET ONE if you are not using ANY!
__
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Tue Sep 3 15:03:10 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Matthew Todd)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 10:03:10 -0400
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] can I block on the TO address?
Message-ID:
My att.net address is being spammed by some guy who thinks his email address
is the same as mine although he is putting in att.COM as the email address.
worldnet.att.com mail all gets forwarded to att.net users by username. This
was set up years ago because worldnet users had friends who continued to put
.com instead of .net so the nice folks at att decided to map
worldnet.att.com to att.net. ANYWAY,
I want to BLOCK all email sent to me TO the user@worldnet.att.com address
from various junk mail sites all over the net.
I emailed the owners of the lists that seem more legitimate, but never
received any response.
If I create a filter on the TO and have those sent to Held Mail folder, will
I be able to report those as well? I am assuming yes, but just wanted to
make sure.
ALSO, does anyone have any suggestions at all on finding this person. He
has actualy used his name when subscribing to these lists... Cory Zamaitis.
ALl searches for this man comes up void. If I could find him I'd ring his
neck, well actually I will show him that his email address is NOT
worldnet.att.com with my user name.
-Matt
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Tue Sep 3 15:20:15 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Steve VanSlyck)
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 10:20:15 -0400
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: can I block on the TO address?
References:
Message-ID: <3D74C51F.3090300@spamcop.net>
On or about 9/3/2002 10:03 AM, Matthew Todd may or may not have said:
> My att.net address is being spammed by some guy who thinks his email address
> is the same as mine
Can't you complaint to att? Or have you already been ignored on that front?
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Tue Sep 3 15:52:44 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Matthew Todd)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 10:52:44 -0400
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: can I block on the TO address?
References: <3D74C51F.3090300@spamcop.net>
Message-ID:
"Steve VanSlyck" wrote in message
news:3D74C51F.3090300@spamcop.net...
> On or about 9/3/2002 10:03 AM, Matthew Todd may or may not have said:
> > My att.net address is being spammed by some guy who thinks his email
address
> > is the same as mine
>
> Can't you complaint to att? Or have you already been ignored on that
front?
>
Ignored :) I emailed their postmaster and their abuse team even their noc
email address and the only replies I ever received where the canned replies
stating 'the spam you received did not come from our network blah blah
blah'. No human being could have read those emails I sent, they were short,
concise and to the point with a plea for help *grin*
I can try to escalate it but I doubt that would have any effect. I sure
wish I get a snail mail address or billing receipt for this Cory guy one
day!
-Matt
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Tue Sep 3 16:34:03 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Steve VanSlyck)
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 11:34:03 -0400
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: can I block on the TO address?
References: <3D74C51F.3090300@spamcop.net>
Message-ID: <3D74D66B.7060201@spamcop.net>
On or about 9/3/2002 10:52 AM, Matthew Todd may or may not have said:
> "Steve VanSlyck" wrote in message
> news:3D74C51F.3090300@spamcop.net...
>
>>On or about 9/3/2002 10:03 AM, Matthew Todd may or may not have said:
>>
>
> I can try to escalate it but I doubt that would have any effect. I sure
> wish I get a snail mail address or billing receipt for this Cory guy one
> day!
>
OK, you could try an internet search engine against his name or e-mail
address or both. Of course, you could always sue AT&T. That will get
their attention, but it just should NOT be necessary - and why should you
be punished by having to go through such a procedure for such a simple
request. You could do a whois lookup on the domain to find the address of
the office that maintains their license, and complain to that person.
None of this is particularly helpful, I know, I'm just tossing out ideas.
The really unfortunate thing is that each of these eats up way more of
your time than is really justifiable - hence punishing YOU as I said.
Anyone else have ideas?
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Tue Sep 3 16:48:03 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (George)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 11:48:03 -0400
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Typo of the Day - Do you need a load?
Message-ID:
A little levity in the spamming world.
Nice typo in the subject line for mortgage spam.
http://spamcop.net/sc?id=z46016727z04d04cc6472f5e41f5c913c34accd1a5z
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Tue Sep 3 18:06:47 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Terry L McMurtrey)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:06:47 -0400
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: "Queue for reporting": does it work?
Message-ID: <1031072807.3d74ec275dab8@mail.spamcop.net>
Just thought you should know that SpamCop placed the following from you in
my "Held Mail" folder. Weird.
Quoting suemusette@spamcop.net:
> Thanks for the tip. Sadly, I am way slower than you on learning to use the
>
> "improved" SpamCop. Ever since I've had to go through the
> mail.spamcop.net/horde window, I have no clue what to do with spam. If I
> click
> on "Report Spam" it takes me to a new window where I'm supposed to paste in
> the
> spam complete with headers etc. - way too much trouble for a lazy person like
>
> me. I liked the old system so much better (just click and report!). IMHO, SC
>
> is so user-unfriendly now, I'm just waiting for my subscription to run out.
> The
> SC goal is so noble, and I've enjoyed reporting spam for a few years with SC,
>
> but it is just too difficult now. Sorry, I just had to vent my
> frustrations...
>
> > From: "Arya Irani"
> > Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 22:04:06 -0700
> >... I've been queue-ing them for reporting, assuming that
> > that was all I was supposed to do. I did not figure out (until now) how
> to
> > actually report them. I was just waiting for something to happen.
> >
> > So, just for anyone who is slower or newer than I am to this SpamCop
> > business, make sure you Report all spam you enqueue using the Report Spam
> > link.
> >
> > ...man.......
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> SpamCop-Mail mailing list
> SpamCop-Mail@news.spamcop.net
> http://news.spamcop.net/mailman/listinfo/spamcop-mail
>
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Tue Sep 3 20:10:01 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (schwa)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:10:01 -0400
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Filter Settings? [help]
Message-ID:
I tried experiementing with the different spam filters offered and found
than turning on others caused all my mail to be held. then I switched to
only the bl.spamcop filter and still everything was being held.
any idea what I might have done wrong?
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Tue Sep 3 20:21:23 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Sue Morton)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:21:23 -0700
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Filter Settings? [help]
References:
Message-ID:
Examine the headers of the Held mails. There will a header
"x-spamcop-disposition". This header will tell you the blacklist that
caught the mail. There is also a header "x-spamcop-checked" which tells the
IP's that were checked. The last IP listed is the one on the specified
blocklist.
http://spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/336.html will give you more information
on the various reasons mail will be Held.
--
Sue Morton
"schwa" wrote in message
news:al31dv$3k6$1@news.spamcop.net...
> I tried experiementing with the different spam filters offered and found
> than turning on others caused all my mail to be held. then I switched to
> only the bl.spamcop filter and still everything was being held.
>
> any idea what I might have done wrong?
>
>
>
>
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Tue Sep 3 21:29:53 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (schwa)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 16:29:53 -0400
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Filter Settings? [help]
References:
Message-ID:
Sue - Thanks for the reply but something's still amiss:
Message-Id: <9B6051A0-BF75-11D6-9D4A-0003936C5C14@attbi.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543)
X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.15 63.99.209.9
X-SpamCop-Disposition: Blocked bl.spamcop.net
bl.spamcop.net is now blocking every piece of mail of mine.
When I turn it off (aka, uncheck it) it works fine. Any idea?
What's weird is that this used to be my default and it worked fine. Once I
experimented with others, all went to poop.
-- Schwa
"Sue Morton" <867-5309@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:al32df$4gi$1@news.spamcop.net...
> Examine the headers of the Held mails. There will a header
> "x-spamcop-disposition". This header will tell you the blacklist that
> caught the mail. There is also a header "x-spamcop-checked" which tells
the
> IP's that were checked. The last IP listed is the one on the specified
> blocklist.
>
> http://spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/336.html will give you more
information
> on the various reasons mail will be Held.
> --
> Sue Morton
>
>
>
> "schwa" wrote in message
> news:al31dv$3k6$1@news.spamcop.net...
> > I tried experiementing with the different spam filters offered and found
> > than turning on others caused all my mail to be held. then I switched to
> > only the bl.spamcop filter and still everything was being held.
> >
> > any idea what I might have done wrong?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Tue Sep 3 22:42:50 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Sue Morton)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:42:50 -0700
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Filter Settings? [help]
References:
Message-ID:
That is a valid block. Did you look it up on the spamcop.bl as per the FAQ
page I gave you?
You'll need to check each one of your Held Mails and see what the stats say
for the blacklist. It is probably just a coincidence that you were fooling
with the settings when the blacklist filled up.
--
Sue Morton
"schwa" wrote in message
news:al3644$75h$1@news.spamcop.net...
> Sue - Thanks for the reply but something's still amiss:
>
> Message-Id: <9B6051A0-BF75-11D6-9D4A-0003936C5C14@attbi.com>
> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543)
> X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.15 63.99.209.9
> X-SpamCop-Disposition: Blocked bl.spamcop.net
>
> bl.spamcop.net is now blocking every piece of mail of mine.
>
> When I turn it off (aka, uncheck it) it works fine. Any idea?
>
> What's weird is that this used to be my default and it worked fine. Once I
> experimented with others, all went to poop.
>
> -- Schwa
>
> "Sue Morton" <867-5309@domain.invalid> wrote in message
> news:al32df$4gi$1@news.spamcop.net...
> > Examine the headers of the Held mails. There will a header
> > "x-spamcop-disposition". This header will tell you the blacklist that
> > caught the mail. There is also a header "x-spamcop-checked" which tells
> the
> > IP's that were checked. The last IP listed is the one on the specified
> > blocklist.
> >
> > http://spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/336.html will give you more
> information
> > on the various reasons mail will be Held.
> > --
> > Sue Morton
> >
> >
> >
> > "schwa" wrote in message
> > news:al31dv$3k6$1@news.spamcop.net...
> > > I tried experiementing with the different spam filters offered and
found
> > > than turning on others caused all my mail to be held. then I switched
to
> > > only the bl.spamcop filter and still everything was being held.
> > >
> > > any idea what I might have done wrong?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Wed Sep 4 00:07:58 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Petzl)
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 09:07:58 +1000
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Filter Settings? [help]
References:
Message-ID:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 16:29:53 -0400, "schwa"
wrote:
>Sue - Thanks for the reply but something's still amiss:
>
>Message-Id: <9B6051A0-BF75-11D6-9D4A-0003936C5C14@attbi.com>
>X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543)
>X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.15 63.99.209.9
>X-SpamCop-Disposition: Blocked bl.spamcop.net
>
>bl.spamcop.net is now blocking every piece of mail of mine.
>
>When I turn it off (aka, uncheck it) it works fine. Any idea?
>
>What's weird is that this used to be my default and it worked fine. Once I
>experimented with others, all went to poop.
>
>-- Schwa
>
Just being blunt and my opinion!
Your provider is either stupid or spam friendly maybe both!
I would consider another provider! If you wish to keep using them you
will need to have "spamcop.bl" turned off
OR you can ask them to fix their broken/misconfigured network (rDNS
not set)
These type of providers are often just into milking a credit card!
Email sent from ip [63.99.209.9] will often be just bitbined as a DOS
attack (Also they would NOT be getting abuse reports)
Some other links to see how bad they are
Petzl
..
--
Check your system for Virus (Free Check)
At bottom right hand side of web page click the picture
"Check for security risks"
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/
free virus detectors available eg.
http://www.grisoft.com
GET ONE if you are not using ANY!
__
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Wed Sep 4 00:10:39 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (schwa)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:10:39 -0400
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Filter Settings? [help]
References:
Message-ID:
Sue -
Ah. Ok, so this is a lot of learning for me, so thanks for helping and your
patience...
The IP address that is listed is: 63.99.209.9
I have a hunch that is the ISP that hosts my mail... since the FAQ alluded
to that. Is there a way to confirm who owns that IP address?
Also, is there a way to allow email from that IP into my whitelist or can it
only take the domain name form.
I notice it says the following:
delisted: Mon, September 02, 2002 9:37:02 PM -0400
listed: Tue, September 03, 2002 9:35:02 AM -0400
and I am thinking that maybe it was working while it was in delist mode.
Again, thanks a ton.
-- Schwa
"Sue Morton" <867-5309@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:al3act$9vg$1@news.spamcop.net...
> That is a valid block. Did you look it up on the spamcop.bl as per the
FAQ
> page I gave you?
>
> You'll need to check each one of your Held Mails and see what the stats
say
> for the blacklist. It is probably just a coincidence that you were
fooling
> with the settings when the blacklist filled up.
> --
> Sue Morton
>
>
>
> "schwa" wrote in message
> news:al3644$75h$1@news.spamcop.net...
> > Sue - Thanks for the reply but something's still amiss:
> >
> > Message-Id: <9B6051A0-BF75-11D6-9D4A-0003936C5C14@attbi.com>
> > X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543)
> > X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.15 63.99.209.9
> > X-SpamCop-Disposition: Blocked bl.spamcop.net
> >
> > bl.spamcop.net is now blocking every piece of mail of mine.
> >
> > When I turn it off (aka, uncheck it) it works fine. Any idea?
> >
> > What's weird is that this used to be my default and it worked fine. Once
I
> > experimented with others, all went to poop.
> >
> > -- Schwa
> >
> > "Sue Morton" <867-5309@domain.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:al32df$4gi$1@news.spamcop.net...
> > > Examine the headers of the Held mails. There will a header
> > > "x-spamcop-disposition". This header will tell you the blacklist that
> > > caught the mail. There is also a header "x-spamcop-checked" which
tells
> > the
> > > IP's that were checked. The last IP listed is the one on the
specified
> > > blocklist.
> > >
> > > http://spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/336.html will give you more
> > information
> > > on the various reasons mail will be Held.
> > > --
> > > Sue Morton
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "schwa" wrote in message
> > > news:al31dv$3k6$1@news.spamcop.net...
> > > > I tried experiementing with the different spam filters offered and
> found
> > > > than turning on others caused all my mail to be held. then I
switched
> to
> > > > only the bl.spamcop filter and still everything was being held.
> > > >
> > > > any idea what I might have done wrong?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Wed Sep 4 00:13:28 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (schwa)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:13:28 -0400
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Filter Settings? [help]
References:
Message-ID:
Any suggestions to more reputable ISPs? I'm ready to pull the plug on mine
anyway.
"Petzl" wrote in message
news:kafanusuk15ddmlhmdtq9tobj7s0fckk0b@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 16:29:53 -0400, "schwa"
> wrote:
>
> >Sue - Thanks for the reply but something's still amiss:
> >
> >Message-Id: <9B6051A0-BF75-11D6-9D4A-0003936C5C14@attbi.com>
> >X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543)
> >X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.15 63.99.209.9
> >X-SpamCop-Disposition: Blocked bl.spamcop.net
> >
> >bl.spamcop.net is now blocking every piece of mail of mine.
> >
> >When I turn it off (aka, uncheck it) it works fine. Any idea?
> >
> >What's weird is that this used to be my default and it worked fine. Once
I
> >experimented with others, all went to poop.
> >
> >-- Schwa
> >
>
>
> Just being blunt and my opinion!
>
> Your provider is either stupid or spam friendly maybe both!
>
>
> I would consider another provider! If you wish to keep using them you
> will need to have "spamcop.bl" turned off
>
> OR you can ask them to fix their broken/misconfigured network (rDNS
> not set)
>
> These type of providers are often just into milking a credit card!
>
> Email sent from ip [63.99.209.9] will often be just bitbined as a DOS
> attack (Also they would NOT be getting abuse reports)
>
>
> Some other links to see how bad they are
>
>
>
> Petzl
> ..
> --
> Check your system for Virus (Free Check)
> At bottom right hand side of web page click the picture
> "Check for security risks"
> http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/
>
> free virus detectors available eg.
> http://www.grisoft.com
> GET ONE if you are not using ANY!
> __
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Wed Sep 4 00:15:30 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Sue Morton)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 16:15:30 -0700
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Filter Settings? [help]
References:
Message-ID:
http://samspade.org is a good place to look things up. That particular IP
is UUNET, which I am guessing is not your direct provider but I could be
wrong. If all your mail is being blocked because of 63.99.209.9 then I
would say that your ISP has messed up the headers on your email and SpamCop
is 'fingering' the wrong IP as a source of the mail. If you see all your
mail is being held because of this one IP then please post the headers here
so we can have a look.
The whitelist works on full email addy or just domain name portion.
--
Sue Morton
"schwa" wrote in message
news:al3fjh$dt9$1@news.spamcop.net...
> Sue -
>
> Ah. Ok, so this is a lot of learning for me, so thanks for helping and
your
> patience...
>
> The IP address that is listed is: 63.99.209.9
>
> I have a hunch that is the ISP that hosts my mail... since the FAQ alluded
> to that. Is there a way to confirm who owns that IP address?
>
> Also, is there a way to allow email from that IP into my whitelist or can
it
> only take the domain name form.
>
> I notice it says the following:
>
> delisted: Mon, September 02, 2002 9:37:02 PM -0400
> listed: Tue, September 03, 2002 9:35:02 AM -0400
>
>
> and I am thinking that maybe it was working while it was in delist mode.
>
> Again, thanks a ton.
>
> -- Schwa
>
> "Sue Morton" <867-5309@domain.invalid> wrote in message
> news:al3act$9vg$1@news.spamcop.net...
> > That is a valid block. Did you look it up on the spamcop.bl as per the
> FAQ
> > page I gave you?
> >
> > You'll need to check each one of your Held Mails and see what the stats
> say
> > for the blacklist. It is probably just a coincidence that you were
> fooling
> > with the settings when the blacklist filled up.
> > --
> > Sue Morton
> >
> >
> >
> > "schwa" wrote in message
> > news:al3644$75h$1@news.spamcop.net...
> > > Sue - Thanks for the reply but something's still amiss:
> > >
> > > Message-Id: <9B6051A0-BF75-11D6-9D4A-0003936C5C14@attbi.com>
> > > X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543)
> > > X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.15 63.99.209.9
> > > X-SpamCop-Disposition: Blocked bl.spamcop.net
> > >
> > > bl.spamcop.net is now blocking every piece of mail of mine.
> > >
> > > When I turn it off (aka, uncheck it) it works fine. Any idea?
> > >
> > > What's weird is that this used to be my default and it worked fine.
Once
> I
> > > experimented with others, all went to poop.
> > >
> > > -- Schwa
> > >
> > > "Sue Morton" <867-5309@domain.invalid> wrote in message
> > > news:al32df$4gi$1@news.spamcop.net...
> > > > Examine the headers of the Held mails. There will a header
> > > > "x-spamcop-disposition". This header will tell you the blacklist
that
> > > > caught the mail. There is also a header "x-spamcop-checked" which
> tells
> > > the
> > > > IP's that were checked. The last IP listed is the one on the
> specified
> > > > blocklist.
> > > >
> > > > http://spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/336.html will give you more
> > > information
> > > > on the various reasons mail will be Held.
> > > > --
> > > > Sue Morton
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "schwa" wrote in message
> > > > news:al31dv$3k6$1@news.spamcop.net...
> > > > > I tried experiementing with the different spam filters offered and
> > found
> > > > > than turning on others caused all my mail to be held. then I
> switched
> > to
> > > > > only the bl.spamcop filter and still everything was being held.
> > > > >
> > > > > any idea what I might have done wrong?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Wed Sep 4 00:21:18 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Petzl)
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 09:21:18 +1000
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Filter Settings? [help]
References:
Message-ID:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:10:39 -0400, "schwa"
wrote:
>Sue -
>
>Ah. Ok, so this is a lot of learning for me, so thanks for helping and your
>patience...
>
>The IP address that is listed is: 63.99.209.9
>
>I have a hunch that is the ISP that hosts my mail... since the FAQ alluded
>to that. Is there a way to confirm who owns that IP address?
>
>Also, is there a way to allow email from that IP into my whitelist or can it
>only take the domain name form.
>
>I notice it says the following:
>
>delisted: Mon, September 02, 2002 9:37:02 PM -0400
>listed: Tue, September 03, 2002 9:35:02 AM -0400
>
>
>and I am thinking that maybe it was working while it was in delist mode.
>
>Again, thanks a ton.
>
>-- Schwa
>
[]
105054085 is the report id taken from headers in
105054085 ( 63.99.209.9 ) To: postmaster@readyhosting.com
105054084 ( 63.99.209.9 ) To: abuse@readyhosting.com
105054082 ( 63.99.209.9 ) To: abuse-noverbose@uu.net
If you use your "link" which you save to your links bar
then go to "Past Reports" put the id number in and you will see
Change LOGIN to schwa and PASSWORD to ********??
Petzl
..
--
Check your system for Virus (Free Check)
At bottom right hand side of web page click the picture
"Check for security risks"
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/
free virus detectors available eg.
http://www.grisoft.com
GET ONE if you are not using ANY!
__
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Wed Sep 4 00:29:08 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Petzl)
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 09:29:08 +1000
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Filter Settings? [help]
References:
Message-ID:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:13:28 -0400, "schwa"
wrote:
>Any suggestions to more reputable ISPs? I'm ready to pull the plug on mine
>anyway.
>
>
I would give them a chance to clean up their act!
If they fix their "Reverse DNS" I would say their problems would go
away
The problem in keeping this provider is aside from many servers
bitbining email without rDNS set! The fact it is appearing on a few
blocklists including spamcops means that If you send email from there
it will be trashed
As for a better one? This depends on the price and compitition where
you live (I'm in Sydney Australia we have MORE than a fair share of
credit card milkers) You need to ask your local "PC user Group" these
are groups/clubs that usually have local knowledge (mine is Sydney PC
User Group)
Petzl
..
--
Check your system for Virus (Free Check)
At bottom right hand side of web page click the picture
"Check for security risks"
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/
free virus detectors available eg.
http://www.grisoft.com
GET ONE if you are not using ANY!
__
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Wed Sep 4 00:42:42 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Petzl)
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 09:42:42 +1000
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Filter Settings? [help]
References:
Message-ID:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 16:15:30 -0700, "Sue Morton"
<867-5309@domain.invalid> wrote:
>http://samspade.org is a good place to look things up. That particular IP
>is UUNET, which I am guessing is not your direct provider but I could be
>wrong. If all your mail is being blocked because of 63.99.209.9 then I
>would say that your ISP has messed up the headers on your email and SpamCop
>is 'fingering' the wrong IP as a source of the mail. If you see all your
>mail is being held because of this one IP then please post the headers here
>so we can have a look.
>
>The whitelist works on full email addy or just domain name portion.
Trouble is if its YOUR ISP that is listed "63.99.209.9" is a mail
server (I suspect is the provider) and you forward any mail from there
all mail not whitelisted would be held unless SCBL is turned off
It better if the ISP is advised to get their rDNS set as abuse reports
would not go direct to them
To set rDNS is simple but it may need a phone call to ISP's upstairs
provider to set it
Then that ISP needs a proper abuse address set
is a good start
Once they get abuse reports they are then in a position to do
something instead of just milking a credit card
Petzl
..
--
Check your system for Virus (Free Check)
At bottom right hand side of web page click the picture
"Check for security risks"
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/
free virus detectors available eg.
http://www.grisoft.com
GET ONE if you are not using ANY!
__
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Wed Sep 4 03:58:41 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Petzl)
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 12:58:41 +1000
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Filter Settings? [help]
References:
Message-ID:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 09:07:58 +1000, Petzl wrote:
>On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 16:29:53 -0400, "schwa"
>wrote:
>
>>Sue - Thanks for the reply but something's still amiss:
>>
>>Message-Id: <9B6051A0-BF75-11D6-9D4A-0003936C5C14@attbi.com>
>>X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543)
>>X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.15 63.99.209.9
>>X-SpamCop-Disposition: Blocked bl.spamcop.net
>>
>>bl.spamcop.net is now blocking every piece of mail of mine.
>>
>>When I turn it off (aka, uncheck it) it works fine. Any idea?
>>
>>What's weird is that this used to be my default and it worked fine. Once I
>>experimented with others, all went to poop.
>>
>>-- Schwa
>>
>
>
>Just being blunt and my opinion!
>
>Your provider is either stupid or spam friendly maybe both!
>
>
>I would consider another provider! If you wish to keep using them you
>will need to have "spamcop.bl" turned off
>
>OR you can ask them to fix their broken/misconfigured network (rDNS
>not set)
>
>These type of providers are often just into milking a credit card!
>
> Email sent from ip [63.99.209.9] will often be just bitbined as a DOS
>attack (Also they would NOT be getting abuse reports)
OPPS
>Some other links to see how bad they are
>
>
>
>Petzl
>..
Petzl
..
--
Check your system for Virus (Free Check)
At bottom right hand side of web page click the picture
"Check for security risks"
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/
free virus detectors available eg.
http://www.grisoft.com
GET ONE if you are not using ANY!
__
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Wed Sep 4 09:48:37 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Brett)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 02:48:37 -0600
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: PayPal being sent to "held" folder
References:
Message-ID:
"Sue Morton" <867-5309@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:akn03t$lcm$1@news.spamcop.net...
> PayPal spams a great deal of folk, that's what has landed them on the
> list.
Do you think they really "spam" them or do people forget they signed up and
report it?
Brett
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Wed Sep 4 11:07:07 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Michael Chidley)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:07:07 +0100
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] ssl mail downloads
Message-ID: <200209041107.07714.mike.chidley@spamcop.net>
I currently download my mail from spamcop using SSL connection. Everytime I
download mail, my mail program throws up an error that the security
certificate doesn`t match the address that it was issued to.
mail.spamcop.net (address I am using to download mail)
webmail.spamcop.net (certificate issued to)
If i change the download address to the second address that doesn`t work.
What I am doing wrong?
I am running RedHat 7.3 , KMail..............
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Wed Sep 4 13:37:00 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Peter Havekes)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 14:37:00 +0200
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Blacklist University of 's-Hertogenbosch (nl
Message-ID:
--____HMACTKSXLOZMHLTFACJC____
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Anyone interested in the (large) blacklist as currently active at the =
University of 's-Hertogenbosch (The Netherlands). for merging with other =
blacklists? Currently formated as /etc/mail/access.
Is there any place for exchanging these types of blacklists?
--____HMACTKSXLOZMHLTFACJC____
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="____XCCGIQYTEMFXUTPUKGHL____"
--____XCCGIQYTEMFXUTPUKGHL____
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Anyone interested in the (large) blacklist as currently active at =
the=20
University of 's-Hertogenbosch (The Netherlands). for merging with =
other=20
blacklists? Currently formated as /etc/mail/access.
Is there =
any=20
place for exchanging these types of blacklists?
--____XCCGIQYTEMFXUTPUKGHL____--
--____HMACTKSXLOZMHLTFACJC____--
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Wed Sep 4 13:38:34 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Sue Morton)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 05:38:34 -0700
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: PayPal being sent to "held" folder
References:
Message-ID:
I've been spammed by PayPal.
--
Sue Morton
"Brett" <867530@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:al4heh$36l$1@news.spamcop.net...
> "Sue Morton" <867-5309@domain.invalid> wrote in message
> news:akn03t$lcm$1@news.spamcop.net...
> > PayPal spams a great deal of folk, that's what has landed them on
the
> > list.
>
> Do you think they really "spam" them or do people forget they signed
up and
> report it?
>
> Brett
>
>
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Wed Sep 4 13:36:32 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Sue Morton)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 05:36:32 -0700
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] ssl mail downloads
References:
Message-ID:
What you did wrong is to miss the message from the admin that this has
been turned off for now LOL. Here it is:
"JT" wrote in message
news:ak4dig$9er$1@news.spamcop.net...
> Some mail has an illegal Message-ID field which made the email unable
to be
> released using the Held Mail link. We're now working around the most
common
> problem, so most email that used to have a problem can now be
released.
>
>
> Some broken mail servers were having problems when we initiated
STARTTLS
> with them. STARTTLS has been turned off for outgoing mail for now.
>
--
Sue Morton
"Michael Chidley" wrote in message
news:mailman.1031133842.5369.spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net...
>
> I currently download my mail from spamcop using SSL connection.
Everytime I
> download mail, my mail program throws up an error that the security
> certificate doesn`t match the address that it was issued to.
>
> mail.spamcop.net (address I am using to download mail)
> webmail.spamcop.net (certificate issued to)
>
> If i change the download address to the second address that doesn`t
work.
>
> What I am doing wrong?
>
> I am running RedHat 7.3 , KMail..............
From spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net Wed Sep 4 18:09:37 2002
From: spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net (Sue Morton)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 10:09:37 -0700
Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: IMAP account setup
References:
Message-ID:
IMAP server name is mail.spamcop.net -- same server name as for POP.
How you configure IMAP depends on your OS and email client. What are you
using?
--
Sue Morton
"Steve VanSlyck"