From bram at geenspam.sara.nl Mon Nov 1 11:33:32 2004 From: bram at geenspam.sara.nl (Bram Stolk) Date: Mon Nov 1 05:35:17 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: spamcop methodology severely broken. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Aviatrix wrote: > (And on a partially related subject, Bram's girlfriend had better make > sure she corrects her Whois before the Whois Police finds it. The That would be another mistake by vserver.de But all this irrelevant German/Dutch talk is bogus. Please stick to the real issue: Currently, spamcop designates sites as 'spamvertized', even though the A /A tag is empty. This is clearly a bug. Why will nobody admit to this? Automating spam-designation should be done more cautiously. Bram From bram at geenspam.sara.nl Mon Nov 1 11:35:43 2004 From: bram at geenspam.sara.nl (Bram Stolk) Date: Mon Nov 1 05:40:06 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: spamcop methodology severely broken. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Aviatrix wrote: > > > Mike Easter wrote: > > >> Hmmph. That is kinda weird. Lelystad is the capital of the .nl >> province Flevoland - what is she doing filling out her paperwork like >> that? I can't even imagine where any confusion about that German state >> would come from. > > > Could be entirely innocent. Maybe she lived in Germany for a while and > part of the German address details got "left behind" in the Whois entry > when she moved. It's probably quite easy to forget about the name of a > German state or Dutch province in a Whois entry because they are not > part of the postal address Much easier: You apply for a vserver account as a Dutch citizen. Then they'll change your country to Germany, even if you clearly specify that you are a Dutch customer. Myself, I use a US domainregistrar (domainmonger), and I'm Dutch. That doesn't stop domainmonger to properly designate my site as Dutch. > From 79ytka802 at sneakemail.com Mon Nov 1 13:42:44 2004 From: 79ytka802 at sneakemail.com (Aviatrix) Date: Mon Nov 1 08:45:04 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: spamcop methodology severely broken. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bram Stolk wrote: > Aviatrix wrote: > >> (And on a partially related subject, Bram's girlfriend had better make >> sure she corrects her Whois before the Whois Police finds it. The > > > That would be another mistake by vserver.de > > But all this irrelevant German/Dutch talk is bogus. > Please stick to the real issue: Look, I was trying to help. I know it sounds silly, but having incorrect Whois information can lose you your domain. As a lot of people here know, Spamcop nearly lost spamcop.net because of an incorrect digit in the fax number printed in the Whois. While it may not be part of the original issue it is nevertheless something you should take seriously. As I said, I was trying to help... but with a reaction like this I wonder if I shouldn't be spending my time on other things rather than trying to help people. From MikeE at ster.invalid Mon Nov 1 06:22:30 2004 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Mon Nov 1 09:20:04 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: spamcop methodology severely broken. References: Message-ID: Bram Stolk wrote: > Currently, spamcop designates sites as 'spamvertized', even > though the A /A tag is empty. > > This is clearly a bug. > Why will nobody admit to this? Do you recall? Mike Easter wrote: > Bram Stolk wrote: >> This is what happened to me: >> A spammer, selling loanes, tries to confuse spam filters by >> including lots of *invisible* links to genuine and well-behaving >> domains. > > Correct. > >> As you can see: compassionate.org, alexander.org, calamus.org and >> avis.org names are abused. > > Correct. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nobody at spamcop.net Wed Nov 3 19:14:21 2004 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Ellen) Date: Wed Nov 3 19:15:13 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Brief outage Message-ID: We are having a brief outage. This should be less than 20 minutes of downtime. Ellen SpamCop From 867-5309 at domain.invalid Thu Nov 4 06:23:15 2004 From: 867-5309 at domain.invalid (Sue Morton) Date: Thu Nov 4 09:25:36 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Webmail client and pop-up blockers Message-ID: IIRC the Spamcop Webmail system is 3rd party but somewhat customized. Is there any chance of getting the "compose" and other "windowing" changed to launch a new browser window with a method that doesn't trigger pop-up blockers? The reason I ask, most people I know use the Free Edition of Pop-Up Stopper, which doesn't include a whitelist. While it is true, holding down CTRL and clicking the link will override the blocking, it also means the 'user' has to remember that. :) Unfortunately that's not often the case as it is so seldom needed. Some of my friends and family use the SpamCop mail system. They occasionally need to use the Webmail client, and end up not being able to bring up the "compose" window because they don't remember the pop-up stopper is blocking them. Of course that's not SpamCop's fault! But if the webmail client's windows could look less like an errant pop-up I think that would be helpful, even to those of us that do remember to use the CTRL key. Is it possible? -- Sue Morton From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Tue Nov 9 00:42:40 2004 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (WazoO) Date: Tue Nov 9 01:51:44 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: {webmail,imap,mail}.spamcop.net not found? References: Message-ID: > wrote in message news:vilain-637E49.21265908112004@news.cesmail.net... > I can't seem to access spamcop's imap server. Nor can I can I access > webmail.spamcop.net from the web site to read my mail. There's no > notice on the web site of any outage nor can I access mail.spamcop.net > to see if there's anything specific. mail.cesmail.net returns no error > or result from my local DNS server. > > What gives? Looks like the spamcop DNS server is seriously sick. Is it > just me, or is this a problem for others? Any word on when it might be > fixed? JT has been working overtime... as it turns out, an explanation now exists in the web-Forums at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3007 A couple of other Topics over there contain lots of stuff that's been going on for a few days, trying to get to the bottom of things. The alert / alarm was also hit on in this newsgroup, Subject line: cesmail has disappeared ... just yesterday. Thought the problem was resolved last night, but things went really bad this morning ... the next few day's issues are addressed in JT's explanation. From MikeE at ster.invalid Tue Nov 9 03:15:41 2004 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Tue Nov 9 06:15:19 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: {webmail,imap,mail}.spamcop.net not found? References: Message-ID: WazoO wrote: > Michael Vilain >> I can't seem to access spamcop's imap server. Nor can I can I access >> webmail.spamcop.net from the web site to read my mail. There's no >> notice on the web site of any outage nor can I access >> mail.spamcop.net to see if there's anything specific. >> mail.cesmail.net returns no error or result from my local DNS server. >> >> What gives? Looks like the spamcop DNS server is seriously sick. >> Is it just me, or is this a problem for others? Any word on when it >> might be fixed? There's some news posted here http://webmail.spamcop.net/ System news from the last 24 hours Nov 9, 2004 [01:49 EST] We have a longer explanation of the whole DNS issue here. [ME: see below] Nov 8, 2004 [14:37 EST] In good news, we believe we have fixed the problem with fetching mail from AOL accounts. We have started doing this and all AOL accounts should start retrieving mail within the next several hours. [14:36 EST] We have been experiencing sporadic problems with our DNS provider for the last day or so. While all our testing looks OK, there is quite a bit of evidence that suggests they are returning wrong or no information at times. We have opened a ticket with them and, in the meantime, have eliminated any need for DNS for some internal mail handoffs which should get rid of most of the problem. We haven't made any DNS changes in weeks and the DNS provider has been very reliable for a year or more, so we hope we can get to the bottom of this quickly. We apologize for the inconvenience. > JT has been working overtime... as it turns out, an > explanation now exists in the web-Forums at > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3007 Posted by: jefft Today, 01:10 AM A couple of years ago, we began to take steps to help make the system more robust in the event of network failures or DOS attacks. We had always run two DNS servers, on two different networks. That gave us network redundancy, but when we experienced a DOS attack on the two nameservers, it pointed out a limitation in the network. It would be nice to expand to more servers, on more networks, and move those servers away from the main web and mail servers. That way, an attack on one wouldn't bring down the other. So, we moved DNS for spamcop.net to Akamai and for cesmail.net and cqmail.net to name-services.com, a paid DNS service run by the enom domain name registry. When testing them, they appeared to have about 8 nameservers spread across 5 different names, in 5 different geographic locations. And, for the last couple of years, we've had no problems with them at all. DNS has had 100% uptime and I'm not aware of any DNS-related issues. That all changed on Sunday when we started receiving complaints of sporadic DNS problems. It didn't appear to be a problem specific to our network because we had reports from different mailservers worldwide which couldn't resolve one or the other of the domain names. Obviously, something was going on but we've yet to actually see a query here that didn't succeed. Manual testing consistently shows good results from all of the name-services.com nameservers. I'm aware that dnsreport.com is reporting errors on our domain name, but it's clear that they don't test in real-time. They apparently cache results, either for the whole report or for individual lookups. Because of that, it's hard to tell whether an error they report is happening now or 10 minutes ago. Regardless of the testing, it's clear that there's a problem so we've begun the process of moving all DNS to a different DNS provider. Unfortunately, this brings about another problem. Because of the antiquated DNS system, for a while some servers will continue to ask our OLD nameservers for information instead of our NEW nameservers. This will probably result in mail delays for the cesmail.net and cqmail.net domains sporadically, although I don't expect any mail to bounce. I apologize about the hassle and inconvenience. We thought we had exercised good diligence in setting up the DNS. We still don't have an explanation as to why name-services.com is doing what they are doing. Once the transition is over, we expect that things will be smooth again. Please bear with us as we work to make sure that the system is as reliable as possible. Thanks JT > A couple of other Topics over there contain lots of > stuff that's been going on for a few days, trying to > get to the bottom of things. 3 pages of forum conversation here http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3001 -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From MikeE at ster.invalid Tue Nov 9 03:19:47 2004 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Tue Nov 9 06:20:08 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: {webmail,imap,mail}.spamcop.net not found? References: Message-ID: Setting fups to .mail WazoO wrote: > Michael Vilain >> I can't seem to access spamcop's imap server. Nor can I can I access >> webmail.spamcop.net from the web site to read my mail. There's no >> notice on the web site of any outage nor can I access >> mail.spamcop.net to see if there's anything specific. >> mail.cesmail.net returns no error or result from my local DNS server. >> >> What gives? Looks like the spamcop DNS server is seriously sick. >> Is it just me, or is this a problem for others? Any word on when it >> might be fixed? There's some news posted here http://webmail.spamcop.net/ System news from the last 24 hours Nov 9, 2004 [01:49 EST] We have a longer explanation of the whole DNS issue here. [ME: see below] Nov 8, 2004 [14:37 EST] In good news, we believe we have fixed the problem with fetching mail from AOL accounts. We have started doing this and all AOL accounts should start retrieving mail within the next several hours. [14:36 EST] We have been experiencing sporadic problems with our DNS provider for the last day or so. While all our testing looks OK, there is quite a bit of evidence that suggests they are returning wrong or no information at times. We have opened a ticket with them and, in the meantime, have eliminated any need for DNS for some internal mail handoffs which should get rid of most of the problem. We haven't made any DNS changes in weeks and the DNS provider has been very reliable for a year or more, so we hope we can get to the bottom of this quickly. We apologize for the inconvenience. > JT has been working overtime... as it turns out, an > explanation now exists in the web-Forums at > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3007 Posted by: jefft Today, 01:10 AM A couple of years ago, we began to take steps to help make the system more robust in the event of network failures or DOS attacks. We had always run two DNS servers, on two different networks. That gave us network redundancy, but when we experienced a DOS attack on the two nameservers, it pointed out a limitation in the network. It would be nice to expand to more servers, on more networks, and move those servers away from the main web and mail servers. That way, an attack on one wouldn't bring down the other. So, we moved DNS for spamcop.net to Akamai and for cesmail.net and cqmail.net to name-services.com, a paid DNS service run by the enom domain name registry. When testing them, they appeared to have about 8 nameservers spread across 5 different names, in 5 different geographic locations. And, for the last couple of years, we've had no problems with them at all. DNS has had 100% uptime and I'm not aware of any DNS-related issues. That all changed on Sunday when we started receiving complaints of sporadic DNS problems. It didn't appear to be a problem specific to our network because we had reports from different mailservers worldwide which couldn't resolve one or the other of the domain names. Obviously, something was going on but we've yet to actually see a query here that didn't succeed. Manual testing consistently shows good results from all of the name-services.com nameservers. I'm aware that dnsreport.com is reporting errors on our domain name, but it's clear that they don't test in real-time. They apparently cache results, either for the whole report or for individual lookups. Because of that, it's hard to tell whether an error they report is happening now or 10 minutes ago. Regardless of the testing, it's clear that there's a problem so we've begun the process of moving all DNS to a different DNS provider. Unfortunately, this brings about another problem. Because of the antiquated DNS system, for a while some servers will continue to ask our OLD nameservers for information instead of our NEW nameservers. This will probably result in mail delays for the cesmail.net and cqmail.net domains sporadically, although I don't expect any mail to bounce. I apologize about the hassle and inconvenience. We thought we had exercised good diligence in setting up the DNS. We still don't have an explanation as to why name-services.com is doing what they are doing. Once the transition is over, we expect that things will be smooth again. Please bear with us as we work to make sure that the system is as reliable as possible. Thanks JT > A couple of other Topics over there contain lots of > stuff that's been going on for a few days, trying to > get to the bottom of things. 3 pages of forum conversation here http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3001 -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From Kilgallen at SpamCop.net Wed Nov 10 08:29:22 2004 From: Kilgallen at SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Date: Wed Nov 10 09:30:13 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] How do I pick up IMAP mail ? Message-ID: >From two disparate locations on the internet, I cannot resolve mail.cesmail.net. A hint on a web pages says for POP email one can use pop.spamcop.net. Is there any alternative for those of us using IMAP or do we just have to wait for the worldwide DNS timeout ? From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Nov 10 06:47:55 2004 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Wed Nov 10 09:45:04 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: How do I pick up IMAP mail ? References: Message-ID: Larry Kilgallen wrote: > From two disparate locations on the internet, I cannot resolve > mail.cesmail.net. A hint on a web pages says for POP email one > can use pop.spamcop.net. Is there any alternative for those of > us using IMAP or do we just have to wait for the worldwide DNS > timeout ? You might temporarily hardcode what I get for mail.cesmail.net 216.154.195.50 -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From glnews030922 at highspot.net Wed Nov 10 15:04:16 2004 From: glnews030922 at highspot.net (Graeme Leith) Date: Wed Nov 10 10:00:06 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: How do I pick up IMAP mail ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Larry Kilgallen wrote: > From two disparate locations on the internet, I cannot resolve > mail.cesmail.net. A hint on a web pages says for POP email one > can use pop.spamcop.net. Is there any alternative for those of > us using IMAP or do we just have to wait for the worldwide DNS timeout ? imap.spamcop.net -- Evidence shows Cyveillance abuse internet resources. I recommend unchecking their box in SpamCop reports. Cyveillance are part of the problem. They are not part of the solution. From Kilgallen at SpamCop.net Wed Nov 10 10:18:48 2004 From: Kilgallen at SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Date: Wed Nov 10 11:20:02 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: How do I pick up IMAP mail ? References: Message-ID: In article , "Mike Easter" writes: > Larry Kilgallen wrote: >> From two disparate locations on the internet, I cannot resolve >> mail.cesmail.net. A hint on a web pages says for POP email one >> can use pop.spamcop.net. Is there any alternative for those of >> us using IMAP or do we just have to wait for the worldwide DNS >> timeout ? > > You might temporarily hardcode what I get for mail.cesmail.net > 216.154.195.50 Thanks, that worked fine. From Kilgallen at SpamCop.net Wed Nov 10 10:20:08 2004 From: Kilgallen at SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Date: Wed Nov 10 11:25:03 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: How do I pick up IMAP mail ? References: Message-ID: In article , Graeme Leith writes: > Larry Kilgallen wrote: >> From two disparate locations on the internet, I cannot resolve >> mail.cesmail.net. A hint on a web pages says for POP email one >> can use pop.spamcop.net. Is there any alternative for those of >> us using IMAP or do we just have to wait for the worldwide DNS timeout ? > > imap.spamcop.net As much as I prefer avoiding dotted quad, imap.spamcop.net gives me the same (non-)results as mail.cesmail.net, so I presume it is merely redirected to the mail.cesmail.net DNS entry. From jeffg at spamcop.net Wed Nov 10 11:43:48 2004 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Wed Nov 10 11:45:04 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: How do I pick up IMAP mail ? References: Message-ID: Larry Kilgallen organized electrons in article news:Ne5r$NmTmsxH@eisner.encompasserve.org that appeared as follows: > From two disparate locations on the internet, I cannot resolve > mail.cesmail.net. A hint on a web pages says for POP email one > can use pop.spamcop.net. Is there any alternative for those of > us using IMAP or do we just have to wait for the worldwide DNS > timeout ? As I wrote in http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3007&view=findpost&p=19942 : all of the following should work at present to access that Server, but some may not work for you for the next few days: pop.spamcop.net (this is the "right" one for POP3) imap.spamcop.net (this is the "right" one for IMAP4) mail.spamcop.net (provides limited HTTP support) 216.154.195.50 (if all else fails) pop.cesmail.net (backup for POP3) imap.cesmail.net (backup for IMAP4) mail.cesmail.net (backup for HTTP) -- Best Regards, Jeff G. I have been a SpamCop User/Member/Customer since 1999 and am a Moderator of the new web-based forums (now the primary method for getting help, http://forum.spamcop.net). Please reply via Forum, Group, or List only. From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Nov 10 09:05:36 2004 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Wed Nov 10 12:05:02 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: How do I pick up IMAP mail ? References: Message-ID: Larry Kilgallen wrote: >> imap.spamcop.net > > As much as I prefer avoiding dotted quad, imap.spamcop.net gives me > the same (non-)results as mail.cesmail.net, so I presume it is merely > redirected to the mail.cesmail.net DNS entry. That is correct. Request for the A record for imap.spamcop.net at ns1-93.akam.net just gives the cname mail.cesmail.net. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From Kilgallen at SpamCop.net Wed Nov 10 11:32:27 2004 From: Kilgallen at SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Date: Wed Nov 10 12:35:03 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: How do I pick up IMAP mail ? References: Message-ID: In article , "Jeff G." writes: > As I wrote in > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3007&view=findpost&p=19942 : > all of the following should work at present to access that Server, but > some may not work for you for the next few days: > pop.spamcop.net (this is the "right" one for POP3) > imap.spamcop.net (this is the "right" one for IMAP4) > mail.spamcop.net (provides limited HTTP support) > 216.154.195.50 (if all else fails) > pop.cesmail.net (backup for POP3) > imap.cesmail.net (backup for IMAP4) > mail.cesmail.net (backup for HTTP) Since you seem to be allowed NNTP access, it is too bad you did not post it here before. From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Thu Nov 11 17:40:13 2004 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (WazoO) Date: Thu Nov 11 18:45:11 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: {webmail,imap,mail}.spamcop.net not found? References: Message-ID: > wrote in message news:vilain-637E49.21265908112004@news.cesmail.net... > > What gives? Looks like the spamcop DNS server is seriously sick. Is it > just me, or is this a problem for others? Any word on when it might be > fixed? JT just posted a bit of response from name-service .. they admit to "making a little change" last week-end which resulted in them getting a "number" of complaints .. the SpamCop "mail" servers being only one of that mix. As JT solved the major issue by going elsewhere, kind of moot, but the rest of the story is now known. http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3007&view=findpost&p=20078 From MikeE at ster.invalid Thu Nov 11 16:55:58 2004 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Thu Nov 11 19:55:20 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: {webmail,imap,mail}.spamcop.net not found? References: Message-ID: WazoO wrote: > JT just posted a bit of response from name-service .. they admit > to "making a little change" last week-end which resulted in > them getting a "number" of complaints .. the SpamCop > "mail" servers being only one of that mix. As JT solved > the major issue by going elsewhere, kind of moot, but > the rest of the story is now known. > > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3007&view=findpost&p=20078 I read what JT sed there. I think it was smart for him to change the service. During all of this problems, I would get different kinds of results over at dnsstuff, depending upon how I went about 'examining' the domainname's dns results; but thru' it all my own little 'dumb' combination of how Win works and how SSpers works and how my own nameserver works kept giving me 'good' [all things considered] information. That is, I could get the mx/es to resolve. Now I have to 'look at' this 0000 information, which I think is 'dumb'. 11/11/04 16:27:22 dns cesmail.net Mail for cesmail.net is handled by mx2.cesmail.net mx.cesmail.net Canonical name: cesmail.net Addresses: 0.0.0.0 Similar for the dig, which asks the authoritative nameserver, not just mine which is an EL mindspring one. Previously that cesmail itself would not resolve; so that has changed. I don't know whether it is a better idea to have something resolve like that or to not resolve at all. To me, it makes more sense to have it not resolve at all, then to resolve with a 'funny' IP address. I don't think it is important for cesmail.net to resolve to 'something' - where something is 'not real'. It needs to have everything 'in order' about its nameservice and its mx/es -- it doesn't have to resolve to an IP address, especially not a 'screwy' one. Currently, everything is basically 'in order' at dnsstuff at the report, except for the duplicate mx records http://www.dnsreport.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=cesmail.net -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From felch at grogan.com Fri Nov 12 14:04:24 2004 From: felch at grogan.com (felch) Date: Thu Nov 11 22:10:02 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] has anyone seen this ? => http://vww.spamcop.com/ Message-ID: http://vww.spamcop.com/ This site looks like soemthing you shouldn't touch with a barge pole. From jeffg at spamcop.net Thu Nov 11 22:05:57 2004 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Thu Nov 11 22:30:12 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: {webmail,imap,mail}.spamcop.net not found? References: Message-ID: Mike Easter organized electrons in article news:cn11gq$a0f$1@news.spamcop.net that appeared as follows: > Currently, everything is basically 'in order' at dnsstuff at the > report, except for the duplicate mx records > > http://www.dnsreport.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=cesmail.net I'm guessing that JT's rationalization for those duplicate A records for the cesmail.net mailservers is that they are for redundancy and/or load distribution. However, if the first mailserver name chosen is down but the other mailserver is up, with this configuration there is a 50% chance (or possibly 100% if the sender's resolver doesn't randomize) that the second one chosen will also be down, whereas if each mailserver name had only one IP Address, that chance would go down to 0%. OTOH, with both mailservers up the vast majority of the time, there is a strong argument for load distribution. A couple of alternative scenarios for reducing normal load would be: have a more powerful primary mailserver; or have two or more mailservers hiding behind one IP Address and load-balancing session-sensitive hardware. I have posted essentially the same info at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3007&view=findpost&p=20095 . -- Best Regards, Jeff G. I have been a SpamCop User/Member/Customer since 1999 and am a Moderator of the new web-based forums (now the primary method for getting help, http://forum.spamcop.net). Please reply via Forum, Group, or List only. From bwvilla at gmail.com Mon Nov 15 13:41:20 2004 From: bwvilla at gmail.com (nw1ben) Date: Mon Nov 15 08:40:04 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] webmail cookies/user info Message-ID: This has been bugging me for ages... When I login to spamcop webmail using Linux/Mozilla-Firefox, it always defaults my language to "English (American)"... which is a problem, as I need "English (British)". However, when I login to webmail using WinXP/Mozilla the default is (correctly) "English (British)". I have my language set to "English (British)" in Options/Locale and Time. I've checked the cookies stored in Mozilla and could only find one from Spamcop (named "Horde") which I've now deleted. Made no difference to the default language in webmail though. How do I sort this out? Is it an issue with Spamcop's cookies, Spamcop's website, or something to do with how Spamcop's webmail works with Mozilla/Linux? Any pointers/thoughts appreciated. Thanks - Ben ps. Strictly speaking, shouldn't it be "English (United Kingdom)" anyway?! From gavan+mail_list at spamcop.net Tue Nov 16 13:18:19 2004 From: gavan+mail_list at spamcop.net (Gavan Schneider) Date: Mon Nov 15 21:18:26 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] webmail cookies/user info In-Reply-To: Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On or about 2004-11-15 12:41 AM (-0000) nw1ben wrote: >ps. Strictly speaking, shouldn't it be "English (United Kingdom)" >anyway?! > Only if an English version is also supported for Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, India, etc. There are many places outside the USA and UK where English is spoken. Mostly the spelling is the same as in the UK so the option "English (British)" will work for the rest of us. I doubt there would be widespread acceptance for "English (United Kingdom and places previously exploited by the United Kingdom)" since this designation is too long and not universally applicable to Canadians. The "real" problem is finding some decal (or icon) other than the national flag of the USA and/or UK to denote the language choice for "English" on the web. Regards Gavan (speaking in jest, mostly) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP SDK 3.2.2 iQA/AwUBQZlja886FtnpdFMWEQKm8QCcDhPwh6HKxi8hXydqCoqYJEnB1JIAoNOD fUcRpDMeYO60cHbbuZVPBNKL =VI82 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jsphoto at hrtc.net Tue Nov 16 00:06:50 2004 From: jsphoto at hrtc.net (JSPhoto) Date: Tue Nov 16 00:10:03 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Get rid of this crap! Message-ID: Who are you to arbitrarily start blocking my god damn email? get rid of this shit or I'll sue someone. I never signed up for this fucking shit and I don't want this fucking shit blocking my mail! JSPhoto From pete at heypete.com Mon Nov 15 21:41:56 2004 From: pete at heypete.com (Pete Stephenson) Date: Tue Nov 16 00:45:03 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Get rid of this crap! References: Message-ID: In article , "JSPhoto" wrote: > Who are you to arbitrarily start blocking my god damn email? get rid of > this shit or I'll sue someone. I never signed up for this fucking shit and I > don't want this fucking shit blocking my mail! [posted and emailed] JSPhoto, I'm replying to you as a private individual, not as a representative of SpamCop. Before anyone would be able to properly assist you, you would need to provide additional information. Specifically, the exact error message and IP address of the blocked system would be extremely helpful. Any additional information you could provide would also lend itself to a more appropriate reply. Secondly, there is no need for foul language or threatening behavior. Such language and behavior is not welcome here and will not encourage people to work with you to resolve the issue you're having. Similarly, since you threatened legal action, I very much doubt that a) people will take you seriously, and b) that anyone will assist you for fear of being included in any lawsuit you might file. That said, I'm perfectly willing to assist you to the best of my ability in resolving this issue if you fulfill two requirements: 1) Provide the precise error message that indicated that your mail was being blocked and referred you to SpamCop. 2) Withdraw your threat of legal action. I cannot assist you if I am being threatened with legal action. Optionally, it'd be excellent if you would provide additional information that may be useful in determining why, precisely, your mail was blocked. Please note that I reserve the right to publicly post in this or other SpamCop newsgroups any emailed replies that you might make, unless I believe them to contain private information not suitable for public posting. Cheers! -- Pete Stephenson HeyPete.com From MikeE at ster.invalid Mon Nov 15 22:01:17 2004 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Tue Nov 16 01:05:13 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Get rid of this crap! References: Message-ID: JSPhoto wrote: > Who are you to arbitrarily start blocking my god damn email? get rid > of this shit or I'll sue someone. I never signed up for this fucking > shit and I don't want this fucking shit blocking my mail! Well, that's a nice little rant, but not one that is helpful to figure out which IP address is being ranted about. Blocklists block IP addresses. The IP address you are posting from is 64.184.11.109 rDNS 64-184-11-109.bb.hrtc.net which is not spamcop SCbl listed, nor in other db/s. Your mail mx hoist.hrtc.net DNS 204.8.8.24 is also not listed. However, it shows a recent jump in its activity at senderbase, and so do a number of other hrtc.net IPs, but I don't know what that is all about. I wasn't able to find any listings, so if you really want to talk about something, you'll have to express exactly what IP address you are alleging someone is blocking. While you are getting ready to do that, it may be useful for you to know that spamcop doesn't block anything. Spamcop is a parsing and reporting service which also maintains a blocklist and tags spam for its mail customers. Other providers, who may use the SCbl as a spam defense may have blocked your mail. But we can't talk about that until you start talking about just what IP address's mail got blocked, because it isn't apparent from the rant. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From pete at heypete.com Mon Nov 15 22:16:40 2004 From: pete at heypete.com (Pete Stephenson) Date: Tue Nov 16 01:20:02 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Get rid of this crap! References: Message-ID: On 11/16/04 12:51 AM -0500, John wrote: [reply to email message from John] > First off, I have EVERY right to threaten legal action and will do so > unless whoever, be it some moron at my iSP or some other idiot > somehow started blocking my email. As for legal action, I will do > whets appropriate considering I can't even send my photos now, which > is taking money from me. I'm afraid that case law and precedent would disagree with you. I can supply case information of similar lawsuits, once you retract your legal threat. In short: Businesses with substantially deeper pockets than you have sued organizations maintaining lists similar to SpamCop's and have either lost or settled out of court. > Second, I don't se how, since you are not affiliated with this that > you could do anything to fix it. More than likely it will come down > to my ignorant ISP changing things and again not telling anyone. I would be able to explain precisely why your mail is being blocked and what could be done to resolve the issue. > For anyone to arbitrarily block another's email without notice is not > only ignorant it should be illegal, especially when it affects > someone's business. SpamCop is not blocking your mail. Instead, it is publishing (which is covered by the First Amendment in the United States, according to case law) a list of IP addresses that meet certain criteria (such as having X number of spam reports in a certain time period). The receiving mail system is the entity that is blocking your mail, based on the listing in SpamCop's database. Since you have refused to retract your demands of legal action, I am afraid that I cannot assist you further. I seriously doubt that anyone would open themselves up to the liability of being sued, even in a baseless lawsuit, for helping someone with an attitude such as yours. If you wish to re-consider your position and retract your threat of legal action, I remain willing to assist you. Until you retract that threat, I will not assist you. I seriously doubt that anyone else will either. Cheers! -- Pete Stephenson HeyPete.com From jsphoto at hrtc.net Tue Nov 16 01:18:24 2004 From: jsphoto at hrtc.net (JSPhoto) Date: Tue Nov 16 01:20:05 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Get rid of this crap! References: Message-ID: LOL, some service they have here, two replies and niether one works for the shit site. all i know is this crap started blocking both incoming and outgoing email. As far as I know the ISP got this crap and now suddenly it's affecting MY business. I can't send photos, which is my business and on a side business I do geneaolgy research for people. For years I have dealt with people on rootsweb, and as it turns out they are blocking rootsweb as well, now I have been booted from all of rootswebs lists because of this shit, and I can't email photos. I now have to drive 45 miles tonight to get photos to a newspaper, plus pay $2 a gallon for gas...pissed, damn right I'm pissed, I didn't sign up for this crap and it's affecting MY business! JSPhoto "Mike Easter" wrote in message news:cnc53b$flq$1@news.spamcop.net... > > Well, that's a nice little rant, but not one that is helpful to figure > out which IP address is being ranted about. Blocklists block IP > addresses. The IP address you are posting from is 64.184.11.109 rDNS > 64-184-11-109.bb.hrtc.net which is not spamcop SCbl listed, nor in > other db/s. Your mail mx hoist.hrtc.net DNS 204.8.8.24 is also not > listed. > > However, it shows a recent jump in its activity at senderbase, and so do > a number of other hrtc.net IPs, but I don't know what that is all about. > I wasn't able to find any listings, so if you really want to talk about > something, you'll have to express exactly what IP address you are > alleging someone is blocking. > > While you are getting ready to do that, it may be useful for you to know > that spamcop doesn't block anything. Spamcop is a parsing and reporting > service which also maintains a blocklist and tags spam for its mail > customers. Other providers, who may use the SCbl as a spam defense may > have blocked your mail. But we can't talk about that until you start > talking about just what IP address's mail got blocked, because it isn't > apparent from the rant. > > -- > Mike Easter > kibitzer, not SC admin > From pete at heypete.com Mon Nov 15 22:35:02 2004 From: pete at heypete.com (Pete Stephenson) Date: Tue Nov 16 01:40:03 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Get rid of this crap! References: Message-ID: In article , "JSPhoto" wrote: > LOL, some service they have here, two replies and niether one works for the > shit site. Indeed. But we are willing to help you diagnose the problem and provide you with information on resolving the situation. However, I doubt that Mr. Easter is willing to work while under the threat of a lawsuit. I know I'm not. > all i know is this crap started blocking both incoming and outgoing email. > As far as I know the ISP got this crap and now suddenly it's affecting MY > business. I can't send photos, which is my business and on a side business I > do geneaolgy research for people. For years I have dealt with people on > rootsweb, and as it turns out they are blocking rootsweb as well, now I have > been booted from all of rootswebs lists because of this shit, and I can't > email photos. I now have to drive 45 miles tonight to get photos to a > newspaper, plus pay $2 a gallon for gas...pissed, damn right I'm pissed, I > didn't sign up for this crap and it's affecting MY business! I'm not terribly concerned if this situation is causing you to lose a dollar or ten million dollars. Your attitude and language is reprehensible, you've provided no useful information whatsoever that would assist people in determining precisely what's going on, and in your first message you immediately threaten legal action. If you wish to follow through with your threat of legal action, you're more than welcome to attempt to sue SpamCop. I would consider yourself lucky if you found a lawyer to take up the case. I'd consider yourself even luckier if you managed to not lose thousands of dollars in attorney's fees unsuccessfully suing SpamCop. Your chances of winning such a suit are practically nil. As the saying goes, "put up or shut up". If you wish to retract your threat, provide useful information, and treat the people in this forum with respect, I at least would be willing to assist you. Until then, you're on your own. Good luck with the lawsuit. -- Pete Stephenson HeyPete.com From MikeE at ster.invalid Mon Nov 15 22:46:33 2004 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Tue Nov 16 01:50:03 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Get rid of this crap! References: Message-ID: JSPhoto wrote: > LOL, some service they have here, two replies and niether one works > for the shit site. I guess you don't know what IP you're talking about. That makes you 'helpless'. Bzzzt. Sorry, try again next time. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From pete at heypete.com Mon Nov 15 23:02:41 2004 From: pete at heypete.com (Pete Stephenson) Date: Tue Nov 16 02:05:03 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Get rid of this crap! References: Message-ID: On 11/16/04 1:38 AM -0500, John wrote: > LOL, if your so certain I couldn't sue why are you so afraid of it? Maybe > because your wrong? I have done it before, I'll do it again. I won't retract > anything, but I will be in touch with my attorney in the morning. The nice > thing is that when I have had to go that route things get fixed quickly, and > they pay up quickly as well. Something to do with him, no one wants to fight > it out with the guy, guess his reputation proceeds him. I am a private individual and small businessman not affiliated with SpamCop other than being a user. I do not wish to be involved with any sort of lawsuit involving SpamCop. Good Samaritans and innocent bystanders tend to get hit with "cross fire" in lawsuits of this nature. Also, I do not appreciate your attitude of barging in here, cursing up a storm, and immediately threatening legal action. That does not encourage others to assist you. Thus, I will absolutely refuse to assist you further until you retract your threat of legal action. I don't know who your lawyer is, nor do I care. Even if you were to sue me, I could care less about his reputation. What ultimately matters is the validity of your case. According to my interpreation of case law, your case is groundless. I'm not a laywer, though I'm sure your lawyer will tell you that. If he doesn't, I suggest getting another lawyer. I was previously employed by a similar company, the Mail Abuse Prevention System, LLC (http://mail-abuse.org/) that was sued for similar charges and did not lose a single case. Several were settled out of court, but I am not privy to the precise details. I'm sure court records would hold more information. > As for case law, he more case law than you could come up with in 10 years. Good for him. Unfortunately, your case still is groundless. You're more than welcome to embarrass yourself in court if you're so inclined. Either way, it won't fix the issue you're having. It'd be cheaper, easier, and far more polite to simply retract your legal threat, provide the exact error message that caused you to be referred to SpamCop, and work with myself and others in the community to resolve the issue. > The AP thought they had a good thing too, til he squashed them. He has > handled 12 photo related cases as well for me and never had a problem, nor > has he had trouble getting something like this resolved for another client. Bragging about how wonderful your lawyer is will not impress me. > So, you may think you know the law but obviously not well enough. Anyway, > why are you so afraid to explain the sudden blockage? I wouldn't go after > someone who helped, but I would the one who caused the problems..,, Regardless of the nature of your replies, until you retract your threat of legal action I will not assist you in resolving this matter. Upon your retraction, and once you provide the precise error message I would be more than willing to help you to the best of my ability. -- Pete Stephenson HeyPete.com From pete at heypete.com Tue Nov 16 00:54:02 2004 From: pete at heypete.com (Pete Stephenson) Date: Tue Nov 16 03:55:20 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Get rid of this crap! References: Message-ID: > > Also, I do not appreciate your attitude of barging in here, cursing > > up a storm, and immediately threatening legal action. That does not > > encourage others to assist you. > > Well too bad for you! LOL, then you should have kept your pie hole > shut and let the morons who run SpamCop deal with it. Sounds to me > like your trying to drum up business through them. I don't appreciate > my email being hi-jacked by some fucked up company that I didn't sign > up with, and I'll bitch all I want, especially when it's costing me > money and customers. What was that old saying, "You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar"? Perhaps if you were to calmly introduce yourself to the forum, indicate what you had an issue with, provide evidence in the form of an error message, and were cooperative and polite others would be willing to assist you. You are not my paying customer, and I am under no obligation to assist you. I am doing so as a courtesy, yet your behavior continues to be brutish, crude, and abusive. Your continued persistence at not cooperating is making me less and less inclined to assist you, and I'm one of the more patient individuals in this forum. What possible reason would I have for wanting to "drum up business through them"? I've been a customer for years, and have been very satisfied with SpamCop. I have nothing to gain financially through any actions you take. Instead, I've been perfectly willing to assist you with the issue you're having with two conditions: 1) You retract your threat of legal action, and 2) You provide the exact error message that referred you to SpamCop. So far, you've done neither. Thus, even if I were inclined to help you under legal threat, you've provided no information useful for assisting you. These community forums are populated by users of SpamCop's service. The guys who run it occasionally come by, but most issues can be handled by us volunteers. If there's something we can't help with, we can refer you to the guys who run it. > BTW, reposting or resending of private email is a copyright > violation. If you were so smart you'd know that though... Really? I never saw any copyright notice in any of your emails. Additionally, I made it quite clear in my original reply to you that I reserved the right to post copies of any email I received from you. By replying, you agreed to those conditions. If you'd care to provide me with any case law indicating that the contents of a private email are prohibited from being copied, I'd certainly be glad to reconsider my actions. I again must refuse to assist you in this regard unless you retract your threat of legal action and provide the exact error message that referred you to SpamCop. Without both of those conditions being fufilled, I cannot assist you. Continuing to reply to me by email will result in similar responses. If you wish to sue SpamCop, you're more than welcome to. I seriously doubt that your case has any grounds and if brought to court would likely be dismissed. Unfortunately, suing SpamCop would likely result in significant expenditures of money, time, and energy for minimal result. You could achieve a far better result much more easily and efficiently by simply complying with the two above conditions. If you insist on suing SpamCop, then I recommend that you cease blustering to me by email and arrange for your lawyer to serve SpamCop with a suit. You're not accomplishing anything by doing the former and likely will accomplish less by doing the latter. Good day. -- Pete Stephenson HeyPete.com From Kilgallen at SpamCop.net Tue Nov 16 08:34:08 2004 From: Kilgallen at SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Date: Tue Nov 16 09:35:03 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Get rid of this crap! References: Message-ID: <0lJ$Rbm9IFfI@eisner.encompasserve.org> In article , Pete Stephenson writes: > On 11/16/04 1:38 AM -0500, John wrote: >> LOL, if your so certain I couldn't sue why are you so afraid of it? Maybe >> because your wrong? I have done it before, I'll do it again. I won't retract >> anything, but I will be in touch with my attorney in the morning. The nice >> thing is that when I have had to go that route things get fixed quickly, and >> they pay up quickly as well. Something to do with him, no one wants to fight >> it out with the guy, guess his reputation proceeds him. > > I am a private individual and small businessman not affiliated with > SpamCop other than being a user. I do not wish to be involved with any > sort of lawsuit involving SpamCop. Good Samaritans and innocent > bystanders tend to get hit with "cross fire" in lawsuits of this nature. Please do not presume that Pete's viewpoint represents all of us. For my part, threats of a lawsuit are immaterial compared to the overriding principle of not assisting a potty mouth. From Merlyn at Spamcop.net Tue Nov 16 10:37:31 2004 From: Merlyn at Spamcop.net (Merlyn) Date: Tue Nov 16 10:40:02 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Get rid of this crap! References: Message-ID: "JSPhoto" wrote in message news:cnc1t4$b93$1@news.spamcop.net... > Who are you to arbitrarily start blocking my god damn email? ha ha ha ha ha ha......... Wait I can't stop laughing..... > get rid of > this shit ha ha ha ha ha ha......... ok, wait, I will stop, hang on...... > or I'll sue someone. ha ha ha ha ha ha......... Stop being so funny. I want to stop laughing but I can't. ha ha ha ha ha ha......... ok, ok, I think I can stop now....... > I never signed up for this fucking shit and I > don't want this fucking shit blocking my mail! ha ha ha ha ha ha......... ha ha ha ha ha ha......... ha ha ha ha ha ha......... I lied! -- Regards, Merlyn A Spamcop advocate No emails this account is for newsgroups only People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoided From pete at heypete.com Tue Nov 16 10:46:38 2004 From: pete at heypete.com (Pete Stephenson) Date: Tue Nov 16 13:50:14 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Get rid of this crap! References: <0lJ$Rbm9IFfI@eisner.encompasserve.org> Message-ID: In article <0lJ$Rbm9IFfI@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote: > Please do not presume that Pete's viewpoint represents all of us. Indeed. In case it wasn't clear, I do not speak for anyone other than myself. I was merely basing my assumption that few, if any others would assist John based on the past history of several of the "regulars". As they say in NANAE, "tinw". > For my part, threats of a lawsuit are immaterial compared to the > overriding principle of not assisting a potty mouth. That too. :) -- Pete Stephenson HeyPete.com From Alexis at NotBob.frop Tue Nov 16 21:18:29 2004 From: Alexis at NotBob.frop (Alexis) Date: Tue Nov 16 21:20:03 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Get rid of this crap! References: Message-ID: "Merlyn" wrote in message news:cnd6rr$ug8$1@news.spamcop.net... > "JSPhoto" wrote in message > news:cnc1t4$b93$1@news.spamcop.net... >> Who are you to arbitrarily start blocking my god damn email? > > ha ha ha ha ha ha......... > > Wait I can't stop laughing..... > >> get rid of >> this shit > > ha ha ha ha ha ha......... > > ok, wait, I will stop, hang on...... > >> or I'll sue someone. > > ha ha ha ha ha ha......... > > Stop being so funny. I want to stop laughing but I can't. > > ha ha ha ha ha ha......... > > ok, ok, I think I can stop now....... > >> I never signed up for this fucking shit and I >> don't want this fucking shit blocking my mail! > > ha ha ha ha ha ha......... > > ha ha ha ha ha ha......... > > ha ha ha ha ha ha......... > > I lied! > > -- > > Regards, > Merlyn > > A Spamcop advocate > No emails this account is for newsgroups only > People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought > which they avoided I am waiting for someone to educate him about the evils of top-posting now. Teeheehee From me at privacy.net Tue Nov 16 22:54:18 2004 From: me at privacy.net (Frog Prince) Date: Tue Nov 16 23:00:08 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Get rid of this crap! References: Message-ID: "Pete Stephenson" | | > BTW, reposting or resending of private email is a copyright | > violation. If you were so smart you'd know that though... Actually mail belongs to the RECIPIENT to do with as he sees fit which can be to sell, rent, lone or publish. From me at privacy.net Tue Nov 16 23:00:03 2004 From: me at privacy.net (Frog Prince) Date: Tue Nov 16 23:10:02 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Get rid of this crap! References: Message-ID: "Pete Stephenson" | If you wish to re-consider your position and retract your threat of | legal action, I remain willing to assist you. Until you retract that | threat, I will not assist you. I seriously doubt that anyone else will | either. I'll be happy to assist him ... the door is that way ==> watch out for the knob on your way out. From gavan+mail_list at spamcop.net Wed Nov 17 20:14:39 2004 From: gavan+mail_list at spamcop.net (Gavan Schneider) Date: Wed Nov 17 04:14:48 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Get rid of this crap! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On or about 2004-11-16 02:54 PM (-0500) Frog Prince wrote: > >"Pete Stephenson" >| >| > BTW, reposting or resending of private email is a copyright >| > violation. If you were so smart you'd know that though... > >Actually mail belongs to the RECIPIENT to do with as he sees fit which >can be to sell, rent, lone or publish. > Correct, but the ownership of the letter content, ie., copyright, remains with the original author. Under copyright law people have some rights to quote copyright material. The exact details of this depends on the laws of each country. It is always a good idea to acknowledge the author when quoting them. These comments are general principles and not legal advice, and I am not qualified to give legal advice in any country. Another question. Are people using their correct names? Is the "Pete Stephenson" of this thread the same as the one found at and does "I never signed up for ..." jive with this comment on that web page: "In fact, HeyPete.com owner Pete Stephenson is a SpamCon Foundation Member, former employee of the Mail Abuse Prevention System, volunteer for SpamCop ..." Note: SpamCon is not a misspelling of SpamCop. It appears the real Pete Stephenson should know more than enough to not carry on like this in this forum. Which means the person calling himself "Pete Stephenson" may be an old fashioned internet troll. . While I have nothing personal against trolls I understand it is better to not answer their emails, or continue threads they have started :-) Regards Gavan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP SDK 3.2.2 iQA/AwUBQZsWfs86FtnpdFMWEQLvvwCdHpocOXEnOIP+GdanwEY0NhJ7ddgAn33L 1oMBM3tgOpDdC/4xY9HmP/Po =oT6c -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From pete at heypete.com Wed Nov 17 01:59:42 2004 From: pete at heypete.com (Pete Stephenson) Date: Wed Nov 17 05:00:49 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Get rid of this crap! References: Message-ID: In article , Gavan Schneider wrote: > Another question. Are people using their correct names? I, for one, am and have been for several years. > Is the "Pete Stephenson" of this thread the same as the one found at > and does "I never signed up for ..." jive with > this comment on that web page: > "In fact, HeyPete.com owner Pete Stephenson is a SpamCon > Foundation Member, former employee of the Mail Abuse > Prevention System, volunteer for SpamCop ..." That most certainly is me, and I am all of those things. I also am a "deputy" of SpamCop, and have volunteered my services on numerous occasions in the past several years. I have recently not been very involved with the "deputy" duties, mostly due to my time in the army and the demands of education. For what it's worth, I can provide a PGP signature attesting to my identity. My key has been signed by several others, including a Non-Commissioned Officer in the United States Army, my immediate superior for several months. If you happen to be in California, I can prove my identity to you in person by means of California Drivers License and Military ID. A far more simpler method would be to simply compare the IP address that I'm posting with (64.81.243.220 -- dsl081-243-220.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net) with the IP address of mail.heypete.com, the MX on record for HeyPete.com. You will find that they match. The system running the HeyPete.com mail server (which provides mail to myself and the role accounts for HeyPete.com) is running on that DSL connection. Indeed, I could simply put a "Hi Gavan" note up on HeyPete.com for a few minutes if that would help prove my identity. There are numerous other ways of verifying my identity (writing analysis, etc.) that I'll leave up to you to determine. > Note: SpamCon is not a misspelling of SpamCop. Indeed. It is spelled correctly. I am indeed a "Member" of SpamCon, having donated a specified sum of money to them. > It appears the real Pete Stephenson should know more than enough to not > carry on like this in this forum. Which means the person calling himself > "Pete Stephenson" may be an old fashioned internet troll. > . I take great offense at the implication that I am a troll. > While I have nothing personal against trolls I understand it is better to > not answer their emails, or continue threads they have started :-) Although hostile and crude, the originator of this thread did seem to have a legitimate gripe that he felt needed resolution. I offered my services as a volunteer based on two (IMHO, reasonable) conditions. I don't mind working with hostile people most of the time, as long as they don't threaten to sue me. Cheers! -- Pete Stephenson HeyPete.com From gavan+mail_list at spamcop.net Wed Nov 17 21:24:19 2004 From: gavan+mail_list at spamcop.net (Gavan Schneider) Date: Wed Nov 17 05:24:46 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Apology (was: Get rid of this crap!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [Top posted to allow easy context recognition.] This is simply to apologise to Pete and commend his reply to me as most remarkable in its restraint. I have no "excuse". I lost track of who had said what. I am embarassed. Regards Gavan On or about 2004-11-17 08:59 PM (-0800) Pete Stephenson wrote: >> It appears the real Pete Stephenson should know more than enough to >> not carry on like this in this forum. Which means the person calling >> himself "Pete Stephenson" may be an old fashioned internet troll. >> . > >I take great offense at the implication that I am a troll. > >> While I have nothing personal against trolls I understand it is >> better to not answer their emails, or continue threads they have >> started :-) > >Although hostile and crude, the originator of this thread did seem to >have a legitimate gripe that he felt needed resolution. I offered my >services as a volunteer based on two (IMHO, reasonable) conditions. I >don't mind working with hostile people most of the time, as long as they >don't threaten to sue me. > >Cheers! > >-- >Pete Stephenson >HeyPete.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP SDK 3.2.2 iQA/AwUBQZsm0886FtnpdFMWEQLoagCgt9YVYj1e82cL6rLsQJ7zEV1b1KoAn3Jn P4Q5LkgUzaMgIaDBA8c5BuCz =JFxg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From me at privacy.net Wed Nov 17 08:25:25 2004 From: me at privacy.net (Frog Prince) Date: Wed Nov 17 08:30:15 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Get rid of this crap! References: Message-ID: "Gavan Schneider" > >Actually mail belongs to the RECIPIENT to do with as he sees fit which >can be to sell, rent, lone or publish. > Correct, but the ownership of the letter content, ie., copyright, remains with the original author. Under copyright law people have some rights to quote copyright material. The exact details of this depends on the laws of each country. It is always a good idea to acknowledge the author when quoting them. Lacking any formal reserving of the ownership of the copyright in most instances the sending of the letter is sufficient to transfer the copyright to the recipient. From me at privacy.net Wed Nov 17 08:28:19 2004 From: me at privacy.net (Frog Prince) Date: Wed Nov 17 08:30:16 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Get rid of this crap! References: Message-ID: "Pete Stephenson" | Although hostile and crude, the originator of this thread did seem to | have a legitimate gripe that he felt needed resolution. I offered my | services as a volunteer based on two (IMHO, reasonable) conditions. I | don't mind working with hostile people most of the time, as long as they | don't threaten to sue me. The key point is that you (nor anyone for that matter) are not compelled to deal with this individual. From pete at heypete.com Wed Nov 17 07:49:59 2004 From: pete at heypete.com (Pete Stephenson) Date: Wed Nov 17 10:50:02 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Apology (was: Get rid of this crap!) References: Message-ID: In article , Gavan Schneider wrote: > This is simply to apologise to Pete and commend his reply to me as most > remarkable in its restraint. > > I have no "excuse". I lost track of who had said what. I am embarassed. Not a problem. ;) No offense taken, and I apologize in return if my reply was offensive in the slightest. Next time you're in Northern California, I'll buy you a drink. In a way, your message prompted a brief moment of creativity -- being that I can't very well walk up to someone online and display my ID card(s), what ways exist that I could prove my identity to someone who don't know me from the next guy? PGP keys are great, if you've mutually exchanged keys in a secure method so you can be assured of the other's identity but aren't so great for as a general means of identity. You got the ol' brain juices flowing, and at a late hour of the night after a few hours of homework. That's hard to do. :) -- Pete Stephenson HeyPete.com From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Nov 17 08:22:40 2004 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Wed Nov 17 11:25:14 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Apology (was: Get rid of this crap!) References: Message-ID: Pete Stephenson wrote: > PGP keys are great, if you've > mutually exchanged keys in a secure method so you can be assured of > the other's identity but aren't so great for as a general means of > identity. The pgp key would be the way to do it from a matter of 'practicality' - ie you post your key at your website and clearsign here and Gavan satisfy himself that that web pete is 'this' pete, just as he might do sorta with the IP. It isn't perfect and it isn't the same thing as 'trusted' in the pgp sense if some kind of /really/ trusted correspondence had to evolve between the two of you; where you had to /know/ it was really 'gavan' and gavan had to /know/ that it was really 'you' - that is, the two people who exchanged keys face to face. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From gavan+mail_list at spamcop.net Thu Nov 18 05:15:27 2004 From: gavan+mail_list at spamcop.net (Gavan Schneider) Date: Wed Nov 17 13:15:40 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] [OT] PGP key trust (Was: Apology ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 This is now way off topic. Unless SpamCop mail is planning to use some sort of signed mail validation service. On or about 2004-11-17 02:49 AM (-0800) Pete Stephenson wrote: >In a way, your message prompted a brief moment of creativity -- being >that I can't very well walk up to someone online and display my ID >card(s), what ways exist that I could prove my identity to someone who >don't know me from the next guy? PGP keys are great, > and, AFAIK their invention was motivated to solve this problem. More correctly it was the Diffie-Hellman invention of the split-key that solved this problem. The original PGP shareware program used this idea, along with RSA and the rest has been history. >if you've mutually exchanged keys in a secure method so you can be >assured of the other's identity > strictly speaking if you did this you would then have no special need for PGP. Your messages to each other can be protected with this shared secret key. And you have full confidance in who has the key (at least in the beginning). >but aren't so great for as a general means of identity. > The problem with a shared secret is that it stops being a secret if used in wider circles to prove identity or digitally sign documents. Then you have to use the split key. Once the key is split there is only the need to keep the secret part "secret" and you share that with nobody. The public part can be told to the world. This removes the need to meet people and share the secret key, ie., I have lost my excuse for going to North California. So the original problem still exists. How do I know the person using a particular email address and PGP signature is who they say they are? At a basic level I can send Pete a message encrypted with his public key and signed with my private key. He can send a reply to me along the reverse lines. Once we have done that we know the person reading the email at the the email address has access to the secret half of the PGP key. We may not know who the other person is but we can communicate in a secure manner. At the next level one of us could phone the other and we could verify which PGP key we were using and recite to each other our PGP key fingerprints. Depending how much we trusted our source of information for the phone numbers this gets pretty close to ensuring a person listed under a particular name in the phone book (or whatever) is using that PGP key. So our secure communication is with a person who has a phone number and a listed business or residence. This could still be an elaborate hoax but most of us would be reasonably comfortable with this level of trust. (I would want to do a lot more checking if the other person had written me a "personal" letter about needing help to move a large amount of money from Nigeria. Does this get me back on topic? :) Any better than that is going to take direct meeting and/or a private detective to check things out. >You got the ol' brain juices flowing, and at a late hour of the night >after a few hours of homework. That's hard to do. :) > I am glad Pete salvaged something from my gaff. I expect much of the above is well known but thought it worth while repeating the basics so that the usual intercontinental language problems and assumptions didn't add to the confusion. Regards Gavan (Pete is my guest for a beer if he finds himself in Sydney) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP SDK 3.2.2 iQA/AwUBQZuVPs86FtnpdFMWEQLdGgCfXn6i0QVfzLex9jv9xg65p56itrAAoLxv vHaugsEX5/YLbaaU7kLY+lGa =m1Mq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From plmerlin at hotmail.com Wed Nov 17 14:19:26 2004 From: plmerlin at hotmail.com (Pierre Merlin) Date: Wed Nov 17 15:20:13 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Questions and coments Message-ID: Hello, I'm sorry but this email will be long as I have 3 big concerns and few comments about spam. We are a travel agency and we have a weekly newsletter with 50,000+ members. We use a full double Optin application and our newsletter can-spam proof. Over 40% of our revenue comes from this newsletter. - First concern and questions Even using double optin / single optout, there is always at least one person every week who report us as spammers. It's easy to justify that we're not as we have an history for each member including IP address, dates and times for each of its action. It's really penalizing as we have to remove our server from blocked list every week, this requires justification and it costs time (18h man / week). If we don't unblock, 30 to 50% of our members don't get the newsletter and we miss up to 20% of revenue that week. Costly no? how can we avoid this? tough one because it'll be always someone somewhere who will prefer to report spam rather than click on unsubscribe... the worse... as they don't unsubscribe... they are still receiving newsletters which make them mad and report more spam :))))... - second concern. Spam traps... another costly one. Spam software use (correct me if I'm wrong) weighted words and format to trigger spam traps... we are not lucky as the travel industry uses one of the the most trapped words... we adapt ourselves avoiding html emails, colors in text, wording like "vacation", "travel", "click here", "read more"... to avoid being trapped. 3 years ago a good newsletter had a cost of 8 hours. Today it has a cost of 24 hours. Just try to sell a nice "vacation package to Cancun, Mexico with 15% discount" without picture and without words like "vacation package", "Cancun" nor "discount".... well, just try, it needs tons of imagination because "a break to very well know water city in a country south of the US with 0.15 concession" is quite a tough to sell :))) Another concern... when our servers emails e-tickets to customers it happens more and more often than some emails never arrives because of spam traps (travel itineray from Miami to Cancun for example)... it makes people nervous and phones ringing! Speaking of Spam traps... my brother in-law got "fired" by his ISP... because when they knew the gender of the future newborn he sent to the family (25 to 30 people all in the to:) an email like: "we have seen the sex of the baby and it's a girl. Future mom is so excited, me too. see attached ultrasound". Well, he was accused of spreading porn information... even mailing the copy of the original email was not enough to restore his DSL... guess what, there is only one DSL provider in his area! is that pushing the envelop a little be too far? Third concern ANTI SPAM DOESN'T WORK. My mail box is filled by spam... real one. I see 2 kinds of spam. Commercial offers from companies (we receive an average of 100 emails, 200 faxes (mainly cruise and airlines) and 20 regular mailing a day). I don't blame those as often we discover new destinations, promotions... without these"unsolicited" offers we will walk in the dark. Offers we don't like are unsubscribed and it works fine. The second type of spam I see is the "viagra, free software, work@home, viruses" one. Darn, what a pain... everything we tried simply doesn't work. We tried an enterprise edition of spam blocker and it worked well so we bough it for $4,800. Expensive but a piece of mind. It worked great 30 days... then spam came back... It seems that the technology used was already outdated and we had to wait 5 months for the next upgrade... we got 75% refund and hired a consultant. We were told to buy a self learning enterprise anti spam tools based on a pop3 server. Total cost: $18,000... we bough it and made the necessary changes to our network. It works fine even if it works as the hotmail one :)))) meaning don't auto-delete your junk folder as "good email" go there too... meaning purchase the black list extension for $1,000 extra as your black list increases everyday... survey your black list often coz customer signing as "Laurie and Dick" may and will finish there... oh I forgot: teach the spam software that your bank statement is NOT spam... and listen to the company reps when they say that the new spammer change the encoding of their messages so anti-spam can't recognize it... but there is a temporary solution costing an other few thousands... Well today, the setup of the self-learning-enterprise-anti-spam@-$18,000 is tuned to low protection... and each of us have now 2 mail boxes... one called inbox, one called junk mail :)))) We try reporting these but there is always a problem... can't parse header, can't read body, can't report, can't trace... When we look at the successful spam reports, we seen names like verizon, aol, qwest as ISP, and a big majority of US domain... my guys 'traced' spam from Europe, Asia, Middle East but I understood that we can't do anything against these people... I also learned that some smart ones uses open-relays... or server not protected against relaying emails... I asked about our servers and they are closed and emails can be only sent with login. We have firewalls against un-wanted "visitors" and all servers' configuration can be made only from specific IP addresses. Why not require from all ISPs, hosting companies or web-servers owner to close their "open-relay"? it can be a law... with fees and penalties. Then, why not forbid email reception from foreign countries until they close their open-relay too... For example a server IP=x.x.x.x with an open relay or sending spam can be refused routing in the US. Better yet, not only refused but all emails returned twice... :) let's make it 4 times :) I'm sure that we can verify automatically all open-relay in the world? can we? Then we will much less spammer to fight against.... [and much less in my mail box:)] Talking with other small business owners we all get to the same point: "We are the ones penalized because we work by the book" and it hurts. What do you think? From pete at heypete.com Wed Nov 17 12:54:09 2004 From: pete at heypete.com (Pete Stephenson) Date: Wed Nov 17 15:55:03 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: [OT] PGP key trust (Was: Apology ...) References: Message-ID: In article , Gavan Schneider wrote: [snip crypto info] > Any better than that is going to take direct meeting and/or a private > detective to check things out. Pretty much. I remember going around to various signatories in the Bay Area here to get my (eventually never used) Thawte email key signed. One needed to be present in person and show ID. The nice thing about PGP keys is that if someone of some well-known authority were to sign your key, others would be more likely to believe you, much the same way that SSL certificates are issued after (usually) some degree of verhification (whether it be domain ownership verification, more thorough checking, etc.). The lack of any sort of central issuing authority is both a strength and weakness to the PGP key model. > >You got the ol' brain juices flowing, and at a late hour of the night > >after a few hours of homework. That's hard to do. :) > > > I am glad Pete salvaged something from my gaff. *laughs* Indeed. > Regards > Gavan (Pete is my guest for a beer if he finds himself in Sydney) Hey, sounds good. I hear Australian beer can be quite good, though I've never had any. Cheers! -- Pete Stephenson HeyPete.com From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Nov 17 13:12:03 2004 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Wed Nov 17 16:15:06 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments References: Message-ID: Pierre Merlin wrote: > Hello, Hello. This isn't yet a reply to your concerns, but is purely a 'housekeeping' reply so as to help you get the best response to your questions. You are emailing to a mailing list 'Mailman to newsgroup' gizmo and there are lots of respondents 'nearby' who can answer you, but you are mailing to the 'wrong' mailing list to news list. You are emailing to the spamcop.mail list, when you should be mailing to the spamcop or spamcop.help mailing list which will go to those respective newsgroups. This spamcop.mail mailinglist/newsgroup used to be for those customers of the spamcop mail filtering service, which is now mostly supported in a webforum at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showforum=4 As a result of that change, many fewer people visit this group than the other two I mentioned, and your questions are not about problems with the spamcop mailfiltering service. You could repost your question into one of those two groups. I'm guessing that you got your information about mailman at this site http://news.spamcop.net/mailman/listinfo - if so, use one of these two items in the list of lists there: SpamCop-Help Help about SpamCop and spam - http://news.spamcop.net/mailman/listinfo/spamcop-help SpamCop-List Mailing list to mirror the spamcop newsgroup - http://news.spamcop.net/mailman/listinfo/spamcop-list In the meantime, I'm going to crosspost this into spamcop.help and make its followups to spamcop.help. > I'm sorry but this email will be long as I have 3 big concerns and few > comments about spam. > > We are a travel agency and we have a weekly newsletter with 50,000+ > members. We use a full double Optin application and our newsletter > can-spam proof. Over 40% of our revenue comes from this newsletter. > > - First concern and questions > Even using double optin / single optout, there is always at least one > person every week who report us as spammers. It's easy to justify > that we're not as we have an history for each member including IP > address, dates and times for each of its action. It's really > penalizing as we have to remove our server from blocked list every > week, this requires justification and it costs time (18h man / week). > If we don't unblock, 30 to 50% of our members don't get the > newsletter and we miss up to 20% of revenue that week. Costly no? how > can we avoid this? tough one because it'll be always someone > somewhere who will prefer to report spam rather than click on > unsubscribe... the worse... as they don't unsubscribe... they are > still receiving newsletters which make them mad and report more spam > :))))... > > - second concern. > Spam traps... another costly one. Spam software use (correct me if I'm > wrong) weighted words and format to trigger spam traps... we are not > lucky as the travel industry uses one of the the most trapped > words... we adapt ourselves avoiding html emails, colors in text, > wording like "vacation", "travel", "click here", "read more"... to > avoid being trapped. 3 years ago a good newsletter had a cost of 8 > hours. Today it has a cost of 24 hours. Just try to sell a nice > "vacation package to Cancun, Mexico with 15% discount" without > picture and without words like "vacation package", "Cancun" nor > "discount".... well, just try, it needs tons of imagination because > "a break to very well know water city in a country south of the US > with 0.15 concession" is quite a tough to sell :))) > > Another concern... when our servers emails e-tickets to customers it > happens more and more often than some emails never arrives because of > spam traps (travel itineray from Miami to Cancun for example)... it > makes people nervous and phones ringing! > > Speaking of Spam traps... my brother in-law got "fired" by his ISP... > because when they knew the gender of the future newborn he sent to > the family (25 to 30 people all in the to:) an email like: "we have > seen the sex of the baby and it's a girl. Future mom is so excited, > me too. see attached ultrasound". Well, he was accused of spreading > porn information... even mailing the copy of the original email was > not enough to restore his DSL... guess what, there is only one DSL > provider in his area! is that pushing the envelop a little be too far? > > Third concern > ANTI SPAM DOESN'T WORK. My mail box is filled by spam... real one. I > see 2 kinds of spam. Commercial offers from companies (we receive an > average of 100 emails, 200 faxes (mainly cruise and airlines) and 20 > regular mailing a day). I don't blame those as often we discover new > destinations, promotions... without these"unsolicited" offers we will > walk in the dark. Offers we don't like are unsubscribed and it works > fine. > The second type of spam I see is the "viagra, free software, > work@home, viruses" one. Darn, what a pain... everything we tried > simply doesn't work. We tried an enterprise edition of spam blocker > and it worked well so we bough it for $4,800. Expensive but a piece > of mind. It worked great 30 days... then spam came back... It seems > that the technology used was already outdated and we had to wait 5 > months for the next upgrade... we got 75% refund and hired a > consultant. > We were told to buy a self learning enterprise anti spam tools based > on a pop3 server. Total cost: $18,000... we bough it and made the > necessary changes to our network. > It works fine even if it works as the hotmail one :)))) meaning don't > auto-delete your junk folder as "good email" go there too... meaning > purchase the black list extension for $1,000 extra as your black list > increases everyday... survey your black list often coz customer > signing as "Laurie and Dick" may and will finish there... oh I > forgot: teach the spam software that your bank statement is NOT > spam... and listen to the company reps when they say that the new > spammer change the encoding of their messages so anti-spam can't > recognize it... but there is a temporary solution costing an other > few thousands... > Well today, the setup of the > self-learning-enterprise-anti-spam@-$18,000 is tuned to low > protection... and each of us have now 2 mail boxes... one called > inbox, one called junk mail :)))) > > We try reporting these but there is always a problem... can't parse > header, can't read body, can't report, can't trace... When we look at > the successful spam reports, we seen names like verizon, aol, qwest > as ISP, and a big majority of US domain... my guys 'traced' spam from > Europe, Asia, Middle East but I understood that we can't do anything > against these people... > > I also learned that some smart ones uses open-relays... or server not > protected against relaying emails... I asked about our servers and > they are closed and emails can be only sent with login. We have > firewalls against un-wanted "visitors" and all servers' configuration > can be made only from specific IP addresses. > > Why not require from all ISPs, hosting companies or web-servers owner > to close their "open-relay"? it can be a law... with fees and > penalties. > Then, why not forbid email reception from foreign countries until > they close their open-relay too... > For example a server IP=x.x.x.x with an open relay or sending spam > can be refused routing in the US. Better yet, not only refused but > all emails returned twice... :) let's make it 4 times :) > > I'm sure that we can verify automatically all open-relay in the > world? can we? > > Then we will much less spammer to fight against.... [and much less in > my mail box:)] > > Talking with other small business owners we all get to the same > point: "We are the ones penalized because we work by the book" and it > hurts. > > What do you think? -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Nov 17 13:41:37 2004 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Wed Nov 17 16:45:06 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments References: Message-ID: Posted to .help and .mail, f/ups to .help. Pierre Merlin wrote: > We are a travel agency and we have a weekly newsletter with 50,000+ > members. We use a full double Optin application and our newsletter > can-spam proof. Over 40% of our revenue comes from this newsletter. That means that it is exquisitely important that you use excellent mailing list management strategies, I would suggest the 'best'. > - First concern and questions > Even using double optin / single optout, there is always at least one > person every week who report us as spammers. That isn't very nice terminology. I think it is better to call confirmation of the subscription process 'confirmed opt-in' since there's nothing double about it. Other terms are 'closed loop' to refer to the fact that the confirmation has to happen before any mail is sent. There're also some potential problems with spam reports if the subscription process starts at a webform which might send out a confirmation email to someone who didn't subscribe. Unfortunately it is common for confirmations to be reported as spam, which spamcop has rules against. > It's easy to justify > that we're not as we have an history for each member including IP > address, dates and times for each of its action. Good. That's compatible with a so-called 'unique token' that should be part of the confirmation process. > It's really > penalizing as we have to remove our server from blocked list every > week, this requires justification and it costs time (18h man / week). The business of how it is that spam reports are causing you to get blocklisted should be examined. Because you are posting here, let's say that sometimes you get spamcop blocklisted, that is, your IP gets SCbl blocked. > If we don't unblock, 30 to 50% of our members don't get the > newsletter and we miss up to 20% of revenue that week. Costly no? how > can we avoid this? We should talk about specifics. What is the IP address which is getting blocked? What is the blocklist, SCbl? > tough one because it'll be always someone > somewhere who will prefer to report spam rather than click on > unsubscribe... the worse... as they don't unsubscribe... they are > still receiving newsletters which make them mad and report more spam > :))))... It is very bad for a mailing list if subscribers consider it spam, because the strategy for reporting spam does not involve unsubscribing, and the system for spamcop reporting doesn't provide the address of the reporter to the providers who are notified. > - second concern. > Spam traps... another costly one. You are 'confused' over the term spamtraps. A spamtrap is an address which has never been used for anything, including subscribing to anything. If it receives mail, the mail, any mail, regardless of content, is 'assumed' to be spam. So, if somehow your mail goes to a spamcop spamtrap, it is going to be 'automatically' reported as spam, regardless of its content. The idea is that it shouldn't have been going there in the first place. > Spam software use (correct me if I'm > wrong) weighted words and format to trigger spam traps... No. You are correct that spamfiltering software may be triggered by words or phrases, but that isn't a 'spamtrap'. > we are not > lucky as the travel industry uses one of the the most trapped > words... we adapt ourselves avoiding html emails, colors in text, > wording like "vacation", "travel", "click here", "read more"... to > avoid being trapped. I don't think you ought to be trying to counter your problem in that way. It is timeconsuming and won't help you enough. Spamfilters are 'designed' to catch the tricks of such behaviors by spammers, who are better at it than you are. >3 years ago a good newsletter had a cost of 8 > hours. Today it has a cost of 24 hours. Just try to sell a nice > "vacation package to Cancun, Mexico with 15% discount" without > picture and without words like "vacation package", "Cancun" nor > "discount".... well, just try, it needs tons of imagination because > "a break to very well know water city in a country south of the US > with 0.15 concession" is quite a tough to sell :))) Like I said, don't be trying to fix your problem in that way. That is spammerstyle. I'll cut this off here so I can get it posted. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From pete at heypete.com Wed Nov 17 13:42:21 2004 From: pete at heypete.com (Pete Stephenson) Date: Wed Nov 17 16:45:10 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments References: Message-ID: In article , "Pierre Merlin" wrote: > Hello, > > I'm sorry but this email will be long as I have 3 big concerns and few > comments about spam. That's all right. I'm not sure if it directly relates to spamcop.mail (it may be better of having been posted in just "spamcop", but that's ok). > We are a travel agency and we have a weekly newsletter with 50,000+ members. > We use a full double Optin application and our newsletter can-spam proof. > Over 40% of our revenue comes from this newsletter. Being compliant with CAN-SPAM is not terribly difficult and doesn't necessarially mean that you're doing things "right". I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "double optin" -- some use it in to mean the same as "confirmed opt-in", which is a good thing, while others use it to mean any number of other things. > - First concern and questions > Even using double optin / single optout, there is always at least one person > every week who report us as spammers. It's easy to justify that we're not as > we have an history for each member including IP address, dates and times for > each of its action. It's really penalizing as we have to remove our server > from blocked list every week, this requires justification and it costs time > (18h man / week). If we don't unblock, 30 to 50% of our members don't get > the newsletter and we miss up to 20% of revenue that week. Costly no? how > can we avoid this? tough one because it'll be always someone somewhere who > will prefer to report spam rather than click on unsubscribe... the worse... > as they don't unsubscribe... they are still receiving newsletters which make > them mad and report more spam :))))... A single report should not land your system on the SpamCop list, and even if it were listed, SpamCop would automatically de-list you within a day or two after the complaints stop. There are stupid people out there, and you're likely to get more of them as your membership grows. Perhaps providing a simple and clear means of unsubscribing (I don't know what kind of system you use, so I can't comment on it's effectiveness) would help reduce, but not eliminate this. Unfortunately, complaints come with the territory, even if you're doing everything right. > - second concern. > Spam traps... another costly one. Spam software use (correct me if I'm > wrong) weighted words and format to trigger spam traps... we are not lucky > as the travel industry uses one of the the most trapped words... we adapt > ourselves avoiding html emails, colors in text, wording like "vacation", > "travel", "click here", "read more"... to avoid being trapped. You're confusing spamtraps and content-based filters like SpamAssassin. Spamtraps are "decoy" addresses that get added to spammers lists and sold as part of their list to other spammers. These addresses look perfectly normal (I have several [dictionary-word]@heypete.com spamtraps, for example) and should be impossible to tell from regular addresses. Assuming you have proper list practices, traps of this nature should not be a problem. Content-based filters like SpamAssassin usually either run on the recieving server or on the recipient's computer. The user generally has the ability to "whitelist" your mailing list and override those filters so it's not accidentally put in the "Bulk Mail" folder. You may wish to encourage users to whitelist your mailing list. It is unwise to assume that everyone has an HTML-capable email client and is willing to read HTML mail. Sending plaintext mail may not look as good from a marketing standpoint, but it'd be more universally compatible. I receive numerous plaintext mailing lists and strongly prefer them over HTML lists. > 3 years ago a good newsletter had a cost of 8 hours. Today it has a cost of > 24 hours. Just try to sell a nice "vacation package to Cancun, Mexico with > 15% discount" without picture and without words like "vacation package", > "Cancun" nor "discount".... well, just try, it needs tons of imagination > because "a break to very well know water city in a country south of the US > with 0.15 concession" is quite a tough to sell :))) *laughs* I'd imagine so. I'd suggest that you encourage your readers to whitelist your mailing list so that it's not accidentally flagged by filters. That done, you should be able to send your list to your membership with minimal problems from filters. > Another concern... when our servers emails e-tickets to customers it happens > more and more often than some emails never arrives because of spam traps > (travel itineray from Miami to Cancun for example)... it makes people > nervous and phones ringing! Do you actually get a response back from the receiving mail system saying "mail not delivered", or does it just go into the "Bulk Mail" box on the recipient's end? If they whitelisted your company, the mail would go through. Also, when they're placing an order on your website or by telephone, I'd make mention that your emails may accidentally be flagged as spam and directed to their "Bulk Mail" folders and that they should check there to see if the mail got misdirected. > Speaking of Spam traps... my brother in-law got "fired" by his ISP... > because when they knew the gender of the future newborn he sent to the > family (25 to 30 people all in the to:) an email like: "we have seen the sex > of the baby and it's a girl. Future mom is so excited, me too. see attached > ultrasound". Well, he was accused of spreading porn information... even > mailing the copy of the original email was not enough to restore his DSL... > guess what, there is only one DSL provider in his area! is that pushing the > envelop a little be too far? That does seem to be a bit extreme, and he should definitely protest that with his DSL provider. > Third concern > ANTI SPAM DOESN'T WORK. My mail box is filled by spam... real one. I see 2 > kinds of spam. Commercial offers from companies (we receive an average of > 100 emails, 200 faxes (mainly cruise and airlines) and 20 regular mailing a > day). I don't blame those as often we discover new destinations, > promotions... without these"unsolicited" offers we will walk in the dark. You're lucky -- I receive upwards of 40,000 spams per day...just to me. My record is half a million emails per day. Fortunately, my filters catch nearly all of it and only a few hundred slip through. I'm fortunate not to have received any junk faxes as of late. I don't break spam down into categories -- either it's spam or it's not. If it's hawking web hosting services or viagra, it's still spam. > Offers we don't like are unsubscribed and it works fine. That's quite possible from "mainsleaze", but it doesn't make it right. If one didn't subscribe to a mailing list (i.e. was added against their will and without their permission), they are under no obligation to unsubscribe. > The second type of spam I see is the "viagra, free software, work@home, > viruses" one. Darn, what a pain... everything we tried simply doesn't work. > We tried an enterprise edition of spam blocker and it worked well so we > bough it for $4,800. Expensive but a piece of mind. It worked great 30 > days... then spam came back... It seems that the technology used was already > outdated and we had to wait 5 months for the next upgrade... we got 75% > refund and hired a consultant. > We were told to buy a self learning enterprise anti spam tools based on a > pop3 server. Total cost: $18,000... we bough it and made the necessary > changes to our network. Dear lord, you actually *paid* for anti-spam services? And you paid THAT MUCH? I'm amazed. Assuming you run your own mail system, there are numerous free, open-source, and/or publicly-available services out there from DNSbls like SpamCop's and Spamhaus.org to anti-bulk services like DCC and Vipul's Razor to content-filtering like SpamAssassin and others. Nearly all of them are available for free. Bayesian filtering on the end-user level (like what Eudora does) for your company may be handy. It adapts and learns what each user considers to be spam or not spam and rapidly adapts. Very effective. Heck, even anti-virus software like ClamAV is available for free for mail servers, so that's not an issue. > It works fine even if it works as the hotmail one :)))) meaning don't > auto-delete your junk folder as "good email" go there too... meaning > purchase the black list extension for $1,000 extra as your black list > increases everyday... survey your black list often coz customer signing as > "Laurie and Dick" may and will finish there... oh I forgot: teach the spam > software that your bank statement is NOT spam... and listen to the company > reps when they say that the new spammer change the encoding of their > messages so anti-spam can't recognize it... but there is a temporary > solution costing an other few thousands... > Well today, the setup of the self-learning-enterprise-anti-spam@-$18,000 is > tuned to low protection... and each of us have now 2 mail boxes... one > called inbox, one called junk mail :)))) I just bought Eudora ($40) and use it's Bayesian filtering on everything that makes it through the DNSbl picket on my mailserver. About 10 messages a day make it through the filters, most of them viruses, and maybe one or two legitimate messages a week get accidentally marked as spam. The filters learn as you go along. Much cheaper than tens of thousands of dollars for a massive centralized system -- similar systems are available for free. > We try reporting these but there is always a problem... can't parse header, > can't read body, can't report, can't trace... When we look at the successful > spam reports, we seen names like verizon, aol, qwest as ISP, and a big > majority of US domain... my guys 'traced' spam from Europe, Asia, Middle > East but I understood that we can't do anything against these people... You can trace and report the spams from non-US regions, and I've had good success with European spammers...more so than with US ones. I've null-routed China and Korea, and that's helped a bit, though as a travel agency I don't think you'd be willing to do that. > I also learned that some smart ones uses open-relays... or server not > protected against relaying emails... I asked about our servers and they are > closed and emails can be only sent with login. We have firewalls against > un-wanted "visitors" and all servers' configuration can be made only from > specific IP addresses. Indeed. Also, be aware that spammers are sending mail via open proxies, which are not nearly as visible as open relays. Modern viruses also tend to leave the system open to remote control and allow it to be used to send spam or host spamvertised websites. Ensuring that your systems are virus-free will also help. > Why not require from all ISPs, hosting companies or web-servers owner to > close their "open-relay"? it can be a law... with fees and penalties. > Then, why not forbid email reception from foreign countries until they close > their open-relay too... The world is a big place. Who would pass a law that would cover the entire world? Who would enforce it? The internet is not a public utility, but rather is a collection of interlinked private networks -- it's up to the network owners to configure their network as they see fit. Open relays are not nearly as big a problem as they used to be. Services like ORDB.org have a rather stable number of open relays in their blacklist -- nearly every open relay that exists and has been spammed through is listed by them. The bigger issue seems to be the tens of millions of Windows machines that are infected with viruses that allow the spammer to send spam through them. With a large amount of comrpimised systems on high-speed connections, this problem is multiplied significantly. > I'm sure that we can verify automatically all open-relay in the world? can > we? ORDB pretty much has a comprehensive list of open relays. > Then we will much less spammer to fight against.... [and much less in my > mail box:)] True, but if one blocks off one source of spam, the spammers will find another. Infected and "zombied" home computers are the new threat vector. > Talking with other small business owners we all get to the same point: "We > are the ones penalized because we work by the book" and it hurts. Indeed. I run a small business, though I have yet to be blocked. I would imagine that running a large-scale mailing list operation would likely get quite hairy. Spammers have raised the cost of business for everyone. It's not terribly fun. > What do you think? It sucks being screwed over by people who don't play by the rules. All you can really do is bear with it and do the best you can. :/ -- Pete Stephenson HeyPete.com From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Nov 17 13:57:58 2004 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Wed Nov 17 17:00:08 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments References: Message-ID: posted to .help & .mail, f/ups to .help Pierre Merlin wrote: > Another concern... when our servers emails e-tickets to customers it > happens more and more often than some emails never arrives because of > spam traps (travel itineray from Miami to Cancun for example)... it > makes people nervous and phones ringing! That may occur as a consequence of your IP being blocked or it could occur as a consequence of your mail getting caught in your listee's spamfilter. Prevention of getting blocklisted is very important to your list; preventing your listee's from filtering your mail might need to be done by them whitelisting your newsletter. > Speaking of Spam traps... my brother in-law got "fired" by his ISP... > because when they knew the gender of the future newborn he sent to > the family (25 to 30 people all in the to:) an email like: "we have > seen the sex of the baby and it's a girl. Future mom is so excited, > me too. see attached ultrasound". Well, he was accused of spreading > porn information... even mailing the copy of the original email was > not enough to restore his DSL... guess what, there is only one DSL > provider in his area! is that pushing the envelop a little be too far? I suspect that if we were to examine this occurrence in every detail we would find some correctable problem. If someone sends a 'bulk' mail to a lot of different people and if a number of people complain that it was spam, that will create problems whether it is about the 'sex' of a baby or about grandma coming to visit. The anecdote as described can't be discussed because we don't know all of the details. I seriously doubt the sex of a baby in an ultrasound which shows the difference between a fetal penis and scrotum vs the female fetal genitalia is going to cause some kind of child pornography problem. > Third concern > ANTI SPAM DOESN'T WORK. My mail box is filled by spam... real one. I > see 2 kinds of spam. Commercial offers from companies (we receive an > average of 100 emails, 200 faxes (mainly cruise and airlines) and 20 > regular mailing a day). I don't blame those as often we discover new > destinations, promotions... without these"unsolicited" offers we will > walk in the dark. Offers we don't like are unsubscribed and it works > fine. You are a person who would 'like to' get travel and travel related spam. Most people are not. Most people have absolutely no interest in unsubbing to something they never subbed to, and will report it as spam and not ever unsub to anything they didn't sub. Don't ever think anyone should unsub to anything they didn't sub; your mailing list will perish if you think like that. Very very many people are handling their spamload just fine, with or without reporting the spams to appropriate providers. The fact that you have stumbled in your endeavors means that you haven't developed the right strategy. It is quite doable. > I also learned that some smart ones uses open-relays... or server not > protected against relaying emails... I asked about our servers and > they are closed and emails can be only sent with login. We have > firewalls against un-wanted "visitors" and all servers' configuration > can be made only from specific IP addresses. Many times people think their servers or other parts of their network are secure and they are sometimes wrong about that. Don't forget to mention what is the IP address which is getting blocked for it mail. > I'm sure that we can verify automatically all open-relay in the > world? can we? Open smtp relays are not much of a problem these days, since there are so many other ways to abuse an insecurity. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Nov 17 16:25:39 2004 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Wed Nov 17 19:30:08 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments References: Message-ID: to .mail & .help, fups to .help Pierre Merlin wrote: > Even using double optin / single optout, there is always at least one > person every week who report us as spammers. As I mentioned before, that language is bothersome, and it is used in circles of mailing list operators who do not have good closed loop, confirmed opt-in, verifiable unique token types of subscription processes. So, let's take some of these other words apart more carefully now; I have a feeling the subscribing needs to be improved. And guess what; if your subscribing is no good, then your whole mailing list is no good. Not a pretty picture. Dirty lists are not 'cleanable' - they have to be discarded and started all over again, doing it right this time. > It's easy to justify > that we're not as we have an history for each member including IP > address, dates and times for each of its action. An IP address. Verrry interesting. Somehow I think I'm getting the picture. The fact that your 'unique token' consists of an IP address and a datestamp sounds to me like you are accepting subscriptions from a webform. Any webform subscriptions should *not* result in the promotional mail in question being sent with some kind of unsubscribe included. The webform subscription should include a process such as that by which a unique token is emailed or some other closed loop confirmation is accomplished. That is, only after the email addressee has assertively concurred that they want to continue to receive regular promotional mailing list items would the first promotional one be sent. There are a number of ways of doing that, here are some descriptions http://www.mail-abuse.com/support/an_listmgntgdlines.html -- Application Note: Guidelines for proper mailing list management > it'll be always someone > somewhere who will prefer to report spam rather than click on > unsubscribe... the worse... as they don't unsubscribe... they are > still receiving newsletters which make them mad and report more spam Correct, that's what 'they'/we do. Never send a promotional mail to someone for whom you don't have an email with their address and the unique confirmation token you sent them with no promotion but only asking for confirmation, mailed back [or submitted to a unique web structure which only the addressee can access] confirming that they want your promotional letters. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From jeffg at spamcop.net Wed Nov 17 20:56:55 2004 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Wed Nov 17 21:00:03 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments References: Message-ID: In addition to all of the excellent advice previously given on this subject, please see "FAQ Entry: Am I Running Mailing Lists Responsibly?" at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=779 Also, please note that "Application Note: Guidelines for proper mailing list management" at http://www.mail-abuse.com/support/an_listmgntgdlines.html has replaced "Basic Mailing List Management Guidelines for Preventing Abuse" at http://www.mail-abuse.org/manage.html -- Thanks and Best Regards, Jeff G. I have been a SpamCop User/Member/Customer since 1999 and am a Moderator of the new web-based forums (now the primary method for getting help, http://forum.spamcop.net). Please reply via Forum, Group, or List only. From pete at heypete.com Wed Nov 17 20:14:42 2004 From: pete at heypete.com (Pete Stephenson) Date: Wed Nov 17 23:15:03 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments References: Message-ID: In article , "Jeff G." wrote: > In addition to all of the excellent advice previously given on this > subject, please see "FAQ Entry: Am I Running Mailing Lists Responsibly?" > at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=779 Our very own Bob W. provides an excellent document on his website as well: http://www.cluelessmailers.org/info/listmanagement.html -- Pete Stephenson HeyPete.com From jsphoto at hrtc.net Thu Nov 18 02:14:26 2004 From: jsphoto at hrtc.net (JSPhoto) Date: Thu Nov 18 02:20:03 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Get rid of this crap! References: <0lJ$Rbm9IFfI@eisner.encompasserve.org> Message-ID: Awe.... poor baby... Bunch of fucking idiots here! "Larry Kilgallen" wrote in message news:0lJ$Rbm9IFfI@eisner.encompasserve.org... > In article , Pete Stephenson writes: > > On 11/16/04 1:38 AM -0500, John wrote: > >> LOL, if your so certain I couldn't sue why are you so afraid of it? Maybe > >> because your wrong? I have done it before, I'll do it again. I won't retract > >> anything, but I will be in touch with my attorney in the morning. The nice > >> thing is that when I have had to go that route things get fixed quickly, and > >> they pay up quickly as well. Something to do with him, no one wants to fight > >> it out with the guy, guess his reputation proceeds him. > > > > I am a private individual and small businessman not affiliated with > > SpamCop other than being a user. I do not wish to be involved with any > > sort of lawsuit involving SpamCop. Good Samaritans and innocent > > bystanders tend to get hit with "cross fire" in lawsuits of this nature. > > Please do not presume that Pete's viewpoint represents all of us. > > For my part, threats of a lawsuit are immaterial compared to the > overriding principle of not assisting a potty mouth. From nospam at nospam.org Thu Nov 18 09:09:13 2004 From: nospam at nospam.org (geo_splash_12) Date: Thu Nov 18 03:10:02 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Pierre Merlin wrote: [snip] > What do you think? Sounds like a troll. From nospam at nospam.org Thu Nov 18 09:19:45 2004 From: nospam at nospam.org (geo_splash_12) Date: Thu Nov 18 03:20:02 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Pierre Merlin wrote: [snip] > What do you think? I think this guy is trying to tell us that he has a lot of time to type in long complaints, nobody at a travel agency would have this time available, they are always busy. Furthermore he tells us that his life depends on responses he gets to his mailings, which I doubt since there is no objective way to measure the response. Quite likely we are dealing with a troll, don't pay too much attention to trolls, they are probably trying to get as much information as possible to avoid being listed. I can't help that he doesn't know how to run a safe mailing list. If he has a legitimate complaint then I would expect a tracking reference so we can check what's going on. Ejo From Kilgallen at SpamCop.net Thu Nov 18 08:54:04 2004 From: Kilgallen at SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Date: Thu Nov 18 09:55:03 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Get rid of this crap! References: <0lJ$Rbm9IFfI@eisner.encompasserve.org> Message-ID: In article , "JSPhoto" writes: > "Larry Kilgallen" wrote in message > news:0lJ$Rbm9IFfI@eisner.encompasserve.org... >> For my part, threats of a lawsuit are immaterial compared to the >> overriding principle of not assisting a potty mouth. > Awe.... poor baby... > > Bunch of idiots here! While you are not capable of comprehending, the SpamCop newsgroups are generally not visited by potty mouths. So while personally I do not have a precedent in that area, at least you have qualified for my killfile by your top posting. From plmerlin at hotmail.com Thu Nov 18 09:52:37 2004 From: plmerlin at hotmail.com (Pierre Merlin) Date: Thu Nov 18 10:53:57 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments Message-ID: Mike Easter wrote: >That isn't very nice terminology. I think it is better to call >confirmation of the subscription process 'confirmed opt-in' since >there's nothing double about it. Other terms are 'closed loop' to refer >to the fact that the confirmation has to happen before any mail is sent. You're right, it's a confirmation if the subscription. The potential member is "unconfirmed" until the list receives a confirmation. No confirmation, no mail sent. All unconfirmed subscriptions are deleted after 7 days, no reminder. >There're also some potential problems with spam reports if the >subscription process starts at a webform which might send out a >confirmation email to someone who didn't subscribe. Unfortunately it is >common for confirmations to be reported as spam, which spamcop has rules >against. We don't have much problems with the confirmation email. Very few a year. >Good. That's compatible with a so-called 'unique token' that should be >part of the confirmation process. An unique ID is created during the first step of the subscription and is part of the link sent to confirm. >The business of how it is that spam reports are causing you to get >blocklisted should be examined. Because you are posting here, let's say >that sometimes you get spamcop blocklisted, that is, your IP gets SCbl >blocked. I'm not sure of who is blocking as I'm just the owner :)) but I have seen some bounce saying that the newsletter was returned because the IP was blocked by spam-xyz.xyz so we have to go to spam-xyz.xyz to see where we are listed then contact the spam db who sends us evidence, we return the proof that we are not spammers and we are "un-listed" but "previously-listed"... I know that the process takes forever. >It is very bad for a mailing list if subscribers consider it spam, >because the strategy for reporting spam does not involve unsubscribing, >and the system for spamcop reporting doesn't provide the address of the >reporter to the providers who are notified. If anyone can do anything... no wonder why spam fighting is not going anywhere... once, we were reported as a Trojan sender... the report was from a guy for whom we could not find him a dirt 'cheap ticket' to London... He emailed us saying that he reported us as bad guys... his report was accepted with no further questions... >You are 'confused' over the term spamtraps. A spamtrap is an address >which has never been used for anything, including subscribing to >anything. If it receives mail, the mail, any mail, regardless of >content, is 'assumed' to be spam. So, if somehow your mail goes to a >spamcop spamtrap, it is going to be 'automatically' reported as spam, >regardless of its content. The idea is that it shouldn't have been >going there in the first place. I'm definitively confused...sorry - I called it spamtraps as it's trapping spams. But I see the difference. :) I confused spamtraps and spamfiltering... >I don't think you ought to be trying to counter your problem in that >way. It is timeconsuming and won't help you enough. Spamfilters are >'designed' to catch the tricks of such behaviors by spammers, who are >better at it than you are. I disagree with this statement. We have several email accounts with almost all ISPs through dialup. These accounts are only used to test our newsletter. I can say that the statment in not correct because I saw it: wrong colors, wrong words, pictures = trash, few minutes later same recipient, good wording, correct format = inbox. >Like I said, don't be trying to fix your problem in that way. That is >spammerstyle. Good advice but how do you fix it? I just sent myself from my gmail account to my hotmail account the following message: Subject xxxxxx Newsletter: November news (xxxxx being our agency name) Hello, How are you how is the family? let see if this one will go through or not. wondering! Take care It went into my inbox Now this one: Subject xxxxxx Newsletter: November news (xxxxx being our agency name) Hello, How are you how is the family? let see if this one will go through or not. Get an extra 15% discount on the Half Moon Bay vacation package in Cancun Click here for more information. Take care Went directly in my junk... By the way... :) look during this trest, I got in my inbox the following junk: Subject: _RND_CĚälIŠ_ sglryfzeqazkzekqzwlgatntqlhcqzsaamkgwmu hjukppjuiwvokmdsdmipteklzlsgmavnikhnzattktgpxaiblqqzvaownizbk tldvkmxdtnynsgwdayrkvkpybyiotmctgqnvfvrj _RND_CIALIš_ senolppezlnbdrilryzfwzaoiawqkvpnlxpmrcmqwdwgtppeahfvbwssymccmch zrbgqpjqufwstoerfqxoszjalfrezswocwiejedfpsdzhrn irrfyxdguxgtssbhyflawklfqlpcndsbgdkvgandifpdsriqo I looked up the IP and it's listed in: 24.99.xx.xx is listed in the XBL, because it appears in: CBL it went to my inbox and I reported it to Spamcop. Thank you for your comments and help Pierre From plmerlin at hotmail.com Thu Nov 18 10:42:31 2004 From: plmerlin at hotmail.com (Pierre Merlin) Date: Thu Nov 18 11:43:22 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments Message-ID: Mike Easter wrote: >That may occur as a consequence of your IP being blocked or it could >occur as a consequence of your mail getting caught in your listee's >spamfilter. Prevention of getting blocklisted is very important to your >list; preventing your listee's from filtering your mail might need to >be done by them whitelisting your newsletter. We tried to have our newsletter whitelisted by listees but it generated tons of emails or calls with "how do I do that?". We sometime forget that we are not all computer geeks... Our reservation system is on a standalone server with it's own IP adresses. It's only used to send itineraires and e-tickets... We verify every day if it's not listed, it's not. May be some people reported this IP as spammer coz they didn't remember having purchased a $3,000 cruise few minutes ago :)) >I suspect that if we were to examine this occurrence in every detail we >would find some correctable problem. If someone sends a 'bulk' mail to >a lot of different people and if a number of people complain that it was >spam, that will create problems whether it is about the 'sex' of a baby >or about grandma coming to visit. Are you saying that furtue Grand-Ma or future Aunt may have reported it as spam... what a family :)) no the problem is that an ISP anti-spam system triggered using the fact that there was attachments, and bad words... You know, it's alway easy to shoot an easy target rather than a tough one... my brother in-law was an easy target. This ISP stopped a dangerous individual... It does good in the stats! >You are a person who would 'like to' get travel and travel related spam. >Most people are not. Most people have absolutely no interest in >unsubbing to something they never subbed to, and will report it as spam >and not ever unsub to anything they didn't sub. Don't ever think anyone >should unsub to anything they didn't sub; your mailing list will perish >if you think like that. Our case is really specific as the commercial "spam" we recieve is B2B and well targetted. It's sure that if I receive the same commercial spam about "beauty products" I will be quite upset. Our mailing is everything but perishing... we even get new members by referrals. I'm afraid that you are the kind of people who dream of a world witout responsability. You sub to a list then report it as spam coz you changed your mind or don't remember... do you? That's always easy to say "I didn't" and put other in trouble... But that's not the point here as our list is clean. >Very very many people are handling their spamload just fine, with or >without reporting the spams to appropriate providers. The fact that you >have stumbled in your endeavors means that you haven't developed the >right strategy. It is quite doable. I'm really sorry, it's not doable because we don't do it the right way. After adopting expensive strategies as many small business owners and getting this kind of poor results, it's not doable. I think to many people are rowing in too many opposite directions. The benefits are going to spammers and anti-spam companies. Another solution is to create an email address, to communicate with no one, to register to nothing and to keep it secret... no really a good idea to run a business... but it'll work for individuals... >Many times people think their servers or other parts of their network >are secure and they are sometimes wrong about that. Don't forget to >mention what is the IP address which is getting blocked for it mail. I trust the people who take care of our network and servers. >Open smtp relays are not much of a problem these days, since there are >so many other ways to abuse an insecurity. Hum... so we don't do anything coz that's not the only problem... may be it can be a good start no? do you think it'll be better to just sit and try to block everything as I read somewhere? Thank you for your comments Pierre From Merlyn at Spamcop.net Thu Nov 18 11:50:45 2004 From: Merlyn at Spamcop.net (Merlyn) Date: Thu Nov 18 11:55:02 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments References: Message-ID: It is all talk unless you can provide an IP address. Crissman's Corollary: A spammer, when caught, blames his victims. -- Regards, Merlyn A Spamcop advocate No emails this account is for newsgroups only People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoided From plmerlin at hotmail.com Thu Nov 18 15:42:22 2004 From: plmerlin at hotmail.com (Pierre Merlin) Date: Thu Nov 18 16:43:14 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments Message-ID: >I think this guy is trying to tell us that he has a lot of time to type in >long complaints, nobody at a travel agency would have this time available, >they are always busy. Yes, we are busy people... even sick at home we try to understand and resolve problems... >Furthermore he tells us that his life depends on responses he gets to his >mailings, which I doubt since there is no objective way to measure the >response. What do you do for leaving? not working in internet related marketting, that's for sure... I've a motto: "if you can't track, you can't fix", we are good at it :). What's yours? yes, I know: "if you are not like me, you're a troll".(you're good at it too) >Quite likely we are dealing with a troll, don't pay too much attention to >trolls, they are probably trying to get as much information as possible to >avoid being listed. According wikipedia Troll is: A person who makes posts (on newsgroups or other forums) that are solely intended to incite controversy or conflict, or cause annoyance or offense ...For many, the term has negative connotations and is often applied as an insult How comes... you want to be an advocate but you insult? >I can't help that he doesn't know how to run a safe mailing list. If he has >a legitimate complaint then I would expect a tracking reference so we can >check what's going on. Which tracking reference do you need? We can't run a safe mailing list because people like you (may be) subscribe then report it as spam... do you do that? is that real fun? why? jealousy? I'm sorry but reading Pete’s answers is interesting and informative. Reading yours shows how serious Spamcop can be. You’re not there to improve anything. Saying you’re a ‘troll’ when you disagree with someone shows how short minded you can be… Pierre From plmerlin at hotmail.com Thu Nov 18 15:06:53 2004 From: plmerlin at hotmail.com (Pierre Merlin) Date: Thu Nov 18 17:04:08 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Spam feedback Message-ID: Hello, I just received the following: "Hello SpamCop user, We received a notice from SpamCop that you believe you received unwanted email from us. I am writing to you to clear this matter up. We only send out email to members - people who have signed up for a free account." It was sent to my address directly. I'll report it as spam too but I wonder how comes they got my address through Spamcop? I thought it was munged. Thank you From plmerlin at hotmail.com Thu Nov 18 14:50:40 2004 From: plmerlin at hotmail.com (Pierre Merlin) Date: Thu Nov 18 17:04:14 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments Message-ID: Hello Pete, >That's all right. I'm not sure if it directly relates to spamcop.mail (it >may be better of having been posted in just "spamcop", but that's ok). My mistake.... >Being compliant with CAN-SPAM is not terribly difficult and doesn't >necessarially mean that you're doing things "right". >I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "double optin" -- some use it in to >mean the same as "confirmed opt-in", which is a good thing, while others >use it to mean any number of other things. Here is how our list works: - someone registers by entering email address, name and state on a web form - we get the IP and time stamp and store it in the profile and the profile's history - an unique ID is created (32 digits ID) - the profile is marked as unconfirmed - an email is sent to confirm this email including a link to confirm this link is customized to the profile - the furutre member has to click the link. This new page has 2 buttons "confirm" / "unconfirm" (this page has the list and new member information) - If there is no action, the ex-futur member is black listed. - Confirm add the member to the list, and update the history - Unconfrim blacklist the member, and update the history - in case of confirmation, the member gets an email with a link to unsub and a link to change preferences. - from there the member get newsletters which includes: - unsub information and link (link + profile ID) - the newsletter - unsub information and link (link + profile ID) - mailing address - 1-800 phone number All unsub are automatically black-listed and immediate, all actions and newsletters received are recorded into the profile history. Can you tell me if this is ok? >A single report should not land your system on the SpamCop list, and even >if it were listed, SpamCop would automatically de-list you within a day or >two after the complaints stop. I'm not sure of that as I've seen a report saying something like: 'this IP is not listed here but is listed there" Also been listed 3 days is enough to block our newsletter for a week... >There are stupid people out there, and you're likely to get more of them as >your membership grows. Perhaps providing a simple and clear means of >unsubscribing (I don't know what kind of system you use, so I can't comment >on it's effectiveness) would help reduce, but not eliminate this. >Unfortunately, complaints come with the territory, even if you're doing >everything right. We have the first line and last line of our newsletter is unsub info. >You're confusing spamtraps and content-based filters like SpamAssassin. >Spamtraps are "decoy" addresses that get added to spammers lists and sold >as part of their list to other spammers. These addresses look perfectly >normal (I have several [dictionary-word]@heypete.com spamtraps, for >example) and should be impossible to tell from regular addresses. Assuming >you have proper list practices, traps of this nature should not be a >problem. I confused, and we don't have this problem. >Content-based filters like SpamAssassin usually either run on the recieving >server or on the recipient's computer. The user generally has the ability >to "whitelist" your mailing list and override those filters so it's not >accidentally put in the "Bulk Mail" folder. You may wish to encourage users >to whitelist your mailing list. >It is unwise to assume that everyone has an HTML-capable email client and >is willing to read HTML mail. Sending plaintext mail may not look as good >from a marketing standpoint, but it'd be more universally compatible. I >receive numerous plaintext mailing lists and strongly prefer them over HTML >lists. That's may be the only solution... sigh... as we tried and got calls asking to assist doing that :)) >*laughs* I'd imagine so. I'd suggest that you encourage your readers to >whitelist your mailing list so that it's not accidentally flagged by >filters. That done, you should be able to send your list to your membership >with minimal problems from filters. I think you're right and we're back to the white list... >Do you actually get a response back from the receiving mail system saying >"mail not delivered", or does it just go into the "Bulk Mail" box on the >recipient's end? If they whitelisted your company, the mail would go >through. Also, when they're placing an order on your website or by >telephone, I'd make mention that your emails may accidentally be flagged as >spam and directed to their "Bulk Mail" folders and that they should check >there to see if the mail got misdirected. If we get undeliverable info, it would be easier as we could contact the recipient immedialtly. We ask to put us in whitelist but they don't. May be 10% do it. What we do today is to request a reply as soon as they the email, a manual confirmation. If we don't get it because of junk or they just forget... we phone call :))) cost? :) We have an average of 300 confirmation phone calls per week at 15 minutes per call average including preparation: 75 hours per week or 2 people paid just to follow-up on this issue. >That does seem to be a bit extreme, and he should definitely protest that >with his DSL provider. It is but for the ISP it does good on its stats... "we stopped a malicious prom provider" :))))) by the way, the baby is born now and she is a cute little thing :) >You're lucky -- I receive upwards of 40,000 spams per day...just to me. My >record is half a million emails per day. Fortunately, my filters catch >nearly all of it and only a few hundred slip through. Wow 40,000 well I should not complain... our $18000 gismo does a good job :))) >I'm fortunate not to have received any junk faxes as of late. That's the worse... spam... we have an eletronic fax just for it... it can waste a professional grade paper fax machine in 6 month... + paper +ink +missed important faxes. yerk... >I don't break spam down into categories -- either it's spam or it's not. If >it's hawking web hosting services or viagra, it's still spam. >That's quite possible from "mainsleaze", but it doesn't make it right. If >one didn't subscribe to a mailing list (i.e. was added against their will >and without their permission), they are under no obligation to unsubscribe. May be, may be not... for example if I don't get a spam from a new hotel in Miami, I'm not aware of it and I'm behind my competiton. But as I said, this kind of spam is focussed on my profession. I hate spam from hosting companies or car insurance. I know in our case that being affilated with professional associations puts you automatically on lists... the worse being cruise lines and airlines who send you their daily offers by fax, email and phone calls :)) so they are sure we got it :) >Dear lord, you actually *paid* for anti-spam services? And you paid THAT >MUCH? I'm amazed. >Assuming you run your own mail system, there are numerous free, >open-source, and/or publicly-available services out there from DNSbls like >SpamCop's and Spamhaus.org to anti-bulk services like DCC and Vipul's Razor >to content-filtering like SpamAssassin and others. I belong to an association of small business owners and the $18,000 we paid is in the middle range. The association even got a presentation by an independant consultant who was charging $350 an hour to evaluate spam risk. If 10 members of the association used her services they got a 10% discount. No one signed... guess why :) Spam risk is quite high not only because it can overflow your mail box but also because it can implement malicious scripts. When you handle customers' information you've to be cautious. To protect the data storage we went the hard way: an isolated network and manual hourly cd trasnsfer. The cost of that solution 6 figures range + the tech, still less expensive than a lawsuit for privacy infringement. We like and support G/L we are active members of sourceforge. We use several dev and we contribute to them by donating and participating. But we need our suppliers to legally responsible in case of problem. Also, we had a problem with a dev who auto-sent emails to itself to be sure that his script was working fine... along was emailed the volume of transactions and other information that are confidential. >Bayesian filtering on the end-user level (like what Eudora does) for your >company may be handy. It adapts and learns what each user considers to be >spam or not spam and rapidly adapts. Very effective. >Heck, even anti-virus software like ClamAV is available for free for mail >servers, so that's not an issue. We had a problem with ClamAV with update no made but reported as made. By the way, to remove it was kind of nightmare! We use Trendmicro enterprise another costly toy but it's efficient for viruses. >I just bought Eudora ($40) and use it's Bayesian filtering on everything >that makes it through the DNSbl picket on my mailserver. About 10 messages >a day make it through the filters, most of them viruses, and maybe one or >two legitimate messages a week get accidentally marked as spam. The filters >learn as you go along. Much cheaper than tens of thousands of dollars for a >massive centralized system -- similar systems are available for free. It sounds good for individuals and small offices but imagine 50 users loosing 2 messages a week, thats an average of 5,200 possible a year... how many unhappy customers, how opportunities lost? I saw you're a business owner too, you know as I do that it's more important to keep a customer happy than to get a new customer. >You can trace and report the spams from non-US regions, and I've had good >success with European spammers...more so than with US ones. I've >null-routed China and Korea, and that's helped a bit, though as a travel >agency I don't think you'd be willing to do that. No... no time but, I'm sick at home since few Monday :)))) As I didn't beleive what I was told by my techy, I tried myself :)) >Indeed. Also, be aware that spammers are sending mail via open proxies, >which are not nearly as visible as open relays. Modern viruses also tend to >leave the system open to remote control and allow it to be used to send >spam or host spamvertised websites. Ensuring that your systems are >virus-free will also help. >The world is a big place. Who would pass a law that would cover the entire >world? Who would enforce it? The internet is not a public utility, but >rather is a collection of interlinked private networks -- it's up to the >network owners to configure their network as they see fit. >Open relays are not nearly as big a problem as they used to be. Services >like ORDB.org have a rather stable number of open relays in their blacklist >-- nearly every open relay that exists and has been spammed through is >listed by them. The bigger issue seems to be the tens of millions of >Windows machines that are infected with viruses that allow the spammer to >send spam through them. With a large amount of comrpimised systems on >high-speed connections, this problem is multiplied significantly. Thank you for the ORDB.org... interesting... they have noticed 82981 open relays from USA... let's them shut down... the next one is China with 25774 or 3 times less... As today I've time... I went to google and searched: free "open relay"... cool I got everything to spam... EASY... seriously can we shutdown sites like dailyproxy.com? in the FAQ they even answer: "How to find SMTP servers that don't show your ISP when doing bulk email?" or this one... send-safe.com who answers questions like: "Can I mail off my cable modem at home and never get caught? Also I could simply network say 10 computers and have all 10 computers mailing?" Can we shut them down? --- well can I use a word starting with a K instead? :-| >True, but if one blocks off one source of spam, the spammers will find >another. Infected and "zombied" home computers are the new threat vector. Yes but doing nothing won't help either as more and more stuff is coming in. >Indeed. I run a small business, though I have yet to be blocked. I would >imagine that running a large-scale mailing list operation would likely get >quite hairy. Spammers have raised the cost of business for everyone. It's >not terribly fun. You're right and our list is not that large. >It sucks being screwed over by people who don't play by the rules. All you >can really do is bear with it and do the best you can. :/ Exactly what we do... one step at the time :) From plmerlin at hotmail.com Thu Nov 18 16:29:39 2004 From: plmerlin at hotmail.com (Pierre Merlin) Date: Thu Nov 18 17:30:15 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments Message-ID: >It is all talk unless you can provide an IP address. Well, we have 2 class C one for each location where we have servers. Which one do you need? After the troll guy, you request sounds strange. Why do you need our IPs? every day we get recommendations about sanitizing documents contening IP information but you asking to publish it? Now, I'm really wondering... >Crissman's Corollary: A spammer, when caught, blames his victims. Hum... even with fever, I can see it... we are real bad people, we use the 'free internet' to make money. I should forward you our bills for the free internet access. Sorry, I'm tired, feverish and quite upset (thanx to troll guy) From Kilgallen at SpamCop.net Thu Nov 18 18:18:35 2004 From: Kilgallen at SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Date: Thu Nov 18 19:20:04 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Spam feedback References: Message-ID: In article , "Pierre Merlin" writes: > Hello, > > I just received the following: > > "Hello SpamCop user, > > We received a notice from SpamCop that you believe you received unwanted > email from us. I am writing to you to clear this matter up. > We only send out email to members - people who have signed up for a free > account." > > It was sent to my address directly. I'll report it as spam too but I wonder > how comes they got my address through Spamcop? I thought it was munged. It is impossible for SpamCop to detect all possible encoding schemes which might be used to hide your identity. From me at privacy.net Thu Nov 18 19:55:05 2004 From: me at privacy.net (Frog Prince) Date: Thu Nov 18 20:00:06 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Spam feedback References: Message-ID: In article , "Pierre Merlin" writes: > Hello, > > I just received the following: > > "Hello SpamCop user, > > We received a notice from SpamCop that you believe you received unwanted > email from us. I am writing to you to clear this matter up. > We only send out email to members - people who have signed up for a free > account." > > It was sent to my address directly. I'll report it as spam too but I wonder > how comes they got my address through Spamcop? I thought it was munged. As this to the original email addy or via the sc 'transponder' email? From Merlyn at Spamcop.net Thu Nov 18 21:03:16 2004 From: Merlyn at Spamcop.net (Merlyn) Date: Thu Nov 18 21:05:07 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments References: Message-ID: "Pierre Merlin" wrote in message news:mailman.16.1100817011.4572.spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net... > >It is all talk unless you can provide an IP address. > > Well, we have 2 class C one for each location where we have servers. Which > one do you need? > > After the troll guy, you request sounds strange. Why do you need our IPs? > every day we get recommendations about sanitizing documents contening IP > information but you asking to publish it? > Now, I'm really wondering... > >>Crissman's Corollary: A spammer, when caught, blames his victims. > Hum... even with fever, I can see it... we are real bad people, we use the > 'free internet' to make money. I should forward you our bills for the free > internet access. > > Sorry, I'm tired, feverish and quite upset (thanx to troll guy) > Well I have been in this forum for years and far from a troll. I do not argue and I really do not care if you are blocked or not. We have all heard these stories before and the only thing that means anything is the IP of the server or servers you think get blocked all the time. This can be used to research your stories. -- Regards, Merlyn A Spamcop advocate No emails this account is for newsgroups only People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoided From nobody at spamcop.net Thu Nov 18 21:03:16 2004 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Ellen) Date: Thu Nov 18 21:10:08 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Spam feedback References: Message-ID: "Pierre Merlin" wrote in message news:mailman.14.1100815449.4572.spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net... > Hello, > > I just received the following: > > "Hello SpamCop user, > > We received a notice from SpamCop that you believe you received unwanted > email from us. I am writing to you to clear this matter up. > We only send out email to members - people who have signed up for a free > account." > > It was sent to my address directly. I'll report it as spam too but I wonder > how comes they got my address through Spamcop? I thought it was munged. > > Thank you > > If this was in response to a report that you filed it is not spam and you should not report it -- regardless of whether it was sent to you via the @reports.spamcop.net address or the original spammed email address. Ellen From nospam at nospam.org Fri Nov 19 16:52:39 2004 From: nospam at nospam.org (geo_splash_12) Date: Fri Nov 19 10:55:03 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Pierre Merlin wrote: > Sorry, I'm tired, feverish and quite upset (thanx to troll guy) Invent a new pill and advertize it by e-mail, maybe that helps. From jeffg at spamcop.net Fri Nov 19 16:05:53 2004 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Fri Nov 19 16:35:04 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments References: Message-ID: Pierre Merlin organized electrons in article news:mailman.15.1100815454.4572.spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net that appeared as follows: > Here is how our list works: > - someone registers by entering email address, name and state on a > web form > - we get the IP and time stamp and store it in the profile and the > profile's history ... > - an email is sent to confirm this email including a link to confirm > this link is customized to the profile I'd suggest that you include in the email the IP and time stamp (including time zone) so that manual reporters can report malicious signups themselves. -- Best Regards, Jeff G. I have been a SpamCop User/Member/Customer since 1999 and am a Moderator of the new web-based forums (now the primary method for getting help, http://forum.spamcop.net). Please reply via Forum, Group, or List only. From jeffg at spamcop.net Fri Nov 19 16:11:57 2004 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Fri Nov 19 16:35:08 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments References: Message-ID: Pierre Merlin organized electrons in article news:mailman.13.1100814195.4572.spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net that appeared as follows: >> If he has a legitimate complaint then I would expect a tracking >> reference so we can check what's going on. > > Which tracking reference do you need? If you can provide the IP Address of the mailserver that you say is blocked, and/or a bounce message that indicates which mailserver is blocking it and why, and/or a SpamCop Tracking URL from a SpamCop Report filed against your mailserver, then we can have a constructive discussion of exactly what you can do about it. In the absence of those, I'd suggest reviewing the following URLs to help you understand why that mailserver has been listed and what you can do about it: "SpamCop - Help for spam report recipients" at http://www.spamcop.net/reported.shtml "FAQ Entry: Why is my email blocked?" at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=35 "Who appointed you the "cop" of the internet? Where do you get off?" at http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/95.html "How can I be de-listed" at http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/298.html "Why Am I Blocked FAQ" at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=509 "Cost of Spam" at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=660 -- Thanks and Best Regards, Jeff G. I have been a SpamCop User/Member/Customer since 1999 and am a Moderator of the new web-based forums (now the primary method for getting help, http://forum.spamcop.net). Please reply via Forum, Group, or List only. From plmerlin at hotmail.com Sat Nov 20 11:19:07 2004 From: plmerlin at hotmail.com (Pierre L Merlin) Date: Sat Nov 20 12:11:45 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments References: Message-ID: We will add it to our list system Thank you for the advice. Pierre ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff G." To: Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:05 PM Subject: Re: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments > Pierre Merlin organized electrons in article > news:mailman.15.1100815454.4572.spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net that > appeared as follows: >> Here is how our list works: >> - someone registers by entering email address, name and state on a >> web form >> - we get the IP and time stamp and store it in the profile and the >> profile's history > ... >> - an email is sent to confirm this email including a link to confirm >> this link is customized to the profile > > I'd suggest that you include in the email the IP and time stamp > (including time zone) so that manual reporters can report malicious > signups themselves. > > -- > Best Regards, Jeff G. > I have been a SpamCop User/Member/Customer since 1999 and am a > Moderator of the new web-based forums (now the primary method for > getting help, http://forum.spamcop.net). Please reply via Forum, Group, > or List only. > > From plmerlin at hotmail.com Sat Nov 20 11:20:44 2004 From: plmerlin at hotmail.com (Pierre L Merlin) Date: Sat Nov 20 12:13:04 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments References: Message-ID: I'll forward your recommendation to my techies. Will let you know. Thank you Pierre ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff G." To: Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:11 PM Subject: Re: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Questions and coments > Pierre Merlin organized electrons in article > news:mailman.13.1100814195.4572.spamcop-mail@news.spamcop.net that > appeared as follows: >>> If he has a legitimate complaint then I would expect a tracking >>> reference so we can check what's going on. >> >> Which tracking reference do you need? > > If you can provide the IP Address of the mailserver that you say is > blocked, and/or a bounce message that indicates which mailserver is > blocking it and why, and/or a SpamCop Tracking URL from a SpamCop Report > filed against your mailserver, then we can have a constructive > discussion of exactly what you can do about it. In the absence of > those, I'd suggest reviewing the following URLs to help you understand > why that mailserver has been listed and what you can do about it: > "SpamCop - Help for spam report recipients" at > http://www.spamcop.net/reported.shtml > "FAQ Entry: Why is my email blocked?" at > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=35 > "Who appointed you the "cop" of the internet? Where do you get off?" at > http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/95.html > "How can I be de-listed" at > http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/298.html > "Why Am I Blocked FAQ" at > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=509 > "Cost of Spam" at > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=660 > > -- > Thanks and Best Regards, Jeff G. > I have been a SpamCop User/Member/Customer since 1999 and am a > Moderator of the new web-based forums (now the primary method for > getting help, http://forum.spamcop.net). Please reply via Forum, Group, > or List only. > > From bernstein at cesmail.net Sat Nov 20 23:52:55 2004 From: bernstein at cesmail.net (Bob Bernstein) Date: Sat Nov 20 23:55:02 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] smime on webmail Message-ID: I have had no luck getting s/mime to work on the IMP webmail client. Yes, I am using an https connection. I upload the certs, but can never seem to get my passphrase accepted. This, when I have used the same cert and passphrase successfully on other MUA's. When considering your reply, please bear in mind that I know absolutely nothing about certs, s/mime, or much of anything else! Best regards, -- Bob Bernstein From jeffg at spamcop.net Sun Nov 21 04:55:45 2004 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Sun Nov 21 05:20:17 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: smime on webmail References: Message-ID: Bob Bernstein organized electrons in article news:cnp6v5$mpn$1@news.spamcop.net that appeared as follows: > I have had no luck getting s/mime to work on the IMP webmail client. > > Yes, I am using an https connection. I upload the certs, but can never > seem to get my passphrase accepted. This, when I have used the same > cert and passphrase successfully on other MUA's. > > When considering your reply, please bear in mind that I know > absolutely nothing about certs, s/mime, or much of anything else! Please either email JT about this or post it in the SpamCop Email Forum. -- Thanks and Best Regards, Jeff G. I have been a SpamCop User/Member/Customer since 1999 and am a Moderator of the new web-based forums (now the primary method for getting help, http://forum.spamcop.net). Please reply via Forum, Group, or List only. From w7el at eznec.com Wed Nov 24 22:56:00 2004 From: w7el at eznec.com (Roy Lewallen) Date: Thu Nov 25 02:00:03 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Suggestion - Held Mail preview Message-ID: If I want to preview a message in the Held Mail list, there's quite a delay before I see the message text. (Actually, I have to try it a couple of times, since the first time I usually see just a blank message screen with my Mozilla 1.7.1 browser.) Then there's a fairly long delay when I go back to the main listing of held mail by clicking the Back icon on my browser. I assume this second long delay is because SpamCop has to re-parse all the messages -- I usually have a full screen of 100. My suggestion is to open a second browser window when Preview is clicked, so going back to the main message listing won't require the relatively long delay. Or, is there some other way I should be going back to the list after previewing besides clicking Back? Roy Lewallen From jeffg at spamcop.net Thu Nov 25 10:00:48 2004 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Thu Nov 25 10:05:16 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Suggestion - Held Mail preview References: Message-ID: Roy Lewallen organized electrons in article news:co3vm2$m1c$1@news.spamcop.net that appeared as follows: > If I want to preview a message in the Held Mail list, there's quite a > delay before I see the message text. (Actually, I have to try it a > couple of times, since the first time I usually see just a blank > message screen with my Mozilla 1.7.1 browser.) Then there's a fairly > long delay when I go back to the main listing of held mail by > clicking the Back icon on my browser. I assume this second long delay > is because SpamCop has to re-parse all the messages -- I usually have > a full screen of 100. > > My suggestion is to open a second browser window when Preview is > clicked, so going back to the main message listing won't require the > relatively long delay. Or, is there some other way I should be going > back to the list after previewing besides clicking Back? > > Roy Lewallen As JT wrote in "Question about Login problems?" at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=416&view=findpost&p=2352 : *** Begin Quote *** The problem with logging in is that you have 37,000 messages in your trash folder. Here's what happens. Every time you login, the IMAP server goes through your trash and deletes everything older than 20 days. However, with that many messages in your trash, it takes a while to go through all of them and the IMAP server doesn't let anything else happen in the meantime. The webmail system thinks that the login failed, when it's really just taking a long time. Now, we made some changes a couple months ago that really improved this. Before, you would have been locked out entirely. Now, you have to login several times. Actually, you could probably wait 3 or 4 minutes and the second login would work every time. That's not a very good answer, though. You don't want to have to fool with that at all. There are several things you can do in webmail to help. In the webmail options, you can turn off moving deleted messages to the trash. When you delete them, they're just gone. You can also tell webmail to delete messages from the trash more than, say, 3 days old. That will keep it more manageable. You can try to remember to empty the trash yourself each time you're done with webmail. There's an icon for that. I'm in the process of emptying your trash, so it should work better for you from here on out. JT *** End Quote *** Another recommendation would be to stop applying rules to your Held Mail Folder until you get its size under control. -- Best Regards, Jeff G. I have been a SpamCop User/Member/Customer since 1999 and am a Moderator of the new web-based forums (now the primary method for getting help, http://forum.spamcop.net). Please reply via Forum, Group, or List only. From me at privacy.net Fri Nov 26 00:24:35 2004 From: me at privacy.net (Michael R N Dolbear) Date: Thu Nov 25 19:25:02 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Suggestion - Held Mail preview References: Message-ID: <01c4d341$b19ce140$LocalHost@default> Roy Lewallen wrote in article ... > If I want to preview a message in the Held Mail list, there's quite a > delay before I see the message text. (Actually, I have to try it a > couple of times, since the first time I usually see just a blank message [...] > My suggestion is to open a second browser window when Preview is > clicked, so going back to the main message listing won't require the > relatively long delay. You should be able to open a second browser window yourself. In IE it's right click (on Preview) then do Open In New Window from the right click menu. If the window is blank, click Refresh. This should speed things up lots since the main window is never redrawn. -- Mike D From w7el at eznec.com Thu Nov 25 23:57:28 2004 From: w7el at eznec.com (Roy Lewallen) Date: Fri Nov 26 03:00:20 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Suggestion - Held Mail preview In-Reply-To: <01c4d341$b19ce140$LocalHost@default> References: <01c4d341$b19ce140$LocalHost@default> Message-ID: Michael R N Dolbear wrote: > > You should be able to open a second browser window yourself. > > In IE it's right click (on Preview) then do Open In New Window from the > right click menu. > > If the window is blank, click Refresh. > > This should speed things up lots since the main window is never > redrawn. Thanks very much. That solves the problem. Roy Lewallen From jeffg at spamcop.net Fri Nov 26 22:20:32 2004 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Fri Nov 26 22:25:18 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: can't connect to {forum,mail,pop,imap}.spamcop References: Message-ID: Michael Vilain organized electrons in article news:vilain-7B83EC.18012026112004@news.cesmail.net that appeared as follows: > Connections to these are either exceedingly slow (2-5 minutes to just > display the forum pages) or just timeout altogether (pop,imap). Is > there a network problem within spamcop? Can't post to the forum to > check out what's going on with mail, which is where JT said is the > _only_ place he'll provide support. I'm not experiencing the same symptoms. Have you tried restarting your mail app, browser, and computer? Have you tried using the cesmail.net versions of those sites? Does ping or nslookup show a delay in resolving the names of those sites? Are you having a problem contacting the www and/or mailsc sites? If you are still having a problem, please email JT at support spamcop.net. -- Thanks and Best Regards, Jeff G. I have been a SpamCop User/Member/Customer since 1999 and am a Moderator of the new web-based forums (now the primary method for getting help, http://forum.spamcop.net). Please reply via Forum, Group, or List only. From 79ytka802 at sneakemail.com Sat Nov 27 20:02:27 2004 From: 79ytka802 at sneakemail.com (Aviatrix) Date: Sat Nov 27 15:05:16 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: can't connect to {forum,mail,pop,imap}.spamcop In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Michael Vilain " wrote: > Connections to these are either exceedingly slow (2-5 minutes to just > display the forum pages) or just timeout altogether (pop,imap). Is > there a network problem within spamcop? Can't post to the forum to > check out what's going on with mail, which is where JT said is the > _only_ place he'll provide support. I'm having problems too. Don't know about the forum (as I don't use it). I can get to the "report spam" section of my Spamcop account, but when I try to report spam it times out. I can get to the webmail section of my Spamcop account, I can open, delete and report individual messages, but if I try to delete more than one message it times out From 79ytka802 at sneakemail.com Sun Nov 28 17:56:21 2004 From: 79ytka802 at sneakemail.com (Aviatrix) Date: Sun Nov 28 13:00:03 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: can't connect to {forum,mail,pop,imap}.spamcop In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Aviatrix wrote: > I'm having problems too. > > Don't know about the forum (as I don't use it). > > I can get to the "report spam" section of my Spamcop account, but when I > try to report spam it times out. > > I can get to the webmail section of my Spamcop account, I can open, > delete and report individual messages, but if I try to delete more than > one message it times out I now know what was wrong. We have two ADSL lines into the house. We put in a load balancer yesterday to automatically switch between them. It seems that some web sites can't cope with this. Spamcop webmail is one of them (Hotmail is another). We're now back to switching manually... :-( From jeffg at spamcop.net Sun Nov 28 14:21:04 2004 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Sun Nov 28 14:25:03 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: can't connect to {forum,mail,pop,imap}.spamcop References: Message-ID: Aviatrix <79ytka802@sneakemail.com> organized electrons in article news:cod3g3$tnh$1@news.spamcop.net that appeared as follows: > Aviatrix wrote: > >> I'm having problems too. >> >> Don't know about the forum (as I don't use it). >> >> I can get to the "report spam" section of my Spamcop account, but >> when I try to report spam it times out. >> >> I can get to the webmail section of my Spamcop account, I can open, >> delete and report individual messages, but if I try to delete more >> than one message it times out > > I now know what was wrong. > > We have two ADSL lines into the house. We put in a load balancer > yesterday to automatically switch between them. It seems that some web > sites can't cope with this. Spamcop webmail is one of them (Hotmail is > another). > > We're now back to switching manually... :-( Aviatrix, Thanks for sharing that info. Would you mind sharing the Manufacturer, Make, and Model of that load balancer, so that other readers may be warned? -- Thanks and Best Regards, Jeff G. I have been a SpamCop User/Member/Customer since 1999 and am a Moderator of the new web-based forums (now the primary method for getting help, http://forum.spamcop.net). Please reply via Forum, Group, or List only. From 79ytka802 at sneakemail.com Sun Nov 28 20:37:51 2004 From: 79ytka802 at sneakemail.com (Aviatrix) Date: Sun Nov 28 15:40:04 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: can't connect to {forum,mail,pop,imap}.spamcop In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jeff G. wrote: > Aviatrix, > > Thanks for sharing that info. Would you mind sharing the Manufacturer, > Make, and Model of that load balancer, so that other readers may be > warned? > It's a Cyclone 200, made by a company called Neteyes. I have heard that they are quite receptive to customer feedback (apparently a previous version made ICQ crash, and they fixed that), so we are planning to tell them and hopefully they'll come up with a fix in due course. From Paul.Hunt at CustomSUPPORT.com Tue Nov 30 16:11:48 2004 From: Paul.Hunt at CustomSUPPORT.com (Paul F. Hunt) Date: Tue Nov 30 16:16:16 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: dnsbl.sorbs.net References: <20040928160020.1527.qmail@blade1.cesmail.net> Message-ID: <41ACE210.AF79886E@CustomSUPPORT.com> OK, I'm at a loss as to how to proceed. tops-tele.com is a local provider in my area that I (always?) see being blocked through Spamcop due to dnsbl.sorbs.net (and, yes, I know I can whitelist them). So I went to www.whois.sc and did a whois. That returned 208.24.123.5 . Then I went to dnsbl.sorbs.net to do a database query. It said: [208.24.123.5] was not found in the SORBS database. ??? Paul -- Paul.Hunt@CustomSUPPORT.com http://www.CustomSUPPORT.com From MikeE at ster.invalid Tue Nov 30 13:45:20 2004 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Tue Nov 30 16:45:10 2004 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: dnsbl.sorbs.net References: <20040928160020.1527.qmail@blade1.cesmail.net> Message-ID: Paul F. Hunt wrote: > tops-tele.com is a local provider in my area that I (always?) see > being blocked through Spamcop due to dnsbl.sorbs.net (and, yes, I > know I can whitelist them). I'm not following that. What does 'blocked through Spamcop due to [sorbs]' mean? SCbl is the spamcop blocklist, which lists by IP addresses, not domainnames. Sorbs is multiple lists and combined and also lists by IP addresses not domainnames. If we want to talk about a mail being blocked which you see, then that means that the sender of the mail would see some kind of nondelivery error, which optimally would show the IP being blocked, so that we don't have to guess at it. > So I went to www.whois.sc and did a > whois. That returned 208.24.123.5 . Then I went to dnsbl.sorbs.net to > do a database query. It said: > > [208.24.123.5] was not found in the SORBS database. Therein you see the 'problem' of needing to know what IP address you are talking about in order to find out what its condition is. Some nameservice on tops-tele.com will show that tops-tele.com DNS 208.24.123.5 but that doesn't tell us how its mail goes out. Mail for tops-tele.com is handled by mail.tops-tele.com mail.tops-tele.com DNS 208.31.125.27 but that doesn't tell you how its mail goes out either. So, then it is a pure guessing and sleuthing game. My sleuthing leads me to 208.24.123.52 rDNS du-208-52.tops-tele.com 52.123.24.208.dnsbl.sorbs.net 11/30/04 13:36:57 dns 52.123.24.208.dnsbl.sorbs.net Canonical name: 52.123.24.208.dnsbl.sorbs.net Addresses: 127.0.0.10 127.0.0.7 dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.10 Dynamic IP Address ranges web.dnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.7 List of web (WWW) servers which have spammer abusable vulnerabilities (e.g. FormMail scripts) Note: This zone now includes non-webserver IP addresses that have abusable vulnerabilities. So, there's a tops-tele.com which is sorbs listed, but that isn't necessarily the cause of your problems, see what I mean about needing to know the IP of the problem mail which is being blocked by someone? -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin