 URLs not reported, SC finds, but does not offer to LART! |
Other words, data, places --> SpamCop Pages
FAQs & Words
Newsgroups
WebMail
News-Recent Stuff
Poll on menu
This is a User to User Support Forum
The primary mode of support here is peer-to-peer, meaning users helping other users. (please remember this at all times!)
Another try:
This forum is composed of people who have used spamcop and those who are learning about anti-spam efforts.
  |
| navybuff |
 Mar 25 2005, 08:37 PM
Post
#41
|
|
Member  Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 12-February 04 Member No.: 353  |
And another:
http://www.ok-ref-yes.net/gone.asp http://www.ok-ref-yes.net/nowss.asp http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z745956625zef...8fe305f6200420z And another: http://guzzling.net/?aa -------------------- Over --- 90,000 Reports --- 12.19.06 Your average reporting time is: 3 hours; Great! |
   |
 
|
| Wazoo |
Mar 26 2005, 01:08 AM
Post
#42
|
|
What Life?  Group: Forum Admin Posts: 12536 Joined: 22-January 04 From: Iowa Member No.: 18 |
kind of silly to make another posting to simply add another URL (with no corresponfing Tracking URL??) .. so I snagged the data from your second post (which also didn't 'need' the previous post quoted in full) .. added that data to the first post .. deleted the second ... then started looking stuff up ...
QUOTE(navybuff @ Mar 25 2005, 07:37 PM) And another: http://www.ok-ref-yes.net/gone.asp http://www.ok-ref-yes.net/nowss.asp http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z745956625zef...8fe305f6200420z whois -h whois.crsnic.net ok-ref-yes.net ... Redirecting to COMPUTER SERVICES LANGENBACH GMBH DBA JOKER.COM whois -h whois.joker.com ok-ref-yes.net ... domain: ok-ref-yes.net status: lock organization: DL Int owner: David Learner email: davidlearner007[at]yahoo.com address: 15 Hillview Gardens city: London state: -- postal-code: NW4 2JJ country: GB admin-c: davidlearner007[at]yahoo.com#0 tech-c: davidlearner007[at]yahoo.com#0 billing-c: davidlearner007[at]yahoo.com#0 nserver: ns1.educate-2.com nserver: ns2.educate-2.com registrar: JORE-1 created: 2005-03-22 00:45:52 UTC JORE-1 modified: 2005-03-23 14:59:29 UTC JORE-1 expires: 2006-03-21 19:45:52 UTC source: joker.com Take care of the Yahoo e-mail address, then contact GoDaddy .... 03/25/05 23:51:30 Slow traceroute www.ok-ref-yes.net Trace www.ok-ref-yes.net (221.5.250.111) ... 219.158.3.77 RTT: 218ms TTL: 16 (No rDNS) 219.158.10.106 RTT: 246ms TTL: 16 (No rDNS) 221.5.254.106 RTT: 243ms TTL: 16 (No rDNS) 221.5.254.3 RTT: 413ms TTL: 16 (No rDNS) 221.5.254.162 RTT: 243ms TTL: 16 (No rDNS) 221.5.248.219 RTT: 414ms TTL: 16 (No rDNS) 221.5.250.111 RTT: 417ms TTL:112 (ok-ref-yes.net ok) Note the very slow reaction time involved in getting there ... 03/25/05 23:53:00 Browsing http://www.ok-ref-yes.net/ Fetching http://www.ok-ref-yes.net/ ... GET / HTTP/1.1 Host: www.ok-ref-yes.net <html><head><title>The American Refinance Mortgage Specialist</title> Complaint to the FTC at least? QUOTE whois -h whois.opensrs.net guzzling.net ... Registrant: NA Berggasse 19 Wien, na A-1090 AT Domain name: GUZZLING.NET Administrative Contact: Zenger, Mathias zabavno2k[at]yahoo.com Berggasse 19 Wien, na A-1090 AT +43.131945317 Technical Contact: Zenger, Mathias zabavno2k[at]yahoo.com Berggasse 19 Wien, na A-1090 AT +43.131945317 Registration Service Provider: Tucows/Opensrs, sales[at]opensrs.org 416-535-0123 http://referrals.tucows.com/ Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC. Record last updated on 17-Mar-2005. Record expires on 24-Feb-2006. Record created on 24-Feb-2005. Domain servers in listed order: NS1.ALON587.COM 219.138.7.185 NS2.ALON587.COM 219.138.7.186 Domain status: ACTIVE pretty much the same as above .... However, some of it may have already been accomplished? 03/26/05 00:05:36 Slow traceroute guzzling.net Trace guzzling.net failed, no such host 03/26/05 00:06:39 Browsing http://guzzling.net/ Host guzzling.net doesn't exist, trying 127.0.0.1 instead |
|
|
|
| navybuff |
Mar 26 2005, 09:48 AM
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 12-February 04 Member No.: 353 |
03/26/05 00:06:39 Browsing http://guzzling.net/
Host guzzling.net doesn't exist, trying 127.0.0.1 instead  [/quote] May be silly, but I thought I was paying to have spamcop lookup this stuff. I have looked up everything you mention here and got the same results, except one, http://guzzling.net. Server Used: [ whois.opensrs.net ] guzzling.net = [ 222.47.183.57 ] Registrant: NA Berggasse 19 Wien na A-1090 AT Domain name: GUZZLING.NET Administrative Contact: Zenger Mathias zabavno2k[at]yahoo.com Berggasse 19 Wien na A-1090 AT 43.131945317 Technical Contact: Zenger Mathias zabavno2k[at]yahoo.com Berggasse 19 Wien na A-1090 AT 43.131945317 Registration Service Provider: Tucows/Opensrs sales[at]opensrs.org 416-535-0123 http://referrals.tucows.com/ Registrar of Record: TUCOWS INC. Record last updated on 17-Mar-2005. Record expires on 24-Feb-2006. Record created on 24-Feb-2005. Domain servers in listed order: NS1.ALON587.COM 219.138.7.185 NS2.ALON587.COM 219.138.7.186 Domain status: ACTIVE 222.47.183.57 = [ ] inetnum: 222.32.0.0 - 222.63.255.255 netname: CRTC descr: CHINA RAILWAY TELECOMMUNICATIONS CENTER descr: 22F Yuetan Mansion Xicheng District Beijing P.R.China country: CN admin-c: LQ112-AP tech-c: LM273-AP status: ALLOCATED PORTABLE changed: hm-changed[at]apnic.net 20030902 mnt-by: MAINT-CNNIC-AP mnt-lower: MAINT-CN-CRTC mnt-routes: MAINT-CN-CRTC source: APNIC route: 222.32.0.0/11 descr: CHINA RAILWAY TELECOMMUNICATIONS country: CN origin: AS9394 mnt-by: MAINT-CN-CRTC changed: wangpei[at]crc.net.cn 20040402 source: APNIC person: LV QIANG nic-hdl: LQ112-AP e-mail: crnet_mgr[at]chinatietong.com address: 22F Yuetan Mansion Xicheng District Beijing P.R.China phone: 86-10-51890499 fax-no: 86-10-51890674 country: CN changed: ipas[at]cnnic.net.cn 20041208 mnt-by: MAINT-CNNIC-AP source: APNIC person: liu min nic-hdl: LM273-AP e-mail: crnet_tec[at]chinatietong.com address: 22F Yuetan Mansion Xicheng District Beijing P.R.China phone: 86-10-51848796 fax-no: 86-10-51842426 country: CN changed: ipas[at]cnnic.net.cn 20041208 mnt-by: MAINT-CNNIC-AP source: APNIC Spamcop can not resolve this and return these results, but I can... Just wondering what is going on... -------------------- Over --- 90,000 Reports --- 12.19.06 Your average reporting time is: 3 hours; Great! |
|
|
|
| berryproud |
Mar 26 2005, 10:23 AM
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 10-April 04 Member No.: 1060 |
Please forgive me if this is the wrong place to post this...
I got a reply from spamcop about a spam I reported...here it is.... SpamCop v 1.418.2.2 © Ironport Systems Inc., 1998-2005 , All rights reserved. Here is your TRACKING URL - it may be saved for future reference: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z746102558z3b...52dcdbbcf35aadz Tracking message source: 24.203.217.72: Routing details for 24.203.217.72 [refresh/show] Cached whois for 24.203.217.72 : abuse[at]videotron.ca Using abuse net on abuse[at]videotron.ca abuse net videotron.ca = abuse[at]videotron.ca Using best contacts abuse[at]videotron.ca ISP has indicated spam will cease; ISP resolved this issue sometime after Saturday, March 26, 2005 8:50:49 AM -0600 Message is 2 hours old 24.203.217.72 not listed in dnsbl.njabl.org 24.203.217.72 not listed in dnsbl.njabl.org 24.203.217.72 listed in cbl.abuseat.org ( 127.0.0.2 ) 24.203.217.72 is an open proxy 24.203.217.72 not listed in query.bondedsender.org 24.203.217.72 not listed in iadb.isipp.com Finding links in message body Parsing HTML part Resolving link obfuscation http://iefgqellmnautfhw.jmbeheldgm.ws/?hwp...fctlgdbhbelbfas http://hczvirysmgwxzfqh1qng401ygxjqy21.elreposteg.ws/ host hczvirysmgwxzfqh1qng401ygxjqy21.elreposteg.ws (checking ip) = 222.51.91.252 host 222.51.91.252 (getting name) no name http://azwpdheieqrckewxpwtmao74m3pw4qp.jmbeheldgm.ws/ http://wfopfhtbdkogaess1qng401ygxjqy21.elreposteg.ws/ host wfopfhtbdkogaess1qng401ygxjqy21.elreposteg.ws (checking ip) = 200.149.11.61 host 200.149.11.61 (getting name) no name http://fkabkpvuhchqazsf.elreposteg.ws/?apc...itygatzmfkhyuze host fkabkpvuhchqazsf.elreposteg.ws (checking ip) = 222.47.183.53 host 222.47.183.53 (getting name) no name http://soiewzwlfviydofc.elreposteg.ws/?apc...hvyzvtnyiikkldf host soiewzwlfviydofc.elreposteg.ws (checking ip) = 222.51.91.252 host 222.51.91.252 (getting name) no name Tracking link: http://hczvirysmgwxzfqh1qng401ygxjqy21.elreposteg.ws/ No recent reports, no history available Resolves to 222.51.91.252 Routing details for 222.51.91.252 [refresh/show] Cached whois for 222.51.91.252 : crnet_mgr[at]chinatietong.com crnet_tec[at]chinatietong.com Using abuse net on crnet_mgr[at]chinatietong.com abuse net chinatietong.com = postmaster[at]chinatietong.com, crnet_mgr[at]chinatietong.com, crnet_tec[at]chinatietong.com Using best contacts postmaster[at]chinatietong.com crnet_mgr[at]chinatietong.com crnet_tec[at]chinatietong.com Tracking link: http://wfopfhtbdkogaess1qng401ygxjqy21.elreposteg.ws/ No recent reports, no history available Resolves to 200.149.11.61 Routing details for 200.149.11.61 [refresh/show] Cached whois for 200.149.11.61 : mail-abuse[at]nic.br fneves[at]registro.br Using abuse net on mail-abuse[at]nic.br abuse net nic.br = mail-abuse[at]nic.br, antispambr[at]abuse.net, postmaster[at]nic.br Using best contacts mail-abuse[at]nic.br antispambr[at]abuse.net postmaster[at]nic.br antispambr[at]abuse.net redirects to spambr[at]admin.spamcop.net I refuse to bother postmaster[at]nic.br Tracking link: http://fkabkpvuhchqazsf.elreposteg.ws/?apc...itygatzmfkhyuze No recent reports, no history available Resolves to 222.47.183.53 Routing details for 222.47.183.53 [refresh/show] Cached whois for 222.47.183.53 : crnet_mgr[at]chinatietong.com crnet_tec[at]chinatietong.com Using abuse net on crnet_mgr[at]chinatietong.com abuse net chinatietong.com = postmaster[at]chinatietong.com, crnet_mgr[at]chinatietong.com, crnet_tec[at]chinatietong.com Using best contacts postmaster[at]chinatietong.com crnet_mgr[at]chinatietong.com crnet_tec[at]chinatietong.com Tracking link: http://soiewzwlfviydofc.elreposteg.ws/?apc...hvyzvtnyiikkldf No recent reports, no history available Resolves to 222.51.91.252 Routing details for 222.51.91.252 [refresh/show] Cached whois for 222.51.91.252 : crnet_mgr[at]chinatietong.com crnet_tec[at]chinatietong.com Using abuse net on crnet_mgr[at]chinatietong.com abuse net chinatietong.com = postmaster[at]chinatietong.com, crnet_mgr[at]chinatietong.com, crnet_tec[at]chinatietong.com Using best contacts postmaster[at]chinatietong.com crnet_mgr[at]chinatietong.com crnet_tec[at]chinatietong.com Finding IP block owner: Routing details for 24.203.217.72 [refresh/show] Cached whois for 24.203.217.72 : abuse[at]videotron.ca Using abuse net on abuse[at]videotron.ca abuse net videotron.ca = abuse[at]videotron.ca Using best contacts abuse[at]videotron.ca If reported today, reports would be sent to: Re: 24.203.217.72 (Administrator of IP block - statistics only) abuse[at]videotron.ca Re: 24.203.217.72 (Third party interested in email source) spamcop[at]imaphost.com Re: http://fkabkpvuhchqazsf.elreposteg.ws/?apcfcra9... (Administrator of network hosting website referenced in spam) postmaster[at]chinatietong.com crnet_mgr[at]chinatietong.com crnet_tec[at]chinatietong.com Re: http://hczvirysmgwxzfqh1qng401ygxjqy21.elrepost... (Administrator of network hosting website referenced in spam) postmaster[at]chinatietong.com crnet_mgr[at]chinatietong.com crnet_tec[at]chinatietong.com Re: http://soiewzwlfviydofc.elreposteg.ws/?apcfcra9... (Administrator of network hosting website referenced in spam) postmaster[at]chinatietong.com crnet_mgr[at]chinatietong.com crnet_tec[at]chinatietong.com Re: http://wfopfhtbdkogaess1qng401ygxjqy21.elrepost... (Administrator of network hosting website referenced in spam) Internal spamcop handling: (spambr) mail-abuse[at]nic.br My question is why was this not reported?? The isp said the spam would cease but it obviously Has not!! Do we just take the isp's word for it and stop reporting?? They can continue to send spam now without getting reports?? I am confused about this...if the spam had stopped why and I still getting it?? Thanks in advance for your time. |
|
|
|
| Jeff G. |
Mar 26 2005, 04:12 PM
Post
#45
|
|
T-shirt wearing out  Group: Membersph Posts: 3730 Joined: 2-July 04 From: Northeast New Jersey (New York Metro Area), USA ... Please read my sig. :) Member No.: 2041 |
berry, you got the spam before the ISP said they fixed it, please chill out. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
-------------------- Best Regards, Jeff G. (full signature)
|
|
|
|
| berryproud |
Mar 27 2005, 07:02 AM
Post
#46
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 10-April 04 Member No.: 1060 |
QUOTE(Jeff G. @ Mar 26 2005, 04:12 PM) berry, you got the spam before the ISP said they fixed it, please chill out. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I dont' know what you mean by "chill out." But I got another one TODAY. Fixed it huh?? So before I "chill out" could someone that has some REAL advice please tell me why this is happening?? Also why is this forum so full of idiots?? "Chill out." Thats real intelligent advice. I suggest you go back to your Jr. High homework and leave the forum to adults. "Chill out." Haven't heard that one since I was 12. Nice. |
|
|
|
| StevenUnderwood |
Mar 27 2005, 07:23 AM
Post
#47
|
|
What Life? Group: Membersph Posts: 5141 Joined: 20-January 04 From: Whitinsville, MA USA Member No.: 12 |
QUOTE But I got another one TODAY. You got spam from the exact same source (24.203.217.72) and the date it was sent (not when you received it) was after March 26, 2005 8:50:49 AM -0600? Please post the tracking URL only please. From your original: 0: Received: from 24.203.217.72 (HELO modemcable072.217-203-24.mc.videotron.ca) (24.203.217.72) by mta305.mail.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; Sat, 26 Mar 2005 05:05:11 -0800 (25-mar-2005:21:05:11) ISP has indicated spam will cease; ISP resolved this issue sometime after Saturday, March 26, 2005 8:50:49 AM -0600 (26-mar-2005:02:50:49) As Jeff stated, the spam was sent to you almost 6 hours before the ISP took action. That is actually pretty good response time from an ISP. If you are a paid account holder, you are allowed to appeal the ISP response if nobody has appealed the ISP response already. In that case a deputy will look over the evidence and start sending reports again, but the timing needs to be correct. -------------------- Steven P. Underwood, DNRC
Whitinsville, MA underwood+forum[at]spamcop.net -No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.- |
|
|
|
| Jeff G. |
Mar 27 2005, 07:44 AM
Post
#48
|
|
T-shirt wearing out Group: Membersph Posts: 3730 Joined: 2-July 04 From: Northeast New Jersey (New York Metro Area), USA ... Please read my sig. :) Member No.: 2041 |
Actually, it appears that the spam was sent 1 hour 45 minutes 38 seconds before the ISP said the issue was fixed. The spam was sent Sat, 26 Mar 2005 05:05:11 -0800 (13:05:11 UTC), and the ISP indicated spam woul cease after Saturday, March 26, 2005 8:50:49 AM -0600 (14:50:49 UTC).
And if berryproud uses an ad-hominem attack here or via PM again, or emails me, it will be reported. -------------------- Best Regards, Jeff G. (full signature)
|
|
|
|
| StevenUnderwood |
Mar 27 2005, 09:42 AM
Post
#49
|
|
What Life? Group: Membersph Posts: 5141 Joined: 20-January 04 From: Whitinsville, MA USA Member No.: 12 |
You are right, I always have trouble converting to UTC. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
-------------------- Steven P. Underwood, DNRC
Whitinsville, MA underwood+forum[at]spamcop.net -No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.- |
|
|
|
| swingspacers |
Mar 27 2005, 10:08 AM
Post
#50
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 176 Joined: 22-January 05 Member No.: 3466 |
Jeff, I know you did not mean it that way, but in some circles asking someone to "chill out" or to "calm down" is considered an insult. The English language is used in many different ways by different people, and sometimes such misunderstandings occur. I guess the best we can do is to try to follow the tips in the FAQs, especially numbers 4 and 7.
As for the time stamping, if you look at the tracker now the time when the ISP resolved the issue seems to have changed: ISP has indicated spam will cease; ISP resolved this issue sometime after Sunday, March 27, 2005 05:49:40 -0500 Does that mean that this was appealed and then the ISP reported again to have resolved this issue? A suggestion: Would it make sense to set up the system in such a way that a message with a time stamp that clearly indicates that it was sent after the ISP resolved the issue triggers an automatic appeal? After all, it is clear evidence that the issue was not resolved. |
|
|
|
| Miss Betsy |
Mar 27 2005, 05:57 PM
Post
#51
|
|
T-shirt wearing out Group: Membersph Posts: 3332 Joined: 2-February 04 Member No.: 174 |
QUOTE As for the time stamping, if you look at the tracker now the time when the ISP resolved the issue seems to have changed: Out of curiosity, I looked at the tracker URL to see if it had changed again. It was still the original time. For some reason I never sent this post. It is now hours later. Miss Betsy -------------------- an almost new internet user
if you don't think your post has been answered sufficiently, please email service[at]admin.spamcop.net |
|
|
|
| mrmaxx |
Mar 29 2005, 08:28 AM
Post
#52
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Memberp Posts: 407 Joined: 13-February 04 From: Dalton, GA Member No.: 369 |
QUOTE(swingspacers @ Mar 25 2005, 05:37 PM) mrmaxx, maybe you can solve your problem by updating Outlook. I have tested the exact message you posted, and it comes up as completely blank for me in the most recent versions of Outlook and Outlook Express. These programs now seem to respect the MIME specifications just fine and ignore everything behind the final boundary delimiter. The good news is, if the spam was really sent as posted, the spammer has wasted his time for all recipients who have properly working email clients (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) Much as I'd love to update the version of Outlook, I can't. This is a corporate environment and we don't have licenses for newer versions of LookOut... err Outlook. Heck, if I could, I'd ditch Outlook entirely. I'm VERY anti-MS software. :-) |
|
|
|
| Jeff G. |
Mar 29 2005, 10:37 AM
Post
#53
|
|
T-shirt wearing out Group: Membersph Posts: 3730 Joined: 2-July 04 From: Northeast New Jersey (New York Metro Area), USA ... Please read my sig. :) Member No.: 2041 |
Try asking your Microsoft contacts to fix this important security problem with their product - it now appears to fail the implied warranty of fitness of purpose.
Then again, IANAL. -------------------- Best Regards, Jeff G. (full signature)
|
|
|
|
| mrmaxx |
Mar 29 2005, 11:57 AM
Post
#54
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Memberp Posts: 407 Joined: 13-February 04 From: Dalton, GA Member No.: 369 |
QUOTE(Jeff G. @ Mar 29 2005, 10:37 AM) Try asking your Microsoft contacts to fix this important security problem with their product - it now appears to fail the implied warranty of fitness of purpose. Then again, IANAL. Hah! Do you know what it's like trying to get "support" from Microsoft without them charging an arm and a leg?!?! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif) |
|
|
|
| Jeff G. |
Mar 29 2005, 12:04 PM
Post
#55
|
|
T-shirt wearing out Group: Membersph Posts: 3730 Joined: 2-July 04 From: Northeast New Jersey (New York Metro Area), USA ... Please read my sig. :) Member No.: 2041 |
If you have lawyers on retainer (or even on staff), then you can ask your lawyers to ask their lawyers. Seriously, I hear that responsibilities under warranties of fitness of purpose are not easily shirked, especially if the FTC gets involved.
-------------------- Best Regards, Jeff G. (full signature)
|
|
|
|
| mrmaxx |
Mar 29 2005, 01:21 PM
Post
#56
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Memberp Posts: 407 Joined: 13-February 04 From: Dalton, GA Member No.: 369 |
QUOTE(Jeff G. @ Mar 29 2005, 12:04 PM) If you have lawyers on retainer (or even on staff), then you can ask your lawyers to ask their lawyers. Seriously, I hear that responsibilities under warranties of fitness of purpose are not easily shirked, especially if the FTC gets involved. "Lawyer on Retainer..." Oh, that's good... I'm assuming we do, but I have no access to 'em... I'm just a peon. :-) |
|
|
|
| Gromit |
Mar 29 2005, 01:23 PM
Post
#57
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 11-November 04 Member No.: 3032 |
Okay, I'm pretty sure this is what you all are talking about, but I haven't seen it addressed this way:
http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z747217631zf7...1a352676dac9e2z --- Finding links in message body Parsing text part Resolving link obfuscation http://decline.easy-home-loans.org/rem.php http://accepted.easy-home-loans.org/2/inde...proved/callback Please make sure this email IS spam: From: "Wade M. Dillon" <wadedillonvx[at]worldnet.att.net> (Top Notch Refinances hassle free) You have been pre-approved for a $400,000 Home Loan at a Fixed Rate as low as 3.25%. This offer is being extended to you View full message --- You'll notice it skips from "Resolving link obfuscation" straight to "please make sure it is spam" without doing anything about the links. Oddly, if I hit refresh a bunch of times (up to 20, but only twice this time), sooner or later SC decides to do something about it and pulls out the contact information on the links. |
|
|
|
| mrmaxx |
Mar 29 2005, 01:25 PM
Post
#58
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Memberp Posts: 407 Joined: 13-February 04 From: Dalton, GA Member No.: 369 |
QUOTE(Gromit @ Mar 29 2005, 01:23 PM) Okay, I'm pretty sure this is what you all are talking about, but I haven't seen it addressed this way: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z747217631zf7...1a352676dac9e2z (snip) Yeah.. that's one of the problems.... Another problem is that SC never even *sees* the spamvertised URLs. This post has been edited by mrmaxx: Mar 29 2005, 01:26 PM |
|
|
|
| Gromit |
Mar 29 2005, 03:20 PM
Post
#59
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 11-November 04 Member No.: 3032 |
Yeah, I've noticed that one too.
|
|
|
|
| trpted |
Mar 30 2005, 08:41 AM
Post
#60
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 7-January 05 Member No.: 3361 |
http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z747473816z87...ec0fd4ab662b75z
host qfl.loacm.com (checking ip) ip not found ; qfl.loacm.com discarded as fake. Cannot resolve http://qfl.loacm.com But using whois does ( http://dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=loacm.com&email=on) resolve the top level domain name loacm.com . Could I report them because it is in their, subdomain to be exact, domain? This post has been edited by trpted: Mar 30 2005, 08:42 AM |
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st November 2009 - 04:14 PM |
Invision Power Board
- Apple IIGs Powered © 2009 IPS, Inc.