In random checking on a flood of identical Acai spam, mostly from the same spammer (Again, why do they thing they can sell better by spamming the same address over and over?).

However my question is simply that I notice that spamcop does not even show the blogspot URL (which is a redirect), let alone say Google doesn't want to receive reports. Google however has their own form for reporting such spam, yet they won't let spamcop do their detective work for them.

Is there something I'm missing here or does Google just not give a damn anymore?

Didn't I read somewhere that Google just laid off some folks? May not be anyone to read the mail in an effort that doesn't have a revenue stream.

On the other hand this link from another thread. http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2009/...ds-q1-2009.html

Without a Tracking URL, I don't see this going very far.

OK OK. I didn't provide a tracking number because I thought it was a simple question that didn't need research. I can't be the only one getting, literally, dozens of Acai spam all from the same spammer (same text etc.) and all with a %$%%%.blogspot.com redirect link, which in turn leads to a chinese hosted website, or Charter etc.

I did check a few more out today and find that this particular blogspot URL is now under suspension, so I guess they do do something, if only slowly.

I'm guessing that Google is one of those that has told Spamcop that they don't want to be bothered with this crap, and that would be fine if they were more effective at identifying the spammers than Spamcop is, but obviously they are not.

I'm just curious if anyone knows anything more.

As has been said before, I don't spend much time reading the spam. But sense you ask nicely I went back and counted. So far today I have gotten 34 spam with Acai in the Subject: Yes the bodies do look similar, but pick a topic and most related spam do look the same for a period of time.

[edit]Looking at your link, my spam is not similar to yours.[/edit]

Update. Here is a tracking URL if anyone want tto check a typical Acai spam:

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z2753845073z2...93fb97ee62b996z

I guess nobody has anything to add regarding Google policy on this, but for an update I checked the blogspot links for the last 5 of these that I received this afternoon. All of them are suspended, so I guess they have finally figured out how to find them without spamcop help, but it is still irritating that they refuse our reports.

Correction to my partial Google compliment above. They have a notice that these blogspots (some, not all are under investigation, but otherwise the redirects are still active if one clicks past that, and these are coming in still at the rate of tens per hour, if not more.

Google is pitiful.

Do yours redirect to allow body com?

I report these whenever I can directly to Google using the facility they set up for this. I haven't checked lately, but the sites do get shut down for the most part, sometimes within a day or so of my reporting. I've seen enough to suggest that Google is acting in good faith.

No one is obligated to receive or act on SpamCop advisories if they do not want them. Otherwise, these would be unsolicited e-mail or, er, spam.

-- rick

Yes, some do, some don't, some have warning, some not.

Of Acai spam with a blogspot link some have the warning some don't. Yes, a the 2 i checked have a link to allowbody.

Seems like blogspot is working at it. It would be nice if they were faster, but this may not be their only issue.

Fini

I'm still getting a flood of these, but I just noticed that they are dropping blogspot and going to unique URLs for each one that I looked at. Not sure what technique they are using, but as far as Google is concerned, they claim to have the most brilliant minds on the planet, yet take days to determine what is spam and what is not. They could knock out a program to analyze reports, like from spamcop, in minutes. It takes moments to look at these sites and determine what they are.

I give them no credit for doing more than the minimum. You are all too kind.

Its a honey/vinegar issue I think. There are many ISPs/host/portals that do less.

But they are not Google. If I had any damn choice I would use someone else, just because of stuff like this.

Don't you have a choice of search engines - I have several in my search box.

Also, it's all about the bottom line. Don't forget that.

Miss Betsy

I used to use different ones, but it is a matter of perception of accuracy. I haven't researched the status, but are others just as good?

As to the bottom line, I refuse to believe that being aggressive about spammers would be noticed through a microscope in their bottom line. People get lazy when they get fat.

(I'm not fat by the way.)

Go here:

http://help.blogger.com/?page=contact

Check the radio button "Report a Terms of Service violation" under the heading " I'd like to ..." and press submit.

Check the radio button "spam (Learn more.)" under the heading "Report a Terms of Service Violation" and press continue.

Enter the URL in the area given under the heading "Report a spam blog" and press submit.

Done!

I find the blogs gone within 48-72 hours

Cheers!

Thanks, and I've seen that. Presumably the reason it may take 72 hours, or more I think, for a reaction is that this type of reporting doesn't confirm that this is a spammer. Some jerkoff can post a legitimate site to sell Acai to idiots, and I could care less. If you or I report it this way, how does anyone know if we are just not competitors trashing someone?

I question if this is the sole evidence they need to cut someone off.

It seems to me that the only way to know if they are a spammer is by getting a few hundred or thousand reports from something like spamcop that this is genuine spam, with the documentation attached.

I'm confused.

1. What SpamCop reports has Google refused to accept? I see no evidence that the spam is coming from a Google source therefore no reports to refuse. - The spamvertised site is a different.

2. Your example from above doesn't analyze the blogspot spamvertised link. Nor do any of my related quick submissions. So I don't see where a report has been generated for Google.

3. What reports/evidence has been given to Google to close down the spamvertised blogspot link?

Don't get me wrong, I think spammers are the scourge of the earth. On the other hand I don't want my government or you telling me what I can put on the internet.

Of course Google can do whatever their business model allows. I guess the current Acai bean buzz just doesn't light my fire.

Spamcop reports to the spam source and to the website host, although I understand the focus is on the email source.

So be it, but I see many reports where Google is identified AND a message that they do not wish to receive reports of this sort, so spamcop doesn't send one. In many cases, like most but not all of these recent ones, one doesn't even see that message except something to the effect of "obfuscation".

I'm not blaming spamcop for that, but I do think it's pretty poor of Google to pretend they have nothing to do with it and refuse the information. In my opinion the websites are more valuable to spammers than the email sender.

As to evidence, I thought I addressed that above. Did you not read it? A complaint about a website does not prove it's a spammer, but a thousand reports with source code does.

Acai or penis enhancer. It's all the same, but this started because Acai was exclusively going through Google when it started a few days ago. Now it seems to be easing, but I was getting 10 or more per hour for a while there. All the same crap.

What does it take to light your fire?

Forst of all, thanks for providing a Tracking URL. Looking at your sample, I see nothing wrong in its construct ... headers state Plain-text, URL is shown as properly constructed. The parser did actually find it.

Therefore, we are back to the scenario that has led to many, many existing Topics, Discussions, and even a FAQ entry or three. Due to whatever reasons that either the Cisco/IronPort software engineers won't divulge, or that the answer is hidden within the gobbledygook Engineering Reports that Don and crew have admitted that they don't understand, the parsing server(s) involved decided not to actually do anything with that "found URL" .. thus, no messge about its handling.

Historical evidence is that if refreshed enough times, one might eventually get the parse to occur on just the right parsing server, under the right load conditions, that 'everything' ends up on the target list. The downside to playing this game is all the resources you end up stealing from everyone esle, causing all the extra look-ups which impacts network traffic and speed (and cost), and typically the results end up with some "don't care" Hosts anyway.

Flip side of course, especually since this URL is so "in the clear" ...

• Do your own manual report.
• Join the crowd that have moved on to Quick-Reporting, which doesn't do body content parsing at all.
• Simply accept that this type of a parsing result is actually a known issue that will not be discussed by those that do know the whys and wherefores of the actual 'problem' ...???

Actually, I really don't care if Blogspot or any other website host is crammed full of advertising websites - whether good or bad. Websites don't clutter my mailbox.

The Emails these people send out do which is why I focus on addressing the junk mail problem. Getting Google (or any other web host) to disable a website is a minor inconvenience and these folk keep moving all the time. Disabling their websites doesn't stop them sending me junk Email. Keeping an effective blocking/reporting process for offending mail servers keeps my mailbox empty. I get around 20 spam items a day in my held mail - the rest I don't even see. I don't recall an Acai spam this week - most seem to be phishing attempts for banks I've never had an account with. I don't see more than one or two spam messages per week in my working mailbox.

So I'm content with the reporting process. Personally, I think 2-3 days is reasonable for any ISP to properly investigate a complaint and remove an offending website. I can recall many complainants in these forums being supported when an ISP acts too quickly and fails to properly investigate before suspending a customer.

Andrew

What would be the point of sending spam if they didn't have a point of sale?

That's like saying people who litter don't bother you because they aren't what's laying in the street.


Got to run. Traveling all day.

Cheers

To me, the analogy goes more like, the spam is the litter, the spammer is the litterer, and the site within the spam is just garbage that I do not look at.

Since I have gotten my spam to a reasonable level (thank you greylisting), I currently do full reporting of all spam that reaches my account. However, I don't worry if the web site is found/reported or not. Most of the time, I don't even know if there is a link in the spam until I see where reports are going.

I don't think so... I'm simply suggesting that tackling the actual problem is more effective since it actually relieves the effect on me and others (ie I don't get the junk Emails). Closing down websites doesn't help relieve the problem (ie spam Email).

Hope you had a good day on the road.

Andrew

There are other people who agree with you that closing down the 'point of sale' is effective. IMHO, closing down websites because of content is dangerous because you don't know why websites might be closed down based on that precedence.

What other contributors to this thread are saying is that no one has to go to that website. I don't and none of the other posters do because we never read the spam (or don't receive it in our inbox in the first place). If no one goes to the website, then there are no sales. If no one gets a spam because of blocklists like spamcop and others, then no one knows that website exists. Of course, you could find it with search engines or links from other sites. But then you are free to do so. It doesn't affect anyone other than you.

Almost all of the spamvertized website reports, IMHO, go either to the spammer directly or to a provider who isn't going to stop them from spamming. IMHO, it is a waste of time to report spamvertized websites as well as possibly contributing to the downfall of free speech on the internet. In addition, webhosting outfits have closed down legitimate websites without investigating to see if the report was accurate.

However, wherever the spam is sent from can be blocked (and very effectively). I don't see it. Dimwits who might buy from that site don't see it. And, no one's freedom of speech is blocked. If there are legitimate email users at that IP address, they have a choice - choose a provider or hire a server admin who knows how to prevent spam from being sent or get their email blocked on a regular basis. You get what you pay for.

Now, I do think that the scofflaws who do not publish accurate information as required by ICANN should be reported. It is a time consuming process, however.

In the old days, the slogan was that anti-spam was based on conSent, not conTent. Nowadays, almost no spam has content that any rational person would want to see. However, the slogan is still true - if I didn't consent in some way (like signing up or buying an item), then it is spam even if it is a message from the President, the Pope, or from your neighbor selling a lawn mower. You might not report your neighbor, but there are plenty of people who would report the President and the Pope and some who would report their neighbor on principle. If I didn't ask for it, it is unsolicited email and therefore spam.

Spamvertized websites were reported in those days as an educational tool so that legitimate merchants would adopt confirmed subscription. Nowadays, there is no need for education. No legitimate merchant would spam or even if they were clueless, no reputable webhost or ISP would allow them to.

There are plenty of people who do go to the trouble of trying to shut down spammy websites, but most of them use other tools than spamcop.

Miss Betsy

One issue that hasn't been mentioned here is the fact that spammers can (and do) plant web links in their mailings that have nothing to do with their spam. This would complicate any scheme to use SpamCop data in some automated fashion to close out websites.

1. These might be completely unrelated websites belonging to strangers (the granddaddy of all of these is described on my website), planted in order to choke spam filters or to confuse human spam investigators.
2. Often fraud artists will put links to news websites in their pitches, in order to provide "evidence" for their come-ons. Stock spammers used to do this with Yahoo finance, etc. 419 scammers often cited news links (CNN, etc.) to stories about plane crashes and the like.
3. Still another breed of spammer, the Joe-Jobber, will attempt to implicate an innocent third party as a spammer or a criminal. You can read about the original Joe Job at http://www.joes.com/spammed.html. If you report such a link to its operator or provider, you are doing EXACTLY WHAT THE SPAMMER WANTS YOU TO DO.

Simply handing over a stack of URLs from spam messages, even those collected by as accurate a source as SpamCop, is not due diligence. We must verify that these links are really spammy, and this is something that machines can't do. Yes, I'm sure you can tell the difference, I'm sure that we all can, but many people cannot; they will simply report everything that SpamCop tells them. So, this data stream will inevitably be polluted with website links that are innocent. When the s**t hits the fan, and all of these innocent victims demand their due, I would not want to be around.

-- rick

Betsy, I appreciate your thoughts but I also disagree. Non of us would be here bothering with this if we didn't have a personal contempt for spammers and a wish to do them harm, or so I presume.

Otherwise we can just be like all the others who don't bother to do anything and rely on their SP to filter for them, and Spamcop would have no purpose.

Specifically you say "No legitimate merchant would spam or even if they were clueless, no reputable webhost or ISP would allow them to."

Surely you can't be serious? What "legitimate" merchants do is set up independent commission agents to bring them leads, then claim no connection when the agents are spammers, but they will pay them up to that point. Not all spam is viagra or Acai. Much of it is "seen on Opra", for real.

As to ISP's, Comcast and Google are legitimate are they not? Yet they allow spammers to set up web sites without control of any sort, and only when enough complaints come in do they act, reluctantly.

We all pay for this eventually.

I think that point has be alluded to earlier, and I appreciate that it is a possible issue, however any website that is created on a free basis, or even not, is typically contractually at the whim of the provider. They are the ones who determine appropriateness or not.

Taking my recent example, of Acai, any fool can look at the website and the spam complaint and count the spam complaints, from Spamcop or other and see that it is one and the same and delete the sucker in 10 seconds, and there would be zero chance of legal repercussions.

I think I need to find a reporting service that focuses on the point of sale, not just the souces of the spam. Without the former there is no point in sending spam.


PS. I had a bad day on the road. 9 hours turned into over 11. I guess it was the stimulus for road works to blame.

I generally pass most of my URL-linked spam to KnujOn. I have them as a "standard report recipient" within SpamCop, makes it very easy. They do claim (and have probably achieved) success in putting heat on providers and (particularly) domain registrars.

-- rick

Now that may reflect the difference between us...

I have no interest in doing harm to spammers. Personally, that seems to be a fruitless aim since spammers seem entirely immune to such attempts. I AM committed to working with others to keep the means for stopping the junk reaching our in-boxes.

Sorry your journies were a pain.

Andrew

You presume incorrectly. I report to SpamCop to add the the blacklist to help keep the spam out of my (and other peoples) inbox.

Although I have seen many comments about what should be the fate of spammers (boiling in oil, cutting off their fingers and other body parts) and, in fact, there have been attempts to really harass their websites by making so many connections that they are rendered useless, most people IMHO would rather pass a law and see them in jail. The old timers on the internet and some newcomers also are more concerned with the 'freedom' of the internet. The internet is run entirely on netiquette still. Spammers are the kind of people who push in line and, was it in this topic?, litter and other rude things. Offline, things can get nasty trying to 'force' them to be polite. Online, one needs only to follow Miss Manners and give them the 'cut direct' - IOW ignore them. It doesn't matter what websites they put up. No one has to go there except those who want to and those who created the internet did so in order that anyone could share their ideas with others. That's why there are websites that tell you how to commit suicide and no one takes them down. I have never seen one. I have several Catholic websites in my bookmarks. There are plenty of people who ban those sites as being as immoral as how to commit suicide.

OTOH, if everyone was polite and simply blocked those IP addresses that permit spam to be sent, then no one would see or respond to spam - except those who choose to. Of course, most of us do not run mail servers so we need to choose to use a responsible ISP who has the same principles - in fact, I pay more for connectivity because my ISP does tell customers and shut them down if their computers are infected by a botnet instead of using Comcast.

The purpose of spamcop has evolved into maintaining a blocklist of IP addresses from which spam is currently spewing. Sending the reports still has a value because mistakes do happen and those reports act as an early warning signal to server admins. Sending reports to spamvertized websites has become totally useless because of a number of reasons. The reason spamcop still does process them is that some server admins use spamvertized websites as part of their filtering and the sites that spamcop does find help to keep a current blocklist (that spamcop does not publish nor administer).

The benefits of spamcop are for all the people who use the scbl as part of filtering - maybe even including your ISP.

I once saw an infomercial for a get rich scheme run by a man named Sheets. It is as close to a scam as you can be within the law. Since I don't look at spam, I don't know what they are selling besides viagra, rolex watches, and lottery tickets. But I don't consider Sheets a legitimate merchant even though he advertised on TV. You can also watch porn on late night TV and as far as I am concerned, porn merchants are just as legitimate as Sheets. As long as neither one sends me unsolicited email, they can have as many websites as they want. Server admins are still arguing with marketing departments about what constitutes a confirmed subscription mailing list and sometimes the server admins lose. I had an incident not too long ago where a respectable company selling a real service started emailing all their contacts within a large organization - not just the organization's contact who signed the agreement. It all happened within hours. First came the spam (unsolicited commercial email), then came an announcement from the organization that this had been done without their permission and that we could unsubscribe. Instead of unsubscribing, I sent an email to the 'spammer' saying that I never unsubscribed from anything I had not subscribed to, but that I wasn't interested. Next came an abject apology from the 'spammer' saying that they unsubscribed everyone from the list.

I don't know, but I believe that both Comcast and Google are very responsive when it comes to stopping spam from their email servers. And, they do have TOS and AUP that disallow advertising by spam. Both are big enough that lawyers see deep pockets and so their legal department probably insists on a checklist of evidence before they can act (one of the reasons why sending munged reports is not a good idea - lawyers won't accept that as evidence).


Yes, and the reason that we do is because we, as consumers, do not demand that all our suspect email is blocked at the server level. The main reason that server admins do not block more at the server level is because customers demand that all their legitimate email be delivered rather than telling their Aunt Minnie that she is using an ISP that is allowing spam and that Aunt Minnie should get it fixed on her end. Merchants also are afraid of losing a sale.

Those who go after websites are correct that if the spammer didn't make any sales, there wouldn't be any spam. However, the same is true that if no one ever got a spam, the spammer wouldn't get any sales from spam.

Miss Betsy

I too have always been amused by this approach to spammers. I get this image of a New Jersey type with no neck holding his son off the ground by his lapels, "If you don't talk nice to your Mother, I'm goin' a pound you!"


I think you need to read the Spammer Rules.

• Rule #1; Spammers lie
• Moore's Corollary to Rule #2; Spammer's lies are seldom questioned by mainstream media.

I don't watch Opra so I have no idea what she may sell or endorse. But just because "O" talks about her watch, doesn't mean the spammer is selling real bling. Just because the pill is blue and has the correct shape doesn't mean it was made by Phizer.

My favorite example is from several years ago. Included in the spam was an "as seen in the New York Times" link. I followed the link and found an article about the product and "this seller." In the beginning they talked about the product. Near the middle of the article what a rip off the offer was.

So I guess I disagree with your implication about legitimate merchants and spam.

After my post above I just had to add the following spam subject.

Subject: Acai Berry #1 WeightL0SS Superfood in the world, $5.99 for 1 bottle Trial, featured on Oprah, The Today Show, The CBS Early Show, in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times

May be, as you suggest, the spammer that has your goat is a legitimate merchant of this great product who just has a bad marketing plan. <g>

edited to add a URL

Darn, I'm still using that green pond-slime s p i r u l i n a stuff that was all the go some years back ("the richest whole food source found in nature, nature's superfood -as used by the mighty Aztec empire, the perfect aid to help meet your weight loss goals."). I miss my informative spam, clearly falling behind the curve ... but then you never saw a fat Aztec.

What more proof do you need?

OTOH maybe I've never seen a fat Aztec because it does take more stone to carve fat ones.

The Olmecs/Olmeca on the other hand ...

An article about acai is on oprah.com, but it doesn't mention any product. So I am thinking that all those claims are similar to the one quoted by someone that said when you read the article in the NY Times, it said that the product was not very good or, in this case, that a Dr. on Oprah discussed the benefits of acai, not advertised the product.

I hope that elind has recovered from that grueling road trip - certainly enough to put one in a mood to wish harm to a lot of things!

Basically, I think I am saying that when you have road trips of that kind, don't worry about reporting the spamvertized sites, the source works just as well at interrupting the spammer's plans. But if you want to protect the gullible, when you have time, explore other ways to report the spamvertized sites. You don't use a hammer when a screwdriver is needed, though both hammers and screwdrivers are useful.

Miss Betsy

Hello again. I've been busy elsewhere. I'll try that. But does that not mean that they will get mostly reports with the email source, since spamcop often doesn't get the website host?

I presume they don't mind.

You must be a very kind and forgiving person. The majority of spammers are criminals, not to mention vandals that cost us all indirect costs of many types, yet you don't want to cause them harm? You can stop them from getting to your inbox by just using a blind spam filter.

Why bother with the extra overhead and expense (even if not large) of subscribing to spamcop?

My driving pain was still less than hundreds of Acai spam every day. But thanks for the thought.

I think that the answer is that the spamcop report contains the entire spam and therefore, Knujon can parse it for websites.

Miss Betsy

I just tried that and get this error from Spamcop.

Can't save "Public standard report recipients". Invalid email format: knujon[at]coldrain.net
Preferences not saved! Please go back and try again.

What am I doing wrong?

I don't think it is you, elind. coldrain.net seems to have misplaced its mail exchange. Perhaps it is only temporary.

...You haven't been keeping up with all the latest posts! <grin> See "Can't save 'Public standard report recipients'. Invalid email format:".

Excellent point - and coldrain.net SMTP service is functional - it just doesn't have an MX record as such at the momemt. I haven't come across that before.

No, KnuJon will see the entire spam body, and will fish any URLs from it. I know that they do this because I have a "paid" account with them, and I can see URLs that I have reported showing up in my "queue" there.

I have a lot of trouble with the phrase "do harm to spammers." I would like to stop spam being sent, if I can, and in any case I would like to stop it being delivered to me. Beyond this, I cannot generate a lot of enthusiasm for seeking revenge or inflicting harm. It is precisely because these people are criminals that I do not wish to get into a tit-for-tat with them. They probably have better resources for protection and retaliation than I do.

Reporting spam via SpamCop feeds the SCBL, which helps keep spam out of millions of people's inboxes every day. Surely you do not suggest that this is pointless or idle activity, do you?

-- rick

You are right, and it's not the first time I've been told that. So much to read so much to learn.........

That though is the weirdest workaround I've seen in a long time. Somebody has some wacky logic in there.

I wouldn't be here if I thought it was pointless, and as far as do harm goes, that is what I am doing here and the more the better. Ideally including jail and serious economic costs.

However this phrase makes me think of what would seem to be the most harm to them, being cutting off their credit card accounts. Since the ones who actually do sell something need such accounts, does anyone know if there has ever been an effort to involve the credit card companies, most of the big ones are American after all?

Yes, I know, legalities are involved, but solvable.

I added the report address to Knujon (with workaround) but in the first report that I did manually to check I noticed that the reporting address to them needed to manually checked to be sent.

Does that mean that the automatic reports will not be sent unless done manually?

Aha, "cherchez l'argent," or as Deep Throat said, "Look for the Money." This would be a standard criminal-investigation technique. If the cops can link someone to criminal dealings via a money chain, this is good evidence for a criminal indictment.

On the other hand, getting banks to "fire" their customers for social misbehavior or even crime -- without associated law-enforcement influence -- might be a tall order. This is complicated by the allegation that at least one of the larger spam gangs did (or maybe still does) run its own merchant bank, used to process credit card payments for porn, gambling, etc.

Off the top of my head, I don't know if this sort of thing has been pursued by the FBI, etc. (but they don't talk to me anyway).

-- rick

The FBI and police is fine, but I was under the impression that sending spam was illegal. Is that not good enough and would not facilitating spammers be conspiracy?

Actually, sending spam is NOT illegal in every case (for example, CANSPAM does not prohibit unsolicited bulk mail so long as the mailer jumps through certain easy hoops).

Based on my readings, criminal prosecutions of spammers seem to work out better if the prosecutor ties in other clearly illegal matters -- wire fraud, drug-dealing, child porn, etc. If they try to indict someone merely for sending a billion e-mails to strangers, they have a much tougher time (viz. Jeremy Jaymes).

IANAL, but I'm guessing that just showing that a bank holds money or process payments for a spammer is not sufficient to prove conspiracy, unless it can be shown that the bank knew about the criminal activity (i.e., the banking version of a "pink contract"). Otherwise, we then oblige the bank to protect itself by running background checks on all its customers before it agrees to work for them (or even after it decides to work for them).

-- rick

(getting quite Libertarian in middle age, I fear)

Yes, from what I understand of it, Can spam illustrates the incompetence of our legislators quite well; but there are examples of prosecution, few as they may be.

However, as far as Credit Card companies go, you don''t have to look far to find that they can choose their customers by any criteria that they want, and set whatever terms they want. To say that they could not decide that supporting spammers was wrong, is wrong.