I got two of these today. Would of course provided a URL for the report but ....

So, spammers have problems too, eh? But a superior service awaits. No need to abandon/optimize those store-bought lists after all. Perhaps, if you still have one of those when the system comes/stays up, you might like to post a tracker here Lou. Hopefully it's all some sort of a sting to catch actual spammers, somehow. That would really be merriment-making - even if unprincipled.

Some days we're lucky some days we're not. One copy got processed "Wednesday, June 24, 2009 6:20:18 PM -0600" Go figure.

Subject: IP registration for spammers, malvare, doorway.

You know, that looks a little to me like a new/small operator ipaddr.ru (part of net-art.cz) is being set up by a competitor to look like a spammer's one-stop shop, to undermine the new boy. I'm not happy about the similarity to NetArt.cz when net-art.cz is actually/apparently Russian and a little puzzled by the American hosting, but ... wouldn't be the first time such a dirty trick was played. If so, spamming a SC reporter (or a number of SC reporters) might seem an efficient way to conduct such a campaign.

DNS is a little odd:

DNS records
name class type data time to live
ipaddr.ru IN A 206.71.190.192 18151s (05:02:31)
192.190.71.206.in-addr.arpa IN PTR mail.net-art.cz 3135s (00:52:15)

but then a complete set of records exists for net-art.cz, the web-site of which has recently ducked for cover:
HTTP - 80 HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden (but cached copies exist of a very basic net-art.cz/en/ page)

Dunno, I just think there is more to such a blatant/ironic effort. But then I've overestimated spammers before.

The site at ipaddr.ru links to a disclaimer page (english translation via Google) that refers to and repudiates the spam. One might conjecture another Job of Joe, except that it isn't clear how or why ipaddr.ru would be victimized in this way.

-- rick

Hello,

I'm the owner of ipaddr.ru/net-art.cz projects. Of course, we've never sent UCE. I have a spamcop account since 2003.
The most probably reason for provocation is a business conflict which took place in begin of 2009. I have no facts and because I will not call the name.

Now I got a problem with hoster and a lot of complains needs to be resolved.

Good find on the repudiation, Rick.?? Competitiveness. Even a low-intensity attack might harm their reputation with existing and prospective clients and threaten the relationship with their host. Perhaps regulatory/law-enforcement authorities might harass, be sensitized henceforth to the 'brand-name'. All under the heading 'dirty tricks against a competitor'. Or am I missing something?

[Edit - above written before kaa's post made]