Jump to content

mslw

Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About mslw

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Thanks Don. Perhaps there is a bug then? http://www.spamcop.net/sc?track=222.246.94.179 and http://www.spamcop.net/sc?action=showwhois...=222.246.94.179 don't include the changes marked with 20140227 and 20140504 that http://wq.apnic.net/apnic-bin/whois.pl reports.
  2. Sorry for the silly title, but SpamCop is getting to be very unreliable when parsing spam for the APNIC region. Almost every one that I check manually has a different reporting address due to whois changes from months ago. Anything reported to this forum seems to be "resolved" by a hardwired snapshot of the reporting address, which will inevitably become out of date.
  3. It looks like whois 103.230.25.190[at]whois.apnic.net has been cached and is stale because it gets the record for: inetnum: 103.0.0.0 - 103.255.255.255 netname: APNIC-AP The latest record I get is: inetnum: 103.230.25.0 - 103.230.25.255 netname: YSISLANDLLC-JP
  4. Thanks, though hardwired addresses like this look very wrong to me. Is the SC code frozen forever now or is it still being improved to fix problems like this?
  5. http://www.spamcop.net/sc?track=70.33.246.10 gives a bouncing reporting address postmaster[at]hostpapasupport.com, but clicking "[refresh/show]" , i.e. http://www.spamcop.net/sc?action=rcache;ip=70.33.246.10 says that it will use abuse[at]peer1.net. Why doesn't it use the address that it finds?
  6. FWIW, I get the same problem with 139.226.176.228.
  7. http://www.spamcop.net/sc?track=209.85.215.74 Routing details for 209.85.215.74 [refresh/show] Cached whois for 209.85.215.74 : arin-contact[at]google.com abuse[at]google.com bounces (99 sent : 107 bounces) Using best contacts No reporting addresses found for 209.85.215.74, using devnull for tracking. Is google rejeecting SC reports or is something else wrong (more bounces than emails sent look odd)?
  8. It gets as far as finding wb1520-ripe, but gets filtered results from RIPE (see below). The unfiltered results do contain an email address. Looks like a bug in SC? $ whois wb1520-ripe[at]whois.ripe.net [whois.ripe.net] % This is the RIPE Database query service. % The objects are in RPSL format. % % The RIPE Database is subject to Terms and Conditions. % See http://www.ripe.net/db/support/db-terms-conditions.pdf % Note: this output has been filtered. % To receive output for a database update, use the "-B" flag. % Information related to 'WB1520-RIPE' person: Wladyslaw Barzdo address: ul. Wroclawska 42 address: Wroclaw phone: +48 71 398 26 20 fax-no: +48 71 722 37 91 nic-hdl: WB1520-RIPE mnt-by: ATMAN-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered % This query was served by the RIPE Database Query Service version 1.66.3 (WHOIS2)
  9. Here is the vexxhost.com one: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?track=http%3A%2F...contract.com%2F
  10. Thanks for the detailed reply Joe. I was comparing SC with the command line whois, which is why postmaster appeared to be missing. Perhaps SC should translate postmaster[at] to abuse[at] like other abuse.net lookups do?
  11. Twice today SC has suggested sending email to postmaster[at] and well as abuse[at] for a domain, e.g. Using abuse net on abuse[at]lumison.net abuse net lumison.net = abuse[at]lumison.net, postmaster[at]lumison.net Using best contacts abuse[at]lumison.net postmaster[at]lumison.net Using abuse net on abuse[at]vexxhost.com abuse net vexxhost.com = abuse[at]vexxhost.com, postmaster[at]vexxhost.com, noc[at]vexxhost.com Using best contacts abuse[at]vexxhost.com postmaster[at]vexxhost.com noc[at]vexxhost.com However, abuse.net doesn't list postmaster for either of these domains. Is SC adding postmaster or is there some other reason? I don't want to bother postmaster with reports if they have taken the trouble to register with abuse.net.
×