Jump to content

db17

Members
  • Content Count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About db17

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. db17

    re. @devnull.spamcop.net

    Thanks all, I had given up on this. But at least now I know why it wasn't working.
  2. db17

    re. @devnull.spamcop.net

    Thanks MIG for all the suggestions and help. Obviously, since you are showing it for my URL, the user notification field should be showing for me. I've tried all your suggestions, including configuring mailhosts, and nothing seems to help. Have even tried 3 different browsers, with anything that could possibly be interfering disabled, especially uMatrix and uBlock origin. Must be something at my end, but no idea what it is. Will try again for the next spam, devnull or not, but for now think this is the end of the line. Thanks again, do appreciate it.
  3. db17

    re. @devnull.spamcop.net

    Yep, just changed all dates in original (copied headers to text editor first to be able to do this), then entered and parsed to get new test report. Also checked prefs, which were already set as above. Still no user notification field. Seem to be getting conflicting opinions about whether this field should be visible. Probably will have to bail on this for now until I get a new devnull spam. But if interested, URL for new test report: https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6538949575z8ad9e97c1309c2bc4e1d6010ca7eebedz
  4. db17

    re. @devnull.spamcop.net

    Still waiting for the outcome of the intervening discussion. In the meantime, wanted to try the user notification option. However, don't have a new spam message that goes to /dev/null, or any new spam, for that matter, so reentered the one under discussion, parsed again without resubmitting. But after doing so, not seeing the user notification field. Is it missing the user notification field because it's an already submitted report?
  5. db17

    re. @devnull.spamcop.net

    Thanks Lking. In that case, I would like to submit the report to abuse@mailjet.com (from what I can see, pretty certain that's the hosting for the spammer, but first need to know if that will be sent anonymously with my email address or anything else identifying removed. Don't want to subject myself to even more spam. I assume that's how it's sent when it can go directly to an abuse address, not to the dead letter box ...@devnull.spamcop.net. Or at least that's what I've always thought happens when submitting a report.
  6. Have read the FAQ on this, https://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/253.html After reporting spam, seeing that it goes nowhere, just to @devnull.spamcop.net. Plus not seeing "Internal SpamCop Handling" anywhere in the report, so it seems it can't be reported to the host via spamcop. But seems I can forward the offending message directly to the spammer host via abuse@mailjet.com, if I contact them with my own email. But don't trust this host, so definitely don't want to use my own email address to do this. Is there any way to report this spammer via spamcop anonymously to this hosting service, or by using some other method? Or am I just stuck? NB. Is anyone looking at this forum?, this page is completely littered with spam.
  7. Thanks for the help with this. Had me freaked out for a bit.
  8. Just to be absolutely clear, since this was highly unusual, can I assume from "Black swans do exist" that the e-mail I received was forwarded by SC from the hosting svc?
  9. Hi Lking, Thanks for the reply. "Munged...obscure identifying informaiton" was already selected in Preferences. After all this time, did I finally run into an ethical, conscientious hosting svc? Body of message included "Dear xxxxx@.net" To: my emailaddress <10 digit number @reports.spamcop.net> "thank you for contacting us...." "...our team will get back to you as soon as possible...." and "how am I doing...email my manager at...." So does this look forwarded from SC? Very puzzled since it's a first.
  10. I may have been mistaken, but I thought that abuse was always reported anonymously by SC. If not, I would never use SC, which I have been using for a number of years. Just now, not long after reporting spam to the identified hosting svc, I received an email from them notifying me that they have opened a ticket. This is the first time this has happened. As far as I know, nothing changed in the way I reported the spam. The LAST thing I need is for this hosting svc to have my personal email address. Note to mod: couldn't quite find the right location to post this. Please relocate if necessary.
  11. I would like to make a few points. First, I did not do this "gleefully." Unwittingly, yes, and I will try to explain how that happened as best I can by trying to reconstruct what I was thinking at the time. And, second, although one warning should have been sufficient, there were no "multiple" exhortations, only one. As far as I know, there were no "repeated requests." What I did--and will not do again-- was to paste some of the SC results that appear after processing. They were from the page that shows what look to be three ten digit reference numbers, only the third of which is an actual SC report ID (and which only shows as such after a report has been sent). I did not see that I was posting any spam URls as live links. What I did not realize was that those first two ten digit numbers, which I took to be some kind of SC internal reference numbers, are in fact live links to the spam--live links in just the same way the third perfectly safe one does stay internal to SC. The URLs that appear inside the parenthesis next to the those numbers do not appear, themselves, to be live links (when I hover only on those they do not appear as links), and that was why I left those intact. I only edited one appearance of one of those, an excerpt, from .info to dotinfo, where I thought it was needed--but this does show that I am conscious of not wanting to link to a spammer. Hindsight is 20/20: had I hovered on those first two ten digit numbers and looked at my Firefox Status Bar, I would have seen that they are direct links to the spam site. I'm not excusing myself, but the documentation at SC is scattered all over the place and often very confusing, especially to a beginner here, like myself. At least for me, a lot of using SC is trial and error, because searching for clear jargon-free explanations of things often ends quite fruitlessly. (One example of this was my question about the items in Preferences, which I asked above. Those items are listed in Preferences as if they are current and meaningful, but as it turns out, should just be ignored; my question was arcane and "under-the-hood." Usually ones selected Preferences have some meaningful impact on the way a site will work for one). Quite baffling much of this. I would also point out that, although this was obviously a serious error, I did not murder or dismember anyone. And still getting spammed by eonix.net. There are numerous reports about this, so no idea why it it does not appear to be in the SCBL.
  12. OMG, I was certain I had edited those from .info to dotinfo, so they couldn't be parsed. Deeply regret that. Won't happen again.
  13. Looks like the latest ones may be examples of what we've been talking about. Or it's simply that SC can't find a valid host? Or maybe none of the above. The host for that spamvertised domain (treereadmastkenpdotinfo) resolves to serverhub.com (from 104.140.95.253). http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/topic/14094-serverhubcom/ Plus lots of additional hits https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=serverhub.com+spam+from&btnG=&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&gs_l=&pbx=1 So where does delwyn#tiburonhost.com, which can't be found anywhere, come from? What's going on here?
  14. Thanks for the info Steve. So, do I assume that, if it was recommended to send a silent report (which I understand would only end up at SC), I would somehow be notified of that option before I sent out a regular one to an abusive abuse desk? That is, if an abuse desk was known to SC as being "abusive."
  15. Just came across this in Preferences, and I am a bit puzzled by the following: So, according to this, spammers are able, in theory, to see my email address by way of the tracking codes, even after they've been munged. (Thought Steve dispelled that one, above, so puzzled as to why it's here and just what the implications are). Or does this mean that reports used to be sent with the Tracking Code (is that the same as the Tracking URL?) but no longer are? What is a "silent" report? Is there an option somewhere for that ("we now offer the ability to send reports silently" would imply that there is such an option)? And if abuse[at] reports are not emailed, I assume they are still going out to abuse desks, so by what means do they get to an abuse desk?
×