Jump to content

mrfrench

Members
  • Content Count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About mrfrench

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

572 profile views
  1. mrfrench

    Why does abuse@amazonaws.com get /dev/null?

    amazonaws should be blacklisted at as many places as possible. Email to abuse@amazonaws.com does go through - I've done it myself. They even respond. But, even when they are sent full headers of a message they claim: "Thank you for your abuse report. We were unable to identify the customer responsible for the reported activity. Due to the frequency with which AWS public IP addresses can change ownership, we will need additional information in order to identify the responsible customer(s)." To me, this means that they are either running an open relay that anyone can use... or they are unable to view the logs to find the account logins to relate them back to the customer. Or, alternatively, they simply don't care. A significant portion of the spam I now receive comes from an amazonaws site. And it doesn't look like it will stop because it's the same spam over and over... and amazonaws either refuses or is incapable of doing anything about it even when sent a complaint with full headers. IMO, sites like this should be blacklisted with no way off that blacklist until they agree to take measures to stop the spam.
  2. Your argument makes some sense but not completely. I'm not asking for Spamcop to process every form of malformed mail. I'm asking for very specific action on a very specific problem that appears to be prevalent. Secondly, while reporting links found in the body of spam may be the lowest priority (and I'd agree with that assessment), it is certainly, IMO, very wrong for the spammers to be able to spew their junk without penalty. Even if the body is empty, the headers can still be scanned to see where the message originated and that site informed of the user's probable violation of the Terms of Service (or a hole in their security). Why would it be so hard for Spamcop to process the headers as normal even if the body text is empty? Isn't "empty" spam still spam? Even if the subject line was short, why can't it still be spam? A message with the Subject "Go to http://spammers.paradise.org to get your free Viagra without prescription" would still be spam that should be reported even if the body text were empty. As others suggested, even if Spamcop didn't want to process the headers automatically by default, would it be so hard to add another layer where the report asks you to check a box acknowledging that the body text was empty but verifying that it is still spam? And, if the box is checked and you check "Submit reports" the reports should still go to the ISP where the spam originated. Finally, I object to my message having been moved to another thread without consultation, especially since I have seen this spam originate from other sites beside Yahoo. The Yahoo spam I posted was just one example. If someone has this problem with spam from another site and searches to look for answers here, they could miss this discussion.
  3. Nice idea... except that I do not know how to do this in a way that I can then work with the message in Mac's Mail. That is, to edit a message I receive, I have to export it, modify and then I can't import it back to Mail (for some reason). Regardless, considering the prevalence of this new technique by the spammers, I believe that Spamcop should modify their procedures as stated previously. We shouldn't have to go through all that trouble (to add a fake body) just to get Spamcop to process the message... and even if we did add a fake body, Spamcop still wouldn't parse through the "Subject" field to find links and websites used by the spammers so that those ISPs can receive the spam report as well.
  4. I've been receiving a new type of spam lately - spam where the entire spam message is in the "Subject" field. Because of this, Spamcop's email reporting process rejects the message because: "No body text provided, check format of submission. spam must have body text." I've received several of these this week, and I think it's something the spammers have started doing in order to get past spam blocking and spam reporting software since most software typically ignores the "Subject" field. I think the Spamcop software needs to be changed to look at the length of the subject field if there's no body and to parse that field as if it were message body text if it's greater than some amount like 80 characters. A sample message is included so you can see what I'm talking about. example-spam.pdf
  5. mrfrench

    Where to go next?

    For the last two months or so, I've been receiving spam from sharingservices[at]aol.com. These spam mails have run the gauntlet from phishing schemes to outright blackmail attempts ("you have been caught cheating. Send N bitcoins to..."). I am really, really tired of dealing with emails from this user. In addition to using SpamCop: I have reported the spam to AOL. More than 100 complaints. AOL has taken NO ACTION. I have reported the spam, and lack of action on AOL's part to Verizon, who owns AOL. Verizon has taken NO ACTION. I have reported the spam and the lack of action from AOL and Verizon to my ISP. They have taken NO ACTION. I have reported the spam and the lack of action to the sites listed in the DNS records for AOL as their Registrar, DNS services, and all other "upstream" providers. They have taken NO ACTION. I am getting very frustrated by the lack of response. Sure, I can write a filter to move these messages to my spam folder, but I still have to deal with them, even partly, since I have to scan my spam folder daily to catch false positives. I am tired of dealing with the daily messages from this user. Any suggestions about what to do next to get this spammer gone, or to get AOL to do something? They do not seem to be responding to messages sent to any of their system addresses (abuse[at] , Support[at], etc. ) Thanks. (My apologies if this is the wrong forum)
×