Jump to content

Bob

Members
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Bob

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Farelf: OK -- makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. Bob
  2. I received this response to a reported message: "ISP has indicated spam will cease; ISP resolved this issue sometime after Monday, December 08, 2008 10:32:29 AM -0800" The date of the message reported was Tue, 09 Dec 2008 08:06:29 -0800. Why shouldn't the ISP know that the spam is still being sent after it was supposedly resolved?
  3. Wazoo: Looks like the "glitch" Ellen pointed out is still out there. Below is tracking URL from a message this morning that produced the getGrid connection error. As several have noted, a re-parse may not duplicate the result, but it was there the first time around. http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z777884269z6a...4a3cf5b2ddf645z
  4. Wazoo: I had the same experience as Kae reported. Went back into reported messages to pull some tracking URL's where the GetGrid issue had occurred, but the message had no record of GetGrid and re-parsing produced no problems. So, I assume the issue was temporary -- either due to spam construction or the hardware transition process, but appears to be over. If I run into it again, I'll come back with the tracking URL.
  5. I'll post the next one I run into.
  6. I've received the same results periodically during the past 3 days, as well as the NoMaster error statements referred to in another post. My best guess is that 10-15% of my reported emails began producing these results and since it's gone on for several days now, it's more than a short-term transition or maintenance issue.
  7. Bob

    Seems like more spam now

    Jeff & Steven: I'm not sure what happened above, but this is what was intended: I appreciate the effort you guys and others put in on the Forums. I agree with Steven that more horsepower on the codebase crew would help bring more worthwhile ideas to fruition, but I suppose all we can do on that front is to continue to ask. Still, I don't feel that voicing your support for worthwhile suggestions should be overlooked. Your perspectives are valuable and your opinions are noted -- by us and by "them". There is strength in numbers and the credibility of your involvement can make a difference. Bob
  8. Bob

    Seems like more spam now

    Steven: I didn't mean to ascribe any super-natural connections to you moderators. You may be only one of us, but your tenure and exposure to various issues over time, valid and invalid, lend credibility to your opinions. As I said to Jeff, if you believe the issue and suggestion have merit, your support would be helpful. Bob
  9. Bob

    Seems like more spam now

    Jeff: If you believe the issue & request has merit, support from you and other moderators would be helpful in getting some change off the ground. We "minions" out here have a more difficult time penetrating the inner sanctum! It seems the enhancement would be a relatively minor undertaking. Giving some "bang" to those of us who report to the benefit of all would pay dividends all around. I hope you and your colleagues will reconsider and help to get this thing into motion. Bob
  10. Bob

    Seems like more spam now

    I continue to believe there is another option employed by high-volume and more sophisticated spammers that hasn't been addressed in this thread. I made a new feature request in April to raise the issue ( Reporting Service- Munging Why Not Munge Display Name and Address?: http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3850) but got no traction out of it. In filing reports, SpamCop munges the address but not always the display name; i.e.: "display name" <name [at] isp.com> or display name <name [at] isp.com> are usually reported as: "display name" <x> or display name <x> When unscrupulous ISP's forward SpamCop reports directly to the spammer, the display name can be matched to either a mailing list containing the address or to the address itself. In other words, the display name can be used to validate the address associated with it and cause the address to be retained on the spammers "core" list. Enhancing SpamCop munging to deal with both the display name and the address would elinimate this potential. I munge display names and return addresses where they contain my real name or a pseudonym that I have repeatedly received. It is a pain and takes more time to report, but I believe it has had a significant impact in my case. spam volume has decreased from 100's per day to generally 20 or less, with most of the remainder coming from a few repetitive sources. SpamCop could help all of us by munging the display names, thereby making the reporting process more efficient and removing the transparency of the display name to the spammer. Can we get a little help from the "powers that be"?
  11. Bob

    Reporting Service- Munging

    Wazoo: I appreciate and applaud the effort that you and the other moderators expend to make the forum a valuable tool for all of us. We don't stop to say so often enough, so let me do so here -- thank you. I share your hope that the powers would want to keep their fingers on the pulse of the SpamCop community. And, when one of those well-intentioned, practical and helpful suggestions happens to roll in, maybe even take the time to let everyone know what they think. Communication can benefit senders, receivers and readers, while also "keeping the herd heading roughly west". That seems to be more of a goal than a reality to-date. But, stranger things have happened and hope springs eternal, so I guess we can plead, keep our fingers crossed and see if anything changes going forward. They are out there, aren't they? Bob
  12. Bob

    Reporting Service- Munging

    StevenUnderwood: Is this where suggestions are placed until they fade away? I belive this suggestion could be implemented with relatively minor effort. Doing so would alleviate the concerns I have about un-munged display names that is also shared by many other "reporters". Those of us who do not use the email service but faithfully and regularly report spammers, do so because we believe it can help to make their life more difficult and possibly help to motivate responsible ISP's to take action against them. Clearly the email service benefits from the timely reporting of folks like me. Eliminating the display name concerns, and extra reporting time required to overcome them, can only support and encourage more reporting -- in frequency and number of individuals doing so -- and that is worthwhile for the entire SpamCop community. It would be nice to hear what those in control think and what the potential is for something being done. Increased reporting and reduced concerns, with less time required to do so, seems to be of value to everyone. If I'm missing something, please let me know. Thanks. Bob
  13. I realize there are different opinions about the value or necessity if munging. Personally, I feel more comfortable munging my email address rather than making it openly available to spammers when report-receiving entities choose to pass reports on directly to the spammers themselves. When preferences are set to munge, email addresses are dealt with but display names generally are not. For purposes of discussion, assume the full email address format is this: "Display Name" <email address>, or Display Name <email address> Clearly the email address is the most important item to munge. If we're dealing with the address, why not munge the display name as well? Depending on how the spammer acquired my information, the display name may be correct or manufactured. Either way, the potential exists, should a spammer choose to do so, to associate original spam with munged reports using display names. The probability of such actions may appear small but why allow the option to exist at all? It doesn't require a wizard to associate an email address, or a display name, or both, with bulk email address databases. And, as I'm sure you know, those of us who report aggressively and regularly are not appreciated by these folks, and they are more than happy to put our email addresses on lists to be sold to other spammers and/or use them in retaliatory actions from time to time. That potential causes me to munge my display name (when it is accurate or in a form that is repeatedly received from the same spammer) before reporting -- all of which takes time that I'd like to eliminate. I'd like to see preferences expanded to allow selection of munging for (1) email address only or (2) email address and display name. Those options should be adequate for anyone who desires to munge, in one manner or another. And it would eliminate the concern for misuse of display name that many of us share. I am interested in your thoughts. Thanks. Bob
  14. Steven & Wazoo: It seems as though both of my concerns were probably unfounded. I'll go the straight unmunged route and not worry about validating the address by doing so. Thanks to all for your feedback & advice. Bob
  15. Jeff G: Thank you -- I'll disregard the "=7utf-8?q?" concerns when reporting. Regarding Wazoo's FAQ response above, can I assume that replacing my valid name with <x> in the TO information before reporting will not cause any problems with the parser? I.e., changing {"Joe Smith" <jsmith[at]aol.com] to {<x> <jsmith[at]aol.com>]. It seems to me that not doing so, and having the reports sent containing {"Joe Smith" <x>] could still validate the name (and possibly the associated email address) to the spammer. Please advise -- thanks. Bob
×