Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RobiBue

  1. I would like to know how they can explain the following ARIN entry: https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-50-31-32-0-1/pft?s= which clearly names Origin AS: AS11377 Organization: SendGrid, Inc. (SENDG) and is definitely sendgrid.com and not sendgrid.net
  2. I concur. Sendgrid is a spammer friendly host and needs to be made aware that this is not acceptable. Thus: https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-50-31-32-0-1/pft?s= gives me parent: STEADFAST-6 (NET-50-31-0-0-1) which in turn returns Related organization's POC records. from which I can take (extrapolate?(sic)) Abuse: ABUSE959-ARIN (ABUSE959-ARIN) -> https://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ABUSE959-ARIN.html and you have the aforementioned abuse email address
  3. yeah, unfortunately, for Outlook/Hotmail (M$) users, that step is still necessary due to their internal mismatched handoffs just a heads up...
  4. G'day Chris, Redacting/removing those lines for gmail spam is not necessary anymore since the new SpamCop upgrade to version 5 You can save/skip that step entirely. Greetings to the other side of the world (it's cold up here )
  5. back in May 2018 I started receiving a slew of spew which peaked in the hundreds in June-August, where I finally got the Gmail faux-pas with 6to4 IPv6 problem completely figured out and was able to report correctly to the necessary abuse desks. The spam started diminishing again and now, finally, with a few oddballs, the last one so far I received was on 4 days ago! YAY! Thanks for all that helped me figure out the IPv6 problem and that gave me tips and showed me tricks I believe in the end it has been a combination of SpamCop and manual reporting where SC didn't find the correct abuse desk or couldn't follow the region's whois server ("refuse to bother lacnic" or "apnic") because the address is/was an old grandfathered transfer from "internic"... Anywho... 2 - 3 spams a week seems like a pretty good deal where it was over 100 a day... if now, the forum spam could be handled the same way and reduced to nil... wouldn't that be great... not a question, just a loud thought I know, since SC deals with spam (duh) it would be pointless to implement a spam filter in the fora since many valid posts would be marked as spam (again duh) but there should be a way where newbies and forum spammers could be sorted out at the beginning, and have a few newbie posts get the warning that a forum admin will need to approve their post. I believe that could work, as it would burden the admins less since they wouldn't have to take care of every forum spam -- at least I believe so...
  6. RobiBue

    spam has eased up in my inbox

    yeah, that's not what I meant though admins like you have already plenty on their plate, and I've noticed, there aren't many around... in fact, I've only seen two or maybe three admins around... what I meant was, to make it easier on y'all, have the system automatically sort newbies and forum spammers maybe through a learning curve, which would in the end benefit the users and the admins. Of course, such a system would have to be written and implemented and I'm not sure if one like that already exists -- although I would think so...
  7. depending on the email program/UI you use, if you run into a >50k problem, you might want to try to export the spam as .eml or .txt (depending on the ability of your emailer) and check the size like that. You can then use a text program like notepad (if you use M$) and go down about half the way into the message and just delete the rest from there on down. then attach the truncated file to a new email and send it to your secret email code at spamcop. w/r to the login, that happens when you are not logged in and end up with a link to a previously reported spam I get that often and all I do is click on the report spam tab/link at the top of the page. that solves it.
  8. I wouldn't bother with the links in the spam body. Oftentimes they are just sites that spammers try to get in trouble. I know, in this case they are not, or most probably not, but many times, when they are connected to the spammer themselves, they contain a tracking link which links you (or better, your address) to the received spam, and every time the link gets a hit, it means for the spammer: a) they get paid b) they can send one or more spams to that email address The less (or zero) activity the spammer gets on the link, the more likely your address will get dropped from his list. And as you have already noticed, cloudflare doesn't care what or who they are hosting as long as they get paid so again, my suggestion here is either: a) don't report these kind of links or b) don't even bother reporting this type of spam I know, the latter sounds counter intuitive, but taking into consideration that spamcop checks the link, that means that the spammer gets their activity and you'll get another swarm of spam delivered... Of course, you are welcome to do some manual work and edit those links by removing the tracking path completely (with the notice for the abuse desk that the link has been modified to protect yourself) here is a boilerplate I place in the spams I receive for that purpose: Comments: The recipient of the email wishes to stay anonymous and therefore has munged his name and/or address for privacy reasons to strings like "x-x-x" or "x". Please respect his privacy. I was hoping SC version 5 would have the full links reduced to host/domain only and not the full path... pity
  9. RobiBue

    SCv5 parsing

    I do wish as well, that parser changes could/would be posted, but that's up to Cisco/Talos to decide if a changelog or list of fixes wouldn't compromise their secrecy in security and vulnerability holes that they want to keep hidden from us mere mortals. That said/vented, see my latest post here:
  10. unfortunately M$'s IPv6 problem is different than Google's and wholly in M$'s court to fix it. See my reply here:
  11. Sorry it's taken me so long to reply, but I've been busy and could only do minimalistic replies, so I have waited until I had more time to delve in deeper... While the Gmail hack is no longer necessary, unfortunately Microsoft's outlook "hack" is still needed due to its difference... looking at the unmodified Received: headers in https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6513483714z596b7c076a2121c3ce82e632cf6e31a3z [line] (Received origin/destination) [0001] Received: from PU1APC01HT007.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com (2603:10a6:800:92::20) [0002] by VI1PR06MB5360.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com [0003] Received: from PU1APC01FT052.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com ( [0004] by PU1APC01HT007.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com ( [0005] Received: from iainternalmeds.com ( [0006] by PU1APC01FT052.mail.protection.outlook.com ( (only the Received: lines are relevant here. Omitting the timestamps as well as the transfer method/protocol) Line [0002] is the host from which you picked the email up. Lines [0001] and [0004] should have the same host name and number, but only the host name is the same, so SC cannot safely confirm that it is the same host and with right determines the following: "Internal handoff or trivial forgery". Lines [0003] and [0006] also should have the same host name/address, but neither are equal, and therefore line [0005] is also a possible forgery. It looks complicated like this, but by keeping in mind, that the header lines are actually filled from the bottom up, let's "flip" the above Received: header lines: [line] (Received origin/destination) [0005] Received: from iainternalmeds.com ( [0006] by PU1APC01FT052.mail.protection.outlook.com ( [0003] Received: from PU1APC01FT052.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com ( [0004] by PU1APC01HT007.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com ( [0001] Received: from PU1APC01HT007.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com (2603:10a6:800:92::20) [0002] by VI1PR06MB5360.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (only the Received: lines are relevant here. Omitting the timestamps as well as the transfer method/protocol) [0005] sent it [0006] received it which then in turn sent it as [0003] (PU1APC01FT052 is the same, but then the sub-domain name differs as well as the private IP address) [0004] received it which then in turn sent it as [0001] (here all: host, sub-domain, and domain are exactly the same, but unfortunately the address is not) [0002] received it in the end, waiting for you to pick it up. Therefore, unfortunately, Received: line [0001]/[0002] is the only trusted Received header: and the rest: [0003]/[0004], and [0005]/[0006] are possible forgeries in the eye of SC. By removing the top Received: line (here [0001]/[0002]) in outlook recipients, SC treats the following Received lines as Private/internal handoffs and correctly identifies the culprit in [0005]. This is not SC's fault, and SC cannot fix it. This fix has to come from M$ themselves, and, although SC did fix it in Gmail's sector, which, though Gmail's fault, and rightly also in Gmail's mail-server's code to be fixed, as 6to4 addresses should not propagate with private networks, is in the end a needed fix in SC's parser, and hopefully, whoever fixed it, made sure that only private networks are affected in the 2002:: 6to4 range, because it is possible (and allowed) to have valid IPv4 networks translated and propagated in IPv6 6to4 addresses. (please forgive the long-winding-ultra-long-complex-sentence. I hope it is understandable 🙃.) So in the end, the answer is as follows: For Gmail users: you do not have to remove/replace the 1st (topmost) Received: header. For Outlook users: you still have to remove/replace the 1st (topmost) Received: header. Sorry. This should answer both parts of the question. HTH
  12. unfortunately nothing to do with V5 https://www.spamcop.net/sc?action=showroute;ip=;typecodes=16
  13. RobiBue

    leaseweb spam

    for a while now I have been getting some spam from one or more leaseweb customers ([], [], and [].) unfortunately, there are (at least) two problems here: the IP addresses involved are listed with ARIN pointing to " search-apnic-not-arin@apnic.net " and I simply do not understand why SpamCop cannot understand the transfer mechanism and search for the abuse address within APNIC. even if it would look up APNIC, leaseweb would probably end up being /dev/nulled... (see [] ) anyway, manually reporting (with my anti-spammer email address) I have, after about 5 spams and 6 back and forth messaging their abuse desk (in Singapore -- I believe), managed the following 🤩
  14. RobiBue

    leaseweb spam

    Thanks for checking, alas, the reason for the "correct" reporting address is: https://www.spamcop.net/sc?action=showroute;ip=;typecodes=16 1/15/2019, 3:16:28 PM -0600 [Note added by x-x-x] Route added without comment not the new SC version
  15. Well, after several months of complaining and work-arounds, the SC update to v 5.0.0 finally did it (at least one part of this post's problem): IPv6 6to4 WORKS!!! 🤩
  16. and six hours after my post: Drum Roll 🥁 SpamCop v 5.0.0 © 2019 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. and better: Gmail's fess-up with IPv6 6to4 WORKS!!!! 🤩 no release notes (yet) but at least some good news !!!
  17. it might have been, because: drum roll please.... tadaaaa.... SpamCop v 5.0.0 © 2019 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Here is your TRACKING URL - it may be saved for future reference: https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6513281086z5dbadb8092da4e5415ec84737bfedba2z and the gmail IPv6 6to4 WORKS 🤩 Thank you Cisco! (took a while, but you finally figured it out without compromising the system 😉 )
  18. I don't think the update happened: I get: SpamCop v 4.9.0 © 2019 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. and the gmail IPv6 6to4 address is still breaking the parser (although I don't know if they'll ever fix it...)
  19. RobiBue

    Any point in reporting spam from AMAZONAWS?

    I started doing that too for every amazonAWS spam. I am not sure how effective they are, as their case numbers keep changing for every report and every other reply. reporting to them gives me a case number, but when they reply about the action (which they can't tell me) they have yet another case number, and when I submit the same IP address a few days later (from a new spam) they give me yet another case number, so in this sense, I have no idea how they can even track their own cases... although I have been able to get a live person answer there... so they do read the stuff they get...
  20. RobiBue

    spam reporting question

    Sorry about that, I just copied the link without testing it "stand-alone" it was supposed to be https://www.cert-in.org.in, and then clicking on the link in the left menu [* Incident Reporting] (which ends up being that .jsp link that seems to go nowhere without context...) Confirmation of Spammer's Rules Rule #3: Spammers are stupid, and Spinosa's Corollary: Spammers assume everybody is more stupid than themselves. well, all I can say now: it works, and if it works for you , then great 👍 mission accomplished!
  21. RobiBue

    spam reporting question

    btw, if you click on [past reports] tab/button/link, you can find past TRACKING URLs by clicking on the number link provided for the report, and then on the [parse] link in the resulting screen. just for future reference
  22. RobiBue

    spam reporting question

    same as garbage can (a.k.a. /dev/nul) adding a report to incident@cert-in.org.in is described in https://www.cert-in.org.in/SecurityIncident.jsp from https://dnslytics.com/ip/, I would add a report to the ASN abuse found through https://dnslytics.com/bgp/as132779 as well... that is, a report also to 'admin@rackbank.com' at least for the spam just provided in https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6512015168z11faf14ef668f295d00a184d7761a5a0z
  23. RobiBue

    spam reporting question

    Hi ArtmakersWorlds, I suppose you are talking about the IPv6 address in the email header's "Received:" line beginning with "2002:", otherwise it would be helpful if you could post the "TRACKING URL" you received when submitting the spam to better understand what you mean. i.e. the URL you receive when reporting the spam (my link depicted in indigo purple) If it's the IPv6 (6to4) address, then see the threads here and here about the reasons why some of it isn't working and what Google is or isn't doing about it... HTH
  24. I believe that is the upstream "himself"... (couldn't find an upstream but APNIC themselves)... it's probably time to report to APNIC that the reporting email address is invalid... that pradeep guy has a huge IPv6 block ... he's probably admin[at]robosapi.com anyway
  25. Parswn67 probably meant to "re-post" Farelf's post from 2013 but something must have gone wrong, so here's the link as a reminder ;)