Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by RobiBue

  1. 10 minutes ago, Lking said:

    Those are post I was in the process of hiding .  The user's post count does not update when I hide their post, but there is nothing for you to see.

    Robi we are ships in the night.


    we need a pb_CapeCanaveral.jpg;) 

  2. 13 hours ago, Lking said:

    I too have noted this variant.  There is also a large number of spams by members that have registered days or more before posting.  For example today (last night) there were 8 new members ~ all spammers.  But there were 23 spam posted.

    You can mouse over the member icon and see date/time joined and date of last post.  For a spammer likely their only post.

    today, as of 11AM CDT:

    17 new members (listed under All Activity) (well, one from yesterday, but almost midnight)
    12 of them posted 1 spam each
    2 of them didn't post anything
    3 had a post, but it didn't exist (Content Count: 1 post -- but nothing found)

    28 new spams
    14 of them from listed new members
    the other 14 from unlisted members but all created within 1 hour of the post (almost as if they deleted their own user themselves after posting...)

    and while I was busy during 1 hour while this post is sitting here, cleanup has started and is just about finished ;) ( I need to rephrase this somehow... my post was sitting idle in the editor while I was busy doing other things. When I got back 1 hour later, I noticed that cleanup was being done.)

  3. 19 hours ago, Lking said:

    It has always been the feeling of the powers-that-be that one of the important audiences for this forum are those struggling with the side effects of having a spammer use their email, IP, infect there system or just be in their neighborhood.  In part this concern is due to the impact of an effective SCBL;  If emailers Alice & Bob temporally share an ISP/IP then Bob's email get blocked because of Alice's spam.

    The question then becomes how do "we" help Bob?  How do those impacted contact the forum if any automatic blocking is used?  If there post is delayed (until approved by someone) i'm guessing they just look for help elsewhere. I know I do.

    As stated we block reuse of usernames and email.  Blocking IPs would also lock all users of gmail, about 1/5 the users of CenturyLink in Denver, etc and that person who shares an IP with a spammer.  Now I have not done an in depth analysis but a quick look at 4 or 5 pages of 25 banned users (sorted by IP) did not reveal a clusters.

    Completely agree, IP blocking is not an option.

    19 hours ago, Lking said:

    Beefing up the front end to keep out the bots seems to be the only acceptable solution, IMHO.  Holding the first post it seems would discourage first posters that have been "blocked by SC" or are trying to deal with spam incoming to their system, both a primary audience.  Blocking IP's or blocks of IP's has the same affect. (yes there have been lagit posters from Russia and India)

    and don't forget china ;)

    19 hours ago, Lking said:

    Hiding post after n-number of reports 1) would require adding a feature to an off-the-shelf product (check the bottom of the screen) 2) There is also the reality that by the time I get to spam with my first cup, generally the spam has only been reported by @RobiBue.  Sometimes one other.  After those posted while I sleep, there are seldom any reports before I get to them.  and 3) That type of process would open the forum to another type of attack that needs to be programmed to stop.  (Only reports from certain group(s) of users can block.  What about reports by other users?...)

    It is a pain.  I have to work at keeping tract of threads that need attention with all the clutter.  There was a time when @Wazoo had full access to the forum software and db. He tweaked the SW with regularity, which resulted in a system that was generally undocumented and not maintainable after he left the seen.  That resulted in the migration to an ISP maintained package and unfortunately all the bad links in old threads.

    There are pros and cons to all changes.  There is an issue but a solution where the pros win out is needed.

    1. true, didn't realize that until you pointed it out
    2. Didn't know there were so few uf us. (if I'm on the tablet I don't report because I have to go into the post to report it. with the pc it's easier using the mouse hover)
    3. yeah, again needed that to be pointed out, but it would require several people to report the post to be hid, and as I mentioned, it wouldn't be unreachable, only marked as hidden, but anybody wanting to read it could still access it.

    wrt PITA; I know, that's why the ideas being thrown around. Now an undocumented, unmaintainable/chaotic, up the wazoo system is not exactly what I had in mind... (sorry, pun intended)

    hopefully, with input of good ideas and weeding out the bad, a winning system could be proposed for third party implementation :)


  4. 5 hours ago, Lking said:

    To create an account the email must be validated stolen emails shouldn't work. Anecdotally, there is a pattern to the emails used to create accounts here. Using the forum tools sorting emails of course groups mailboxes not address domains.

    The most of the emails today are gmail and outlook. This looks to be true historically with lots of protonmail.com,  mail.com, and yandex.com  The email(s) used with the one IP use twice to post were mail.com and faithmail.org.

    Blocking email domains doesn't seem useful.  A casual review highlights gmail and outlook but also protonmail, yandex and mail.    

    Hmmm... now here comes a thought... I know, still dangerous 😉

    What if... there is/could be a way to check how old an email account is (when it was created) ... Serious Callers Only (yeah, been reading Iain Banks lately 😉) won't use throwaway (recently created) emails to sign up and post in SC (at least I don't think so) unless they are spammers...

    Of course, if I had my own mx/mail server, I would be using emails, new or old, but mostly with @mydomain.tld (historically that used to be done in usenet/newsgroups to ensure that scavenged addresses could be pinpointed to a certain usenet base (at least that's how I remember it from way back when 🙂 )

    Aaaanyway, so spammer creates emails galore on gmail/outlook/protonmail/yandex/whatever and tries to sign up in forum. Forum says your email is too new, you need approval from admin to post new posts. I know, you mentioned before about legitimate users that want to post, but their email addresses (on the aforementioned big email houses) are usually long established. So the email address age would prevent this spammer from posting right away, and his address could be placed on the ban list for future attempts...
    Now, OTOH, spammer uses own @mydomain.tld addresses. Even if the address was new, he would be allowed to spam as before, but now, the domain could be blocked, and  to buy domain names could turn out to be costly for this kind of spam shop... and then he would drop the domains and someone else, legit picks them up and has them already blocked here, so somewhat a timed block could be set in place, coinciding when the domain name expires ;)

    Was busy today and didn't have time to report early ;) but I did read your comments and explanations and agree that IP blocking wouldn't be productive.

    Now of course, the whole discussion is more or less moot point, since favicon.icoinvision would have to implement all this and I have no idea how willing they are to make changes at this level... and if (as I mentioned) there could be a way to check big email house creation date of addresses...

    also, since SC forum deals with valid spam, a forum spamkiller would unfortunately throw too many false positives...

  5. 5 hours ago, gnarlymarley said:

    I don't like the forum spam because as soon as it is posted, gmail has all forum emails marked with spam reputation.  At this point, I personally would prefer to thwart the spammers similar to bl.spamcop.net if possible.

    Well, I don’t know about the forum spams being marked as spam in gmail since I only read them in SC. (Anyway, if you receive them as emails, then you should be able — as I do with other email forums — to mark them as never send to spam, and just delete the ones that are “offensive”, as forum emails come from the forum and not from the person sending them...)

    5 hours ago, gnarlymarley said:

    Ah, so maybe something automated.  If this were possible, I am all for automating any part of it so to limit human mistakes..

    Ah, but automated mistakes are also bad. That’s the reason SC uses human decision to ultimately report the processed spam... 

    ... of course this would be “semi-automated”, as the automation process would start as soon as 3 or 4 humans decided to mark the post as “spam” (only possible in SC online forums)

    6 hours ago, gnarlymarley said:

    Seems like maybe some of the admins might be burning the candle at both ends at times.  I have seen more than one person make mistakes when it comes to cleaning up the spam in the forums.  Anything that might help out would be a plus.

    The Latin phrase for that is “errare humanum est” (to err is human), and I have informed the admin “in situ” of a few odd misdirected posts (fat fingering and lack of caffeine are usually the reasons 🤫)

    6 hours ago, gnarlymarley said:

    I am tempted to suggest that something similar to the SpamCop BL, where enough bad report and a user cannot post or sign up with a new account for 48 hours.

    Well, as Lking already explained:

    On 7/18/2019 at 12:37 PM, Lking said:


    • I review each new post to this forum.
    • Hide the spam
    • Restrict the poster from posting - Indefinitely
    • Send a warning email


    Currently there are some 4,450 member accounts ban from posting. Banning vs deleting an account prevents spammers from reusing an email address or user name. 

    I figure, since the “spam-poster” needs an email account to sign in, these people have tons of throwaway addresses, since they can only use them once. (I am curious on how many addresses use the same domain, and thus prevent them, depending on the domain they use, to even create a SC account. Of course, if they use throwaway gmail, yahoo, hotmail, et.al. accounts, that wouldn’t be feasible...)

  6. Well, my idea wasn't to thwart the spammers... (ok, in a way it is 😛)
    Instead, it would be meant to keep the forums "readable" after 3 or 4 users have reported the posts.
    They'd still be there if one really desires to read them, but they'd be hidden until they get handled by an admin.

    personally, they don't bother me (much), but I see the occasional OP who mentions the garbage in the forums (fora, fori, forii, whatever) and /me thinks/ (dangerous thing BTW) that there could be something that could be done besides one or two admins cleaning up garbage left by some 💩jackasses...

    Usually we don't get much. It seems that today, though, is a different matter... some "recruiter" must have promised a lot of 💵 to some poor souls...

    That's actually my idea behind it. Have as few spamposts as possible visible to users, and I think that could accomplish it (I'm sure there are some of us users that report those spams, and if it's just 3 or 4 per post it would do the trick...)

    Just my thought... and then Lking could even enjoy his carb-sugar-caffeine drink in a more leisurely manner ;)

  7. If I query ARIN, I am told it’s a RIPE address...

    and the abuse email address given, ending in “.ru” does not help my confidence in its trustworthiness...

    I apologize to all honest Russians, but living here in the Americas leaves me with little trust in Russian owned web addresses.

    In God I trust, but not in Товарищ владимир и собрат дональд

  8. I just had a brainfart (pardon my French)...

    Sooo, we have these pesky little 💩 that think that the readers of these forums are interested in their spew 🤮

    Well, here is my proposal to alleviate the problem:

    1. Reported posts receive a mark/counter (see below: 1 reported...)
    2. Posts that are less than 24 hours old and reported more than 3 times get hidden (can be unhid[sic] by the user if he/she so desires)
    3. A user with a post reported 4 times would be prevented from posting in the forum (reading is ok, and pm an admin to ask for unblocking)
    4. Eventually a forum  admin can do some garbage collection (GC) the way they usually do it ;)

    this would be the forum view with all topics displayed (the two marked "4 reported" would be hidden by default)


    This would be the "Unread" topics view (hey, no spam ;) but only if 4 reported them beforehand) 
    in Content Types, the user could choose to see the spam (unless the forum admin already done the GC)



    Suggestions or ideas (or the other way around) are always welcome.



  9. Now that's a new one to me!


    I wasn't thinking much about it when I sent the report, but today I received the following reply from NordVPN abuse desk:


    Thank you for informing us about possible violation of laws related to activities of one of our services' users. We take serious matter of the illegal actions and/ or crimes committed by abusively using our services.
    NordVPN is a VPN service provider and offers shared IP addresses to its users.
    Unfortunately, in this specific case we are not able to assist as it’s impossible for us to locate which user on the server is actually responsible for the violation, since we do not log user's activity or IP address.
    Therefore we can not identify the user on the basis of this inquiry notice.
    More about our Privacy policy (https://nordvpn.com/privacy-policy/).
    Please don't hesitate to let us know should we be able to assist with something else.

    well, internet privacy vs internet privacy.

    ain't that swell...

  10. 16 minutes ago, Lking said:

    The source of an email can be identified by the FROM: line or the IP address found in the list of Received: lines in the header.  The FROM: which looks like a good choice and is valid for all legitimate emails emails you received, it is easy to forge by the spammer (or anyone) and maybe a valid email for someone totally unrelated to the source of the spam. Although it could be a Joe Job, The forged/spoofed FROM: is just a randomly selected mailbox.

    Around 20 years ago, I used to send my wife occasional emails that would look like she sent them to me, just to make sure that she understood that anybody could send an email with spoofed/fake names. 

    So the From: line in the headers is only valid for “trusted” emails. (And then, only if you trust them ;) )

    23 minutes ago, Lking said:

    The IP address found in the header Received: lines must point back to the true source (well mostly).  If the IP address is not correct the network will not be able to do the required handshaking as the email (packets) move through the network to the destination.

    As Lking states, the Received: line in the headers is the one that gets you closest to the original sender. Many times, though, a computer is hacked and some malware is installed, sending the spam from that computer without the knowledge of the real user. Sending spam reports to the ISP of said user is necessary to alert the ISP that the user is either a spammer or has compromised hardware. It is also possible that a company has their own mail server which is open and can be used as a proxy. For the latter, it is also important to have their ISP inform them that they are running an open proxy allowing spammers to abuse their system.


  11. 10 hours ago, Tesseract said:

    I don't think there's really anything more to learn from them at this point, as it's the same behaviour documented earlier in the thread with the same type of invalid hostname in the messages. But here are two from today:




    is there a reason why the first From line doesn't have a colon ":"

    From bounce@menshealth.com  Mon Jul  8 01:35:59 2019
    Return-Path: <bounce@menshealth.com>
    X-Original-To: x
    Delivered-To: x

    in my book, that would be a reason for failure...

  12. 51 minutes ago, gabrielt said:

    @Lking and @MIG

    I found the culprit! Many thanks for your help!

    It was a bug with our qmail installation!

    The header in our received emails were malformed.


    Once again, thank you so much your time. MIG's answer turned on a light bulb in my head that the email header might be malformed and...bingo!

    I hope this topic helps other SpamCop users in the future.



    and so the G🦗H advances further to becoming a master :)🙏

    @gabrielt Glad you found the problem, and with it, also fixed an internal handoff problem with your qmail setup (malformed received line). (wish some big companies: RE1Mu3b?ver=5c31 -- with outlook and hotmail -- would fix theirs.... )

  13. 13 hours ago, HeatherReid43 said:

    Using last resort contacts search-apnic-not-arin#apnic.net@devnull.spamcop.net

    any idea how to solve this issue ?

    Unfortunately, that is not something we "mere mortal users" can solve unless we report manually and not through spamcop.

    This issue has to be resolved through fixing spamcop's whois lookup with the registries, and following the correct protocol, which apparently ARIN changed a while back. RIPE also seems to have made some changes, but it's affecting spamcop only marginally.

    Sadly many ARIN redirections to APNIC end up devnulled because cisco/talos seems to have only a minimal desire to keep spamcop up to date (at least so it seems to me personally)

    What happens now, is, that someone asks in this forum to fix the reporting address (which may or may not happen), and if this reporting address gets manually changed, it is then prone to end up being the wrong address when the registrant changes the info in the whois DB. :(


  14. On 6/13/2019 at 10:11 AM, showker said:

    Nope, three weeks now and zero spam.

    Is there some spamcop in the sky that blocks addresses from getting spam?

    did the big spam cartels somehow decide to remove my address because my articles about spam and cybercrime were getting shared so much?   ( https://www.facebook.com/safenetting/ )

    Has my ISP blocked me from spam?   Other email works perfectly, and some small-time, bush-league spammers get through . . . like those annoying BitCoin Blackmailers ! 

    But Chinese spam?  ZERO.   Ever since I started posting translations! 

    Do you suppose the Chinese have the power to block ALL Chinese spam from a specific email address?  I still get it in all my other addresses!

    A uge mystery


    I fathom that somehow they were tipped off to remove certain spam-traps from their database, yours included, but not the other addresses.

    Just my thought...

  15. That one is a bit murky, but looking at its upstream, it belongs to Equant Inc. (who in turn, back in 2006 was rebranded into Orange along with Wanadoo.)

    That said: "Comments: For abuse, spam or security issues, Please contact SIRT [at] EQUANT.COM", and "OrgAbuseEmail: sirt [at] orange-ftgroup.com" would be the address I'd use.

    The link is a "spamcop command" link that could expire, so the ARIN link is 3-fold:

    1. https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-216-72-0-0-1 which gives the SIRT [at] EQUANT.COM address, and the link below for the " Related organization's POC records. " (the second "See also" as the first one is absolutely useless, and the third isn't much worth for us)
    2. https://whois.arin.net/rest/org/EQUANT-1/pocs where in turn you can find "Abuse: SOC20-ARIN (SOC20-ARIN)" which links to
    3. https://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/SOC20-ARIN.html which gives the sirt [at] orange-ftgroup.com address. (and maybe also attach the other two non- IPG-ARIN addresses as well 😉

    Then, I would also add the address found in https://www.ripe.net/membership/indices/data/ie.equant.html, although since there is no last updated date, there is no security that this email is still valid (but worth a try)



  16. no, it is not an error, as this network entry really didn't provide an abuse address. Heck, they really didn't provide an address at all:


    [ JPNIC database provides information regarding IP address and ASN. Its use   ]
    [ is restricted to network administration purposes. For further information,  ]
    [ use 'whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp help'. To only display English output,        ]
    [ add '/e' at the end of command, e.g. 'whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp xxx/e'.      ]
    Network Information:            
    a. [Network Number]   
    b. [Network Name]               IIJNET
    g. [Organization]               IIJ Internet
    m. [Administrative Contact]     JP00010080
    n. [Technical Contact]          JP00010080
    p. [Nameserver]                 dns0.iij.ad.jp
    p. [Nameserver]                 dns1.iij.ad.jp
    [Assigned Date]                 2018/06/25
    [Return Date]                   
    [Last Update]                   2018/06/25 17:35:04(JST)
    Less Specific Info.
    Internet Initiative Japan Inc.
    More Specific Info.
    No match!!

    looking up the JP00010080 AS number (well, JP number, as it isn't really an AS number) I get:

    [ JPNIC database provides information regarding IP address and ASN. Its use   ]
    [ is restricted to network administration purposes. For further information,  ]
    [ use 'whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp help'. To only display English output,        ]
    [ add '/e' at the end of command, e.g. 'whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp xxx/e'.      ]
    Group Contact Information:
    [Group Handle]                  JP00010080
    [Group Name]                    IP Address Contact
    [E-Mail]                        nic-sec@iij.ad.jp
    [Organization]                  Internet Initiative Japan Inc.
    [TEL]                           03-5205-6500
    [Last Update]                   2014/07/22 12:02:04(JST)

    So nic-sec[at]iij.ad.jp would be the address to complain to, and I personally would add a comment to hostmaster[at]nic.ad.jp letting them know that the above entry has no abuse address listed and is spamming ;)


  17. 22 hours ago, MIG said:


    Can't work this out, have not escalated any spam queries to email-abuse@amazon.com, is it legit or is it spam? 


    1/2 way agree wit Petzl 😉

    1. fake bounce: no, it's a real bounce
    2. spammer has you as return address: yes. That's why you're receiving the bounce 😞

    The address that the spammer sent the spam to, is invalid (either never existed or got removed from usage) and since your address was the return address (From:) ...

    another reason to hate spammers...

    but no point in submitting that one, as the owner is legit... they just replied to you to let you know that "your" mail couldn't be delivered...

    that's another reason why spamcop goes after the Received: headers and not the From: email addresses 😉


  18. if I use my "potaroo.net" IPv6 checker on the aforementioned IPv6 address:


    I see the following comment in the APNIC entry:

    remarks:	 	This information has been partially mirrored by APNIC from
    remarks:	 	JPNIC. To obtain more specific information, please use the
    remarks:	 	JPNIC WHOIS Gateway at
    remarks:	 	http://www.nic.ad.jp/en/db/whois/en-gateway.html or
    remarks:	 	whois.nic.ad.jp for WHOIS client. (The WHOIS client
    remarks:	 	defaults to Japanese output, use the /e switch for English
    remarks:	 	output)
    last-modified:	 	2014-03-10T22:41:03Z 

    not shown above are other "last-modified" entries, the oldest dating 2009-11-04T06:54:54Z (that's a 10 year old listing), while the shown last-modified is 5 years old, whois.nic.ad.jp should have the current listing

    although I do not find the abuse address mentioned by MIG, I find 2 entries, both using the same email address




    Group Contact Information:
    [Group Handle]                  JP00076967
    [Group Name]                    networkhozen
    [E-Mail]                        SS01629@enecom.co.jp  <---
    [Organization]                  Energia Communications,Inc
    [TEL]                           050-8201-2351
    [Last Update]                   2017/04/05 16:53:06(JST)

    one is from 2011 and this one from 2017...