Jump to content

MIG

Membera
  • Content Count

    349
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MIG

  1. MIG

    spam via VPN

    NordVPN 🤐🙄☹️ G🦗H read "internet privacy vs internet piracy"🙃
  2. MIG

    The problem against spam users.

    Hey Nickjonson, Could you provide some more specific, detailed information so we can answer address the questions please? Re: "we might get rid of the real users", (imo) there's always a "risk" however, it's not common... Have you had this happen, can you clarify please? Do you have any Spamcop tracking urls please? Please let us know? Cheers! G🦗H
  3. Hello Jelmer, Yep, noted the emphasis on "when I have time"🙂. The "essay" is a good read, even tho I'm disappointed it will be good to know if the solution works, let us know, when you have time😉 Cheers! G🦗H
  4. Hello Tesseract, Thanks! (G🦗H did have the same thought), however, it's always fun to have new toys to play with even if they're the same toys! Parsing the 1st spam/tracking URL, without hosts, https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6558422807zd2525b6f74678b5e8a4df150cb699739z Parsing the 1st spam/tracking URL, without hosts: https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6558423020z31cbae589deaec37fb6972c626c7c239z May I ask, have you contacted SCA, Richard? Some folks are reporting SCA are fixing, account HOST configuration issue, on a case by case basis. Please let us know? Cheers G🦗H
  5. SpamCop is using spamcop@mailservices.yahoo.com for 74.6.131.125 Other tools give: network-abuse@cc.yahoo-inc.com https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6558287967z6f3031f13bb6ba6fc5afe9ad57bd5526z
  6. Thank you Lisati, I did wonder about posting, but, thought I seek opinion/s from others with more knowledge & that's exactly what's happend🤩 Appreciate your input! Cheers! G🦗H
  7. G🦗H loves perl(s). Does that mean it will be able to be incorporated into SC Parser Jelmer? Cheers! G🦗H
  8. May we have a/some tracking URLs please Tesseract? Cheers, G🦗H
  9. Hello Gabrielt, I'll side-step all of LKing_Master's considered advice & just share a couple of things. 1. I took your original: https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6557766050z3c1f36e50c5140df21e4fdbf0d568a5cz - Wednesday at 10:33 PM parsed it thru a SC account without any MAILHOSTS configured, result: https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6558104666zfcc84ec0d118545d96b9b4b48e77879ez 2. Mailhost configuration problem, identified internal IP as source. No source IP address found, cannot proceed. Nothing to do >> The errors in your parsed spam: Hank, one of our friends, had this very issue: http://forum.spamcop.net/topic/37788-resolvednbspmailhost-configuration-problem-identified-internal-ip-as-source/ We all took to it with our usual zeal, however, in the end, Hank contacted Richard, SC Admin, result: SOLVED by Spamcop staff. Problem found and fixed. Here is the explanation: ========== a.local-delivery was in the mailhosts, but b.local-delivery wasn't. At one time that would have been ignored as a local hop, but some of the coding for IPv6 screwed things up so even versions numbers of some things look like IP addresses. -- Richard ============ If you haven't done this & think it's possible solution please let us know if you get a happy result? Thanks & cheers! G🦗H
  10. 1. Until MS fix the "hundred thousand servers, the fix is measured in years, not weeks or months", we (spamfighters) must continue to manually remove the 1st receive header. 2. Correct. 3. No, I don't they (MS) manually pass to the right ISP/Host owner, in fact, in my experience, MS simply engage in "hot potato-mind-numbing" converstions with statements like "not our responsibility"🤬 This is completely contrary to Richards statement "All is not lost though, as Hotmail's parsing engines when they receive the report does pass through the report to the right party. It also helps Hotmail block new spam from that source". I've never experienced this result from MS, not saying Richard is wrong, simply saying, my experience with MS, on this specific subject, has never resulted in MS being proactive with the actions Richard describes. 4. Agreed, however, MS don't have a good track record when it comes to "fixing" their products. G🦗H
  11. G🦗H furiously nodding head in agreement!
  12. MIG

    SC parse incomplete

    Hey Spamnophobic, If after SCA fix, the issue remains unsolved, within the bounds of what's tolerable, please keep posting failed parses? There is a reason/s and a solution/s, it's just (collectively) we haven't cracked it, even more more frustratingly, when we think we have, someone comes back with a "fix not working" post.... Cheers! G🦗H
  13. MIG

    SC parse incomplete

    Hello Spamnophobic, G🦗H was 😴, fortunately, the data was still there, again I copied the raw data, made no changes, parsed with the account with NO MAILHOSTS, result: https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6555951941z54ade950d9ab7371fd82381b0cebc409z Re: "DDS may well have introduced new hosts", is it possible to contact DDS, ask them to provide you with a current list of MAILHOSTS? If, after comparing to the hosts you've confirgured, there's no discrepancy, it might be worth asking SC Admin, to assist?(recently, one of our friends here, Hank, had a problem that was only able to be solved by SCA). Please keep us in the loop, we're interested. Cheers! G🦗H
  14. MIG

    SC parse incomplete

    Hello Spamnophobic. (copied the data you presented) parsed using an account with NO MAILHOSTS configured: Using: Google Chrome, Version 75.0.3770.100 Result: https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6555657794z82d109368beb200e75fa28bbd587002dz Does the SC account used have MAILHOSTS configured? Please let us know? Thanks & cheers!
  15. (1) Agreed, some of SCParsers "informatiion/feedback" is very obtuse, incorrect and a few other things. Not sure there's a priority on tweaking SC feedback, sadly, despite our pleadings. (2) Agreed Jelmer, and even tho it's presumptive of me, I think the majority of folks here, who've encountered the . "out damm dot!", also agree with you. (3) No, I'm pretty sure I've seen similar commentary from other folks - never fear Jelmer, you're never alone! Cheers! G🦗H
  16. https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6553438559z3bce578c31b64b0feee590952682dcb9z Can't work this out, have not escalated any spam queries to email-abuse@amazon.com, is it legit or is it spam? 🙏G🦗H
  17. Good idea TomosJ, whatever works, whatever it takes! G🦗H
  18. Hello Hank, 1. What was the error message exactly? Was it "Mailhost configuration problem, identified internal IP as source"? Um & didn't Richard say " the problem/solution "a.local-delivery was in the mailhosts, but b.local-delivery wasn't" & didn't Richard fix that? Like, that can't be "broke" again, surely? Or is it this solution "Added those in. I really don't like what I'm seeing from Apple with their network setup", which none of us have a clue exactly what that means? 2. Yeah, (I figure you're correct), n, I think, if there's some secret solution, we send everything to Richard. 3. Totally agree! 4. Absolutely disagree - it's not just you/only you! Do you have the tracking URL please? G🦗H 🙏
  19. Hey Petzl, Bc, this one has me flumoxed, can you see that from the data (I can't) or is "fake bounce" a theory? 🙏G🦗H
  20. Aren't we funny creatures? When this happened to me Showker, I immediately thought there MUST be something wrong with my email account, Master set me straight pretty quickly in that regard, then I got pissed off I wasn't getting my daily "kill spammers" fix, however, when the spam started gain, as it invaribly does, I got cranky 'bout that 'cause, I hate spammers.... (i) can't make up my mind if I like getting spam or not. I do know (for me) the ONLY thing (over 20+- yrs) that reduced my spam to 1 a week > month > 0, was, is SC☺️ No happy medium. One thing, this won't answer your question Showker, but, in case you haven't, and if you're interested, it's worth checking the "breach status" of your email address - https://monitor.firefox.com/scan Cheers! G🦗H
  21. Not necessary, a gentle, under chin tickle, has them purring like kittens😽 Late, never, busy ow, did notice your absence, glad you're back & in such fine form!
  22. "SC now tries to cache "look-ups" I know. I'm trying to work out, if permission was granted, would the "allow" question be resolved? & referring back to Master's post: "new feature", is the "allow" a new feature or an enhancement/fix to an already exisitng SC process? 🙏
  23. Hello Norbet, Sorry it's taken a while to get to this (partly thinking/pondering) I parsed using SC NOMAILHOSTS account result: https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6552696162zc69a145cc755ec5c7e058df9f70058bbz & I then did as you did, removed . result: https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6552701693z0f0a16068c0f32eb79bf213e6cee702az Both methods result in a successful parse 85.119.145.133 still@mits.ru 54.183.130.144 abuse@hootsuite.com --------------------------------------------------------- So, unless I'm mistaken, we've concluded the parser can process if the . is removed and or can process using a NO-MAILHOSTS configured account. To SCFA & SCA (still 🤔 if they're one and the same or just share a 🛏) **Is the . issue a real SC issue & fixable or a perceived issue? ** What is it about SC accounts with MAILHOSTS configued that SC is unable to process spams with . issue? Surely , as . issue keeps presenting, it fit's the criteria for: attention/review, at the very least? 🙏G🦗H🙏 ---------------------------------------- Just for interest: Digging (deeper) 85.119.145.133 https://www.abuseipdb.com/check/85.119.145.133 abuse@selectel.ru on 54.183.130.144 https://www.talosintelligence.com/reputation_center/lookup?search=54.183.130.144 = ow.ly = abuse@amazonaws.com https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/8ef4ed0e21da1546109e27b2b861d6ddf0bcccc8fa5a52f45866699ee3ed5db1/detection https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/54.67.120.65/summary
  24. Thanks Petzl. ------------------------------------------------------------- Surely the way to circumvent false DoS attacks is to define the "allows"? Ok, I'll bite, who asks Spamcop "owners" to chk with RIPE, is that SCFA or SCA or ? or does dummy (G🦗H ) just ask another dummy question? G🦗H Having a groundhogday
×