Jump to content


Forum Admin
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Lking

  • Rank
    What Life?

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Colorado, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

5,855 profile views
  1. Looks OK IF you use Chrome and likes more apps installed on your local platform.
  2. Useful discussion. Please be careful to NOT include active "malicious" links in your post. Some suggestions for breaking links would be to replace periods "." in the URL with a coma ',' or '{DOT}' include spaces to break[ ]-[ ]up the URL as in http: // spamcop . net When you do include a URL double check your post to make sure the system did not out smart you and generate a live link. THANKS
  3. Maybe include the link that redirects to them. We can always be hopeful.
  4. Grrrrrrr! Maybe if you include a note to Amazon along with the spam Report about the redirect.
  5. Lking

    Profile picture

    nice grasshopper.
  6. Lking

    Profile picture

    Go to your profile, and click on the little image by the current picture
  7. I did not say they never do check for links. What I meant was some times the parser does not take the time. At the decision was being made to look at the body or not, the load due to processing other higher priority task may preclude doing the work to fine links, even simple ones. At other times of lighter load the parser may dig deeper. The timing of the parser is a black box.
  8. MisterBill, SC does not always take the time to look at the body of the spam. Remember looking for links in the body of spam is the lowest priority task for the parser. The added time to decode the body may the reason at the time you submitted this (or other) examples.
  9. FYI I just ran this spam. https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6526524883z1d0a6302930f617dfedab5cc450aa8c3z The report section includes
  10. Lking

    amazonAWS reports sent to /dev/nul

    I admit I do not know which of several reasons that amazonAWS reports are being devnulled. But in general there are several possible reasons a spam report is not sent but directed to devnull.spamcop.net The intended recipient has ask SC not the send spam reports. (SC does not want to become a "spammer" sending unwanted email) spam Reports sent to the abuse address have bounced. (a report and bounce would just clutter the bandwidth) There is evidence that the recipient is in fact the spammer not a responsible ISP. (would serve no purpose) SC did not find a valid abuse address for the IP. (Record keeping only) The Tracking URL report section does provide an explanation "<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<" added
  11. Can you provide a Tracking URL which can be found at the top of the submit screen: There are/have been issues using OUTLOOK. Take a look at your sent email. You should be able to look at the attached email and see if contains the complete header which should look something like the header in the spam linked to above.
  12. Are you forwarding the spam as an attachment to your email? What email application(s) are you using to submit spam to SpamCop?
  13. Lking

    Spamcop forum doesn't use HTTPS?

    Why you allow spaming this forum
  14. RobiBue makes a good point, that I missed back in May 2018. There is a difference between submitting case 1,2,3 as text directly to the parser and submitting a received email (as text) to the parser. As RobiBue noted, when a user sends an email, containing a Bcc address to a properly configured email server, the email system generates two outgoing emails hiding the Bcc: addressee. In my test just now 1. one email was received by the Bcc addressee. Yes I deleted the routing, Just more IP addresses etc than I want to reveal. 2. the second email was received by the TO: addressee. Note nether email contains a Bcc: line as pointed out by RobiBue, which if included would defeat the purpose of the Bcc: RobiBue's observation brings us to the point mentioned several time here, 'The parser can not be written to handle every possible improper configuration or error generated by spammers.' This is another example. Preemptively let me point out that that, yes email applications may be able to handle this improper header. The objective of email applications is to try to deliver to the user any/every email received. If the application is delivered incorrectly, the human reader may be able to use the results. The SpamCop parser on the other hand, to remain credible, MUST always be correct when sending a spam Report (accusing someone of sending spam). If the parser incorrectly tries to interpret a poorly formatted header and as a result incorrectly accuses someone of spamming credibility is lost. A trivial example could be: "Let's eat grandma!" Is that something for the grammar police or the Donner party?