Jump to content

Lking

Forum Admin
  • Content Count

    25,133
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Lking

  • Rank
    What Life?

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.knob.com
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Colorado, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

6,468 profile views
  1. Yes I would report this spam.
  2. In the body of the emial <DIV><a style=3D"color: blue; background-color: ffffdd" href=3D"http://www.nospammer.net/SpamSubmission/SubmitSpam?id=3DI3QGAH0GXWB= nRmpfeUJ0RQ__&sig=3De340MBnYVsRoIzFtaiVlcHl4NCx2MTNwEzZfBg__"> If this email is not spam, click here to submit the signatures to FortiGuar= d - AntiSpam Service. </a></DIV> as indicated in the report
  3. Lking

    forum url have changed

    The issue is two different but related problems. As you may have noticed there is a difference between the base domain, "SpamCop.net" and the SUB domain "forum.spamcop.net' SpamCop.net is perhaps the more stable of the two. However, when SpamCop was bough by Cisco maintenance of the user interface became a lower priority. In fairness, before the change in ownership there were issues with dead links to the forum were creeping into SpamCop.net (as I remember). The forum is a somewhat different issue of evolution. The forum has always been a user volunteer supported operation. Volunteers have had varying degrees of access, control and time given to the forum. With the changing "personal" several initiatives to improve/structure the wealth of information and history in the forum have been started and abandoned. Add to this the need to change the underlying software forum software and database has resulted in an uncounted number of broken links. All a sad but true result of an irregularly maintained system that is +40(?) years old.
  4. Lking

    AWS spam source

    You might try stop-spoofing@amazon.com
  5. Lking

    No Data Found

    Don't forget to leave the reuired blank line at the end of the header
  6. The way the system works is sometimes confusing. When you are logged in to SpamCop and follow a tracking URL to look at a report you see the un munged report. If you log out and follow the tracking URL, you will see the munged report others see as RubiBue reported above.
  7. Rule #3: Spammers are stupid. "Hay fellow spammers here is a validated email address!" How do you know it is valid? " They reported my email (spam) to this address"
  8. Lking

    Three Ways to Report spam

    Perhaps others do, I do not.
  9. Lking

    Three Ways to Report spam

    Different block list, different objectives, different rules.
  10. Lking

    No Data Found

    I don't think that configuration of you mailhost is the cause of that problem. From your OP I take it that you are using the SC web form to submit. What mail application are you using to get the spam? Some do not give you the header without modification, which causes the reported problem.
  11. Lking

    Three Ways to Report spam

    When the "Reporting Time" was added to the screen, there were lots of threads about the accuracy. Seems to fall to 2 hrs and sticks there. And why should they??? They don's SEND any spam. Remember the objective of the SCBL is to block/filter incoming spam, not rate all the IP in the world. In the beginning spammers would include phony links to NY Times/ Washington Post, etc. to make it look like the spamvertised product was valid. A dynamic process. Thanks. I am fairly sure that in spite of the view from your end of the "fire hose" 1k - 100k others are receiving spam for the same IP, it only takes a couple of live reports. And of course there are all the spam traps which are heavily weighted..
  12. Lking

    Three Ways to Report spam

    Lets start with the SCBL deals with IP addresses not domain names. As for which IPs are blocked, have you looked at https://www.spamcop.net/spamstats.shtml or https://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/351.html Have you looked at https://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/297.html scroll down to "Rules" Speed all depends.
  13. Of course anything over two days old will be rejected by SC
×