Jump to content

Lking

Forum Admin
  • Content Count

    18,032
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lking

  1. 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?
  2. The parser is a black box for security reasons mostly. When you get a "No reporting address" routing refresh the page once or twice (buffering can be an issue). Sometimes a refresh will update the addressing to a better address.
  3. I'm guessing that when the spam report was originally sent by the Tracking URL above the report was sent to onyschenko_pb{AT}techcom{DOT}kiev{DOT}ua (Today it would have gone to abuse{AT}pcn{DOT}com{DOT}ua) However, on the way to kiev{DOT}ua, relay6...ru realized that the spam report was coming from SpamCop or maybe saw the word "spam" and rejected the message sending a bounce message back to SpamCop. When the bounce message got back to SpamCop they looked at your < Report reply handling > preferences and forwarded the bounce to you as the spam reporter. It has been awhile sense I have received a reply to a spam report, but if you look at the header you should (if I am right) see that the message came from or through SpamCop, not from relay6.hosting.reg.ru If any of this is correct, " Forward replies from people and robots " option is selected on preferences tab. The spam report bounce, maybe the reason that the report would now be sent to a different ISP or the change could be just a normal update.
  4. Sometimes the ISP has ask SpamCop to use a different email address. Hopefully the ISP wants to separate spam Reports to highlight reports from SpamCop for actions.
  5. I am not a Hotmail user, but the most current information I see in a search is: Advice on viewing/copying the "message source" in hotmail Assume you are using the web interface in a browser vs a mail app like Thunderbird as suggested above by gnarlymarley Yes it is difficult keep advice updates to reflect ever changing applications. sorry.
  6. Teancum144 In your first post there is a link at the bottom of the first quote. follow that link (past into your browser) and then follow the "Contact us" link. Explain the problem your having. The problem looks to me to be the way OUTLOOK handles/process your emails trying to configure your reporting account. I think the IPv6 links used internally (to outlook) is causing the problems.
  7. Does seem counterintuitive, however, there is logic to the policy. Assuming that the ISP is a good internet member and was being taken advantage of by a spammer, if they say they have fixed the problem, SpamCop gives them some time to show resolution. There may be some delay from the time the ISP thinks they have stopped the spam, and when the last spam are received and reported. On the other hand if the spam does continue, reporting and blocking will again happen and the word of the ISP will be more suspect in the future.
  8. Lking

    Mail Rejected/Blacklisted

    First we need to separate what may be two issues and terminology so everyone is talking about the same thing: 1. If your friend's email is blocklisted, that would mean that his OUTGOING email is not being received by others because the recipient's email system has blocked your friend's email. They (each recipient) would have to whitelist your friend's email address or IP address. 2. If your friend is not receiving emails (including yours) your friend's email system is blocking INCOMING email and it is your friend's system that is causing the problem. Your statement, above, is confusing. "He's is (sic) not receiving some emails." {2} "I ran a spam test and found some site have marked his mail as spam."{1}(Your friend blocked by others.) "So i sent him an email and it was bounced.."{2} (Your email is blocked by your friend's system.) The SpamCop blocklist is a dynamic list that suggest IP addresses that may be the source of spam. The list is developed based on reported spam received by others and spam received by secret spam traps. After no spam is received for a period of time (12 or more hours) an IP address may automatically removed from the list. It is the administrator of the receiving email system who decides whether to block incoming email or place the email in a "spam" folder for review. If you follow the link in the bounce message http:// http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblock&ip=173.203.187.107 you will see that this IP address (your email's IP?) 173.203.187.107 is not currently on any blocklist (when I checked) (Color added) The three links provide additional information that may be helpful. For example TalosIntelligence Lookup will show that the IP address is not currently listed in 4 other blocklists besides not being listed by SCBL (SpamCop Block List). To help others provide additional help, please refine your question. Is the problem your friend's OUTGOING email; your friends INCOMING email or your outgoing email? Also it has been noticed here before that sometimes (lazy) email administrators will send a bounce message including a 'canned' error message which may not reflect the be correct cause for the bounce. To answer directly your questions: (Q) How can we fix this issue? (A) First you need to refine your question to identify which problem needs to be addressed (your friends outgoing email being blocked, your friend's system blocking incoming emails, or your outgoing email being blocked by your friend's system.) (Q) Can you whitelist this email/domain? (A) No. The SCBL tracks IP addresses not email addresses or domains. Nor can an IP address be whitelisted by SpamCop, that needs to be done at the receiving email system by the admin or user.
  9. Lking

    Mail Rejected/Blacklisted

    Moved from "SpamCop Email System & Accounts"
  10. 🤣🤣 I am afraid so grasshopper.
  11. Rule #1 petzl, yes but if they are spammer friendly why clog the internet with spam reports?
  12. which is a good reason for SpamCop to devnull the report sent to sendgrid.com
  13. Lking

    Is Anyone Administering This Board?

    Yes, it should all be gone now. You just got up before I did this morning.
  14. Lking

    OVH.Net spam ?

    Nice (Art101 too).
  15. Sad but valid commentary. That's when I too contact my ISP.
  16. I think so. Gmail does not, to my knowledge, share their spammer list with anyone. So who they identify as spammers does not help anyone except Gmail users. By reporting SpamCop the spam you receive it help others no matter whether is was identified by Gmail or false negatives you identify.
  17. Are you referring to the " Re: User Notification " check-box and email entry box on the reporting spam page? I was miss lead by the link to the preference page. SpamCop.net screen layout and options is a legacy from "before time" so I am guessing a bit about the function/reason for these options, but: In the beginning many users/contributors to SpamCop wanted to do some analysis of the spam they received, wanting to take advantage of the power of the parser tool. So to receive a copy of the spam Report without revealing (perhaps another) email address the "handling option" to send oneself a Bcc copy of the report was added. As the problem of spam started to grow after May of 1978, many individuals/groups started studding the "phenomenon". Most of these studies did not have the email analytical power the parser developed, but were interested in analyzing the results (using their skills with "large" database searches). SpamCop users would hear about and want to support (supply data) to these studies; Thus the " Public standard report recipients" handling option As you may have notices, many SpamCop users do analysis of the source of the spam they receive and want to send report to destinations other than/ in addition to those identified by the parser. This is facilitated by the " Re: User Notification " check-box on the spam reporting page. As an aside this user analysis/review/validation also explains why the destination(s) for spam Reports have check-boxes so the user can un-check where spam Reports are sent I understand why people have this concern. However, I have been using the same main email address sense March of 1996. I have given the email address to an uncounted number of companies/web sites etc over the years. Without any pre-filters active that address gets maybe 20 spam a day. When I checked this morning there were 15 new spam. These all are simply filtered out and reported with a single "submit" email. On the other hand, my domain received ~120 spam daily addressed to random (some obscene) mailboxes. These are even more easily filtered for reporting. My point is the spammers have my mailbox/domain. Sending un munged spam Reports is not going to give anyone any new information, except (if they read them) the knowledge that I report their spam. Only once in this time have I identifiably been the target of retaliation. After two days all went back to normal.
  18. For security reasons you can not link to the page of personal preferences. For others with a SpamCop.net account ANGEL is talking about the <Preferences> tab, "Report Handling Options" on spamcop.net I think the simplest answer to why a restriction on how many copies "of every spam you submit " would be to limit the required outgoing bandwidth. Take a look at <Statistics> tab, Total spam report volume Currently there is something like 600,000 reports being sent in 24hrs. Sending all reports to a third party could open SpamCop to charges of abuse clogging the email system. Reading into your question, I too want to report spam to multi activities. To do this when I submit spam I also address my email to several US gov actives and a group in Australia.
  19. Lking

    spam has eased up in my inbox

    To be user friendly, any automated sorting system would need to have the results reviewed. For example, how do you sort out, without hands on review, the difference between the spammer in an IP block, and the poor sap who uses the same ISP and is having their emails blocked because they are just 'in a bad neighborhood'? Someone needs to explain the problem, the range of opionions, and maybe explain it in multilingual monosyllables. I do appreciate your concern for my time.
  20. Lking

    spam has eased up in my inbox

    Yes, that is what I meant to say. We would set up a new group "Zero approved post" All new account would be in that group and their first post would hidden until approved before being visible on the forum. The current "newbie" group, 0-9 post, would be changed to 1-9 post. As soon as a members first post is approved, they automatically change to the "newbie" group and all is the same as now. The two difference this would affect are: No one except Admin would see spam A new member would have to wait until Admin approves their post before anyone could provide any help. (2) This sounds benign, but in practice the forum seems to have members in time zones +1 UTC, long way around to +8 UTC. Although I am in about the middle -7 UTC that still meant a new member with an urgent problem/question may have to wait 8, 16hrs? before anyone can respond with what may be a simple fix any other active member can provide. (1) I would think that any member of this forum, 'knows spam when they see it' and will pass it by. Adding a forum spam filter raises the issue of false-positives. Though rare, we have had legitimate members/questions for time zones +2, +3 +5 UTC which would likely be blocked based on IP block or TLD like .ru etc. Just my opinion. It has been a recurring topic for discussion.
  21. Lking

    spam has eased up in my inbox

    Of course it is possible to set the forum to require approval for all first post, spam or otherwise. Admin would still need to look at each first/new post to process as spam or approve and/or respond. The only difference would be members would not see spam and new members would have to wait until Admin approves their post before getting any help. JMHO
×