• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About hank

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

924 profile views
  1. very, very tired of Cloudflare spam. Cloudflare was in the news recently for disclosing to alt-right sites the identity of people who complained about the nazi-type stuff they send out through Cloudflare. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-cloudflare-helps-serve-up-hate-on-the-web This is one example why Spamcop ought to be working to do better at removing all the personal identification material including the unique tracking strings the spammers use, to protect people who complain.
  2. http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/How-San-Francisco-s-Cloudflare-helps-serve-up-11122855.php?google_editors_picks=true
  3. Lots of these spams the last few days, all lacking that magic blank line. There's no way Spamcop can recognize and add the missing magic blank line?
  4. From today's spam, these odd header lines, which followed as shown after the Date: line ____________________ To: x <x> From: Gianna <dcox10@hirayama.org> Argue-Eligibility: crockery Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:17:35 +0000 Scallop-Baltimorean: e55bac9f7113cd Belle-Blondes-Marco: 87 Charlottesville-Unselfishness-Lawgiver: EF776ECD2FE89429 ---- Are these new ways of getting around obfuscating my userid, when I report spam? Or something else recognizable? 'oogled without finding anything. I ask because since I started aggressively obfuscating 'by hand' everything I suspected might be a unique userid before submitting full texts, I have quit getting a flood of new spam in the day immediately after reporting something. Down from half a dozen a day or more, to one spam every few days. So if this sort of strange header is tracking responses, any problem deleting them? I realize it's an arms race, and I don't know how to tell which spams are what an admin called "gamut spam"(obfuscation not an issue) and which ones are actually tracking people who report the spam.
  5. OK, here's one of those -- just showed up in my email, but "too old" https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6261019840z18172c7deecece4be8b02b234efd92c8z The "received" dates are Sunday 25th and Monday 26th -- so maybe the delay is that it came through Gmail and was forwarded to my regular ISP, which caught it in graymail today. Received: ... for <[abc]@lds.sonic.net>; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 18:38:35 -0700 Received: ... Sun, 24 Jul 2016 18:38:32 -0700 Received: from User (8ta-146-248-210.telkomadsl.co.za []) Mon, 25 Jul 2016 04:07:12 +0530 (IST)
  6. And confirming, what alvarnell posted in the other thread does work to make reporting happen
  7. Xref: http://forum.spamcop.net/topic/16751-cant-report-spam-no-body/ appears to have an answer for this problem: alvarnell Posted
  8. PS, I know Spamcop has to be carepful. I understand that Spamcop wants reports to be able to identify new spam patterns and add them to the parser. I'm going to the bother of using Spamcop because I hope it's helpful. I'm not complaining about Spamcop. It's not perfect. It's good, though.
  9. And a third; this one was caught by Graymail, so there's some way to detect them: Here is your TRACKING URL - it may be saved for future reference: https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6255051395zac74da334a38ed0ced7f14c005343995z No source IP address found, cannot proceed. ---------- I'll quit mentioning them now, that ought to be enough to help someone figure out what they're doing to get these past Spamcop, I hope.
  10. Here's another: Here is your TRACKING URL - it may be saved for future reference: https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6255032874za0184b4bbc50a4b83299c39b6c7aa1e7z No body text provided, check format of submission. spam must have body text. In the Mac Mail email window, this one has both a Subject line and a document icon in the message area. It's clickbait, and Spamcop isn't able to recognize it yet. Here's a subset of the headers: I hope someone looking at the full source can tell how they're making a document icon appear in the mail message body area, and why Spamcop can't detect anything. This is a second spam apparently from the same sender, that reached me via a different email address that I forward to Spamcop.
  11. I understand Spamcop thinks that has no mail body. But if you scroll down through it you'll see what my email applications display, nevertheless -- it LOOKS like it has content, which is this (quoting from the submitted mail you linked): So the subject shows up, and that's clickbait. I understand Spamcop doesn't see the mail body. I'm trying to point out that this nevertheless works as a spam tactic. Possibly it's even meant to avoid detection by Spamcop, but I'd just be guessing on that.
  12. "No Reporting Address Found" several times recently, when using "Forward As Attachment" for mail with, I think, malware clickbait The one yesterday, I made reportable by viewing the source, copying that into a text editor, and adding a blank line after the header before what appears to be a code package. The one today, I can't make it reportable by editing in blank lines -- it ends up trying to report my ISP and me, if I do. This is today's problem: https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6255016121za239460de6e050ac010110804dc78c15z No body text provided, check format of submission. spam must have body text. If reported today, reports would be sent to: Re: (Administrator of network where email originates) abuse@nitelecom.com
  13. Maybe Richard W will revisit this at some point and be able to explain what he meant. Patience.
  14. It was Richard W (also an admin) on May 4th who told me here I'm wondering how one can identify "gamut spam" to know the reports aren't going back to the spammer. Honest, I've tried to find the answer elsewhere. Don't worry about replying if you can't answer. I know lots of people who can't answer that, I've tried to ask around. I'm leaving the question here hoping to attract the attention -- eventually -- of someone who can answer. To repeat: how to tell which spam reports are not going to go back to the spammer, so editing out personally identifiable info isn't a problem.