turetzsr

Forum Admin
  • Content count

    5,460
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About turetzsr

  • Rank
    What Life?
  • Birthday 11/18/1953

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Michigan USA
  1. Hi, Morg2, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp There's no easy answer to your question but in case you're interested in the complicated (and yet still [deliberately] imprecise) details, you can have a look at the sections labeled "Important Definitions," "How the SCBL Works" and "SCBL Rules" in SC FAQ article "What is the SpamCop Blocking List (SCBL)?"
  2. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Keep reporting! Hopefully their IP addresses will wind up on the SC blacklist and all their serious customers (if any) will abandon them and they'll eventually go out of business. Not likely but being hopeful is free.
  3. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Unfortunately, very few of us here can tell -- only SpamCop staff can do that. If no one posts a useful reply here within the next few days, I would recommend that you ask the SpamCop Deputies directly by sending an e-mail to deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net.
  4. Hi, David, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Sorry to hear of your problem. It may not help but you could point your e-mail server admin(s) to SpamCop FAQ article "How do I configure my mailserver to reject mail based on the blocklist?" paragraph 3 (the one that begins with "We recommend") for what SpamCop suggests as best practice. Just be aware that "our server, our rules" would apply. The only recourse you would then have is to threaten to take your business elsewhere. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp FYI, the IP address you mention is not currently listed in SpamCop, either (http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblock&ip=62.208.144.128) but it might have been earlier and it might be again. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Finally, it is possible that the NHS has run afoul of a spammer taking over some PC on their network. It's happened to other organizations that you'd expect to have good defenses against such things.
  5. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp That seems a fresh attitude -- we see lots of references to admins who don't care and to others who are quick to sanction their customers. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Ah, well that explains your fresh approach. <g> &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Don't hesitate to continue to ask additional questions, Neil!
  6. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Here's a link to best practices from the FAQ: "Am I running mailing lists responsibly? Updated!"
  7. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Just to add: what Lou writes refers to how SpamCop spam traps work; others' spam traps might send bounces (although that would seem to contradict the point of having a spam trap). &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp You haven't described your system completely but it seems to me that you are still subject to tripping spam traps because your clients could be soliciting their prospects using lists that contain spam trap addresses and/ or by asking "prospects" to supply their e-mail addresses online and one or more such "prospects" could be submitting spam trap addresses to try to damage your client's (or your) reputation. If I understand correctly, though, the idea behind confirmed opt-in is that sending only one probe to the spam trap should not cause an issue. Even cautious marketers can wind up sending one e-mail to a spam trap.
  8. Hi, jstuckle, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp That seems a reasonable suggestion. Let's hope that a SpamCop representative stops by to reply. If not, you might try writing to them directly at deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net.
  9. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Odd .. I get 43 hits! Here are the first several after this article and excluding some of the obviously non-useful articles in the "Routing / Report Address Issues" Forum (not suggesting that any of these are relevant): Parser lookup choked Recent listings on web lookup page "nomaster[at]devnull.spamcop.net" Am I the only one [Resolved] No reporting addresses found for 66.197.160.85 /dev/null'ing report
  10. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Maybe ironic that Cisco is "spamming" you but certainly not that SpamCop won't report Cisco as a spammer! <g> &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp CES was the outfit that used to provide the now-defunct "SpamCop" e-mail service; I am surprised at the apparent continued relationship between CES and Cisco!
  11. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp See IETF RFC 5321 "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol" (search for "Received:").
  12. Welcome, JD2974, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp My suggestion would be to type "SpamCop could not find your spam message in this email" (including the quotes) into the handy "Search" tool near the top right side of nearly any SC Forum page and click the black magnifying glass button, then review the articles returned to see if any refer to a situation similar to yours (Topic "Unable to forward any spam emails to SpamCop" would be my guess as likely to fit your situation). Then, if you still have a question, post again here as a Reply.
  13. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp As with all mailhosts issues, please report this to the SpamCop Deputies at deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net.
  14. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp It shouldn't really be much of an annoyance unless you routinely cc yourself on e-mails you send. Since I never do that, I can be certain that any such e-mails are truly spam. <g>