Jump to content

turetzsr

Forum Admin
  • Content Count

    5,460
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by turetzsr

  1. turetzsr

    Commercial 'search' spam?

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Careful, lisati, that's a quite dangerous chemical -- it has been known to cause death when submerged in it for too long, not to mention the fact that it is used for at least two different well-known types of torture! For your headache, you may wish to try diluting it with a couple of 2-(acetoxy)benzoic acid or N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)ethanamide!
  2. turetzsr

    Commercial 'search' spam?

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp And even if it doesn't, you don't mind so much. <g> Quite coincidentally, I was thinking just such a thought, for the first time in my 61 years (that I can remember), about just that approach being something that might benefit a caller to our local public TV station that was described to me a few days ago. <g>
  3. turetzsr

    Commercial 'search' spam?

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Well, it often acts on me the way I understand that a low dose of N-methyl-alpha-methylphenethylamine is said to act on its users. <g>
  4. turetzsr

    Report email rejected by someone

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp That your provider is Comcast would seem to put a different blush on the issue but I note that Don did not even ask, so I suppose that either he knows and is not terribly concerned or knows that Comcast will not be responsive to SC or hoping you'll take the action yourself; knows and is concerned but not showing it to us; or did not know. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Even that may not be a problem for SC. It seems that so many of the spam sources on SC's list are there less because of us human reporters but because they've hit SC's "spam Traps."
  5. turetzsr

    Report email rejected by someone

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp I understand what you're saying but, well, no, not really, from SpamCop's perspective -- reporters from one or two silly but relatively small providers aren't likely to tip SpamCop's statistics enough to be worth any effort to address this, sad though I can understand that might be to you. The "real" solution is for you (and all your fellow subscribers to whatever service is doing the bouncing) to find a more reasonable provider, one that will either do a better job of keeping spam from reaching you in the first place or, it having reached you, allows you to report it! &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Parenthetically, I'll add that I occasionally have this problem with my provider (actually, a client of the company for which I work) -- they use Symantec (formerly MessageLabs) spam Manager and on occasion it will bounce my attempt to send a report to an abuse address. <frown>
  6. turetzsr

    SpamCop Email Service Changes

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Well, it wasn't really necessary -- you could have used the Forum search feaature or Google without joining the Forum but it was almost certainly easier to join and post the question that it would have been to find the contact address with a search! <g> I'm glad it worked out -- thanks for taking the time to let us know!
  7. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp That's my Forum user ID but I prefer "Steve T" (see my "sig"). <g> &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Please note that the quote in my last reply explaining why SC might not send a report was not a general reply to your inquiry but, rather, was a quote from an SC parse of 109.121.206.199, specifically! &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp My guess is that your proposal will not be actioned by SC for fear that it might give away more about their spam parsing algorithm than they are willing to reveal. <g>
  8. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Thanks for the good news, fbernard!
  9. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Yes, I get "No reporting addresses found for 109.121.206.199, using devnull for tracking." But RIPE says: which matches the address you suggested in your Topic name. But SpamCop also says:
  10. Hi, Pavel, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp In my view, the only dumb questions are the ones that should have been asked but weren't! <g> &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp This Topic is now marked as "Resolved."
  11. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp It's possible that he might be willing to reply to a personal inquiry -- you can write to him at the e-mail address that you'll find at the end of his post.
  12. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Just in case you missed it: please see Don D'Minion's reply, above 91246[/snapback].
  13. Hi, SMed79, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Please go to the top of the page, type the error message, in quotes, into the text box labeled "Search...," click the search icon and peruse the content of the pages links to which are returned. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Since you mentioned "spamcop.net," I am going to assume that you are referring to SpamCop reporting as opposed to SpamCop e-mail and shall move this Topic from the "SpamCop Email System & Accounts" Forum to the more appropriate "SpamCop Reporting Help" Forum.
  14. Hi, Pavel! &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Sorry that you have been misled -- reporting your spam does not cause it to be blocked. Whether to block e-mails is entirely up to your e-mail provider. The only way there would be a relationship between your reporting your spam via SpamCop and the spams then being blocked would be if both: (1) enough other people reported the same spam sources to SpamCop to get them onto the SC BL (for more about this, please see the SpamCop FAQ topic labeled "What is on the list?") and (2) your e-mail provider uses the SC BL to block spam.
  15. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Don didn't make that distinction, at least not that I recall, so I'd assume that it applies to outlook.com addresses, as well. For a more authoritative answer, an e-mail inquiry to the SC Deputies would be in order.
  16. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp And, specifically, that headers were dropped. Which SC seems to assume was done by the user by mistake or by the e-mail or internet provider either by design or in ignorance and therefore will refuse to parse. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp All of which is idle speculation and would seem to require a more knowledgeable look by an SC Deputy. <g>
  17. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Since I posted the above, Don disallowed e-mail submission of spam from Outlook (and I have complied with that directive and encourage others to do so, as well).
  18. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp IIRC, that applied only to the message body, not to the headers (but I could be failing to remember something about truncating the headers, too).
  19. Hi, Schmide, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp If no one comes by right away with a better idea, please report this to the SpamCop Deputies at e-mail address deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net. It may be helpful to them if you would include the spam as an attachment to your e-mail to them. For brevity, you could also refer them to this Forum Topic (http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/topic/14612-yahoo-spam-no-body-because-of-a-ton-of-references/).
  20. Hi, Clive, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Sorry to hear of your problem. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp "Mailhost configuration problem, identified internal IP as source" generally indicates that the spam is not going out over the internet but rather directly from a fellow subscriber of your e-mail provider. There is also the chance that the spammer is not merely spoofing your account but has actually found a way to send e-mail from your account (this happened to my Yahoo!Mail account once). In either case, you should report the spam to your e-mail provider; in the latter case, you should also try to change your password and, if you can't, ask your provider to terminate that account and create a new one for you. Please consider using a "strong" password that includes upper case characters, lower case characters, digits and special characters if allowed by your e-mail provider. You can search the internet for more information about what constitutes a "strong" password and how to avoid the problem of their being easy for you to forget. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp There is no way for us "common" victims to shut down spammers or to stop them from spoofing whatever e-mail address they wish; only the e-mail providers can do that. The best we victims can do is to report spam and to promote education about spam and encourage e-mail providers to block or (better) filter suspected spam into a separate location than users' Inboxes so that we can review it, correct any "false positives" (non-spam that gets stored in the "suspected spam" folder) and report the spam.
  21. turetzsr

    Thank you Elves and Gnomes

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp I, too, make use of the new posts option with "New Content" feature with options "By content type" = Forums" and "By time period" = "Content I have not read" and that combination seems unaffected by whether I get logged out or not,
  22. turetzsr

    [Resolved] Not getting auto-responses!

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp jasmith4, note that you can include several of those other addresses to which you had been forwarding your spam in the SC reporting system's Preferences | "Report Handling Options" | "Public standard report recipients." You enter the addresses into that form separated by a comma and a space. Unfortunately, the field has a 100-character limit. But that could be enough to allow you to report to some in that way and the rest as you had been previously when you send the e-mail to your secret SpamCop address.
  23. turetzsr

    Thank you Elves and Gnomes

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp My experience has been pretty much the same as michaelanglo's, except that there were times before yesterday when I would have to log in just an hour (maybe two or three?) since my last access and sometimes I would be able to use the Forum on and off all day without having to log back in.
  24. turetzsr

    [Resolved] Not getting auto-responses!

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp The evidence you've mentioned seems to me to VERY strongly point to Comcast filtering outgoing e-mail as the most likely culprit. I would not be at all surprised to learn either that they've recently strengthened their outgoing filtering or that you just happen to have recently been getting spam that, unlike earlier types, is subject to getting caught by their outgoing filters. I would definitely suggest that you initiate a conversation with them. You may not get very savvy assistance at first but hopefully if you press, the first-level support person will escalate it to someone in Comcast who is actually knowledgeable. To get that done, you may have to insist on speaking to the first-level support person's supervisor. A general internet search for "Comcast support" might turn up hints as to how you can get the attention of someone who can actually help you. A final approach might be to talk to Comcast's Retention group and threaten to end your relationship with them unless they can connect you with someone who can help. Be aware, though, that the answer may turn out to be that they just don't want to risk allowing spam to go through their outgoing servers, even to a reporting service like SpamCop. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Good luck! &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Have a glance at the last note in the SpamCop FAQ beneath "Is there a limit on reporting spam?" and also that article itself.
  25. turetzsr

    search-apnic-not-arin

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Thanks for the acknowledgment, victory3x3. Note, though, that I prefer to be referenced by my "handle," "Steve T" (see my "sig") rather than my Forum ID. <g> &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp That would make sense from a functionality perspective but please bear in mind when considering such apparently "ironic" "disconnects" that what might be reasonable for a web page like Senderbase.org, where a user might be willing to wait a second or two for a response, may be unacceptable for a mass process like a SpamCop parse, which needs to do each task it does in microseconds because it does huge numbers per minute for potentially hundreds or thousands of users.
×