Jump to content

turetzsr

Forum Admin
  • Content Count

    5,460
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by turetzsr


  1. &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.


  2. 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.


  3. <snip>

    For the most part we don't have an issue as our customers are "professional service" firms talking to themselves and each other, every now and again though we might have a customer that seems to have gotten an address from somewhere inadvisable but as we will always be quick to have a "gentle" word with them

    &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.

    as they are (by nature) very guarded about their reputation they are eager to learn and improve.

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Ah, well that explains your fresh approach. :) <g>

    I hoping hanging-out here I'll be able to learn more about the art of email delivery and help out.

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Don't hesitate to continue to ask additional questions, Neil!

  4. &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).

    As such we don't normally have to worry about tripping a trap as it should be all opt-in.

    But, now and again our clients do send an email too them, part of what our system does is process the bounceback messages.

    <snip>

    &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.


  5. &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):


  6. I got a spam this morning, and when I tried to report it, it said netops-ironport[at]cisco.com was the address... but, in the end it just bounces. That is ironic, no?

    &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>

    <snip>

    abuse[at]cisco.com redirects to cesadmins[at]cisco.com

    cesadmins[at]cisco.com bounces (475 sent : 238 bounces)

    <snip>

    &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!

  7. 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.


  8. <snip>

    Another annoyance is that they forge my own E-mail address into the From: header, so that the spam appears superficially to be coming from me.

    &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>


  9. <snip>

    No your reported spam is not processed by a human. If you go to www.samcop.net and click on the statistics tab you can see that in the last 24 hours about 154,000 spam have been processed. That of course could not be done by humans.

    <snip>

    Hi, oceanoblu,

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Yes, welcome!

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp My first reading of your question about spam being processed by a human was different from Lou's (Lking's); I thought you were asking about the report (s) sent by SpamCop whereas Lou's answer applies to the spam you reported. Please let us know which interpretation is correct and if mine is the right one then someone will answer that.

    Hi, kolor,

    <snip>

    5.40.179.99 (Administrator of network where email originates)

    To: devnull.spamcop.net (Notes)

    <snip>

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Please use the SpamCop "search" utility, available near the top right of most SpamCop Forum pages, or your favorite web search utility to look for other SpamCop Forum articles about "nomaster[at]devnull.spamcop.net" and post any follow-up questions you may still have after reading those articles.

    And why each number IP from spam automatically login me on WebFig v6.15.MikroTik server. ????

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Sorry, I am unable to understand your question. Could you please try it in different words? As far as I know, there is no connection between SpamCop reporting and automatic logging in to any server.

    And what is this

    spam[at]ms1.hinet.net

    abuse#hinet.net[at]devnull.spamcop.net

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp spam[at]ms1.hinet.net is an "abuse" address for many Korean machines and the SpamCop parser has apparently identified a machine that is the responsibility of that abuse address as the source of spam or of a spamvertized URL. abuse#hinet.net[at]devnull.spamcop.net is a special address used by SpamCop to keep track of spam from certain machines that SpamCop has determined it should not send a report to an abuse address (there are several reasons it might do this and they are discussed in other SpamCop Topics, for which you could do a search if you are interested in learning what those reasons are; you will probably find a very large number of such Topics and many will not be relevant -- sorry about that!).


  10. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Here is a rough translation to English of the first two lines, which are in Portuguese, of the above post 92614[/snapback] for those who are unfamiliar with that language.

    My IP is in the Apews Blacklist.

    We do not send spam. We contact only customers who request communications.

    Bom dia, confiarebh1,

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Spamcop has no connection with or control over the APEWS list. Please read the APEWS FAQ and pay particular attention to Q36 and Q41.

×