Jump to content


Forum Admin
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by turetzsr

  1. <snip>

    If I use only 2 e-mail addresses there is no risk to block my server because is simple "forward as attachment" if I understand correctly?

    So your advise for me is that I need to save spam mail as a file, open in txt for example and copy whole email with headers to online form in spamcop.net?

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp The "Quick Reporting" option is entirely different than submitting spam to SpamCop via e-mail. :) <g> The risk in using the "Quick Reporting" option is not related to whether you submit spam to the parser by using e-mail or on the online form; the risk is the same. My advice is to submit spam using whichever method you prefer but to NOT use the "Quick Reporting" option.

  2. <snip>

    Why on earth the sender thinks people will respond to his adverts by barraging them with hundreds or thousands of emails is an interesting question.

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Not really, IMHO -- see the SC Single-page Expanded FAQ (a link to which appears on the SC Forum Home page) article labeled "Spammer Rules," especially Rule #3. :) <g>


    I am writing to ask whether there are any email providers, free and/or subscription, that operate a reliable system


    I just want webmail that works and is reliable.

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp You should be able to find discussion of alternative e-mail service providers in the "SpamCop Email System & Accounts" Forum discussions about the demise of the "SpamCop" e-mail service.

    On a second matter, I see that some ISPs willingly take on spammers as customers. I wonder why all the traffic from ISPs that are known to consistently do this is not rejected/blocked by reputable ISPs. If the spam-loving ISPs were isolated, they would hardly last very long.

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp That's exactly why many/ most/ all of us here promote the use of blacklists like the SCBL!

  3. <snip>

    I genuinely appreciate your input on this, but we have different interpretations on what the message means.

    We are most definitely not saying the same thing. My interpretation is it is the smtp4.gate.iad3a.rsapps.net that spamcop doesnt trust. I think if it were as you say, then spamcop would say "Possible forgery. Supposed sending system..." instead of "...Supposed receiving system".


    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Gasp! I missed that little detail -- thanks!

    Yes, at your suggestion and in response to Don's offer, I did contact Don, He and I have exchanged several emails, He has added the primary domain names to the LONG list of rackspace mailhosts, which I think is supposed to work, but that hasn't helped.


    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Then you'll have to go back to Don, unfortunately; nothing else that you will be able to do about this!

    If indeed each mailhost has to be separately identified, for a large growing mail service like Rackspace, which chooses to keep adding mailhost names, is going to be a neverending burden for me and spamcop.

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp True that but there's really no other alternative other than to just uncheck the box referring to Rackspace when you submit the parse to send the reports or just to cancel the reports in such cases.

    I have just made a post on this here (which seems to me the right place for this topic) SpamCop Discussion → Discussions & Observations → Mailhost Configuration of your Reporting Account

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Thanks! And, being (what I believe to be) the better place for all of this discussion, I have merged your Topic "Rackspace SMTP Server Not Recognized As Host" into this one! :) <g>

  4. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Yes, I agree completely with what you are saying -- it's what I'm saying, as well.

    • "Received: from [] ([] helo=cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be)" -- the sending host is avuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be.
    • "by smtp4.gate.iad3a.rsapps.net" -- the receiving host is smtp4.gate.iad3a.rsapps.net.
    • "Hostname verified: rhcavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be

      "Possible forgery. Supposed receiving system not associated with any of your mailhosts" -- rhcavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be is not trusted.

    It seems to me that the SpamCop parser is saying that it suspects this sending host of misrepresentation and/ or, at minimum, is not in your list of mail hosts and therefore is a candidate as being the source of the spam.

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Did you attempt to contact Don 92456 or the SC Deputies, yet?

  5. <snip>

    (note for interested parties reading in the future) it requires a comma separated email address list, not a space separated one

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp The field also has an undocumented 100 character limit, including spaces and commas.


    It shows up on the cut'n'paste reporting form, but not on the form you get when you click on 'Use links to finish spam reporting' in the email from SC. I always use the link in the SC emails, so I've never messed with 'Show Technical Details' - what exactly does this provide? (Just sating my curiousity now - turetzr's suggestion does what was required.)

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp The easiest way to see is to turn on the feature. You do this with a different option under Preferences | "Report Handling Options" -- "Show Technical Details during reporting."

  6. I pay for SpamCop reporting and when I submit a report via web it has this?

    Check the "Show technical details" box not sure if this feature is available in free reporting?

    Yes, it is (I do not pay and I have this option set), but I don't believe this helps knightshade accomplish the goal to "add a recipient to individual spam reports."

  7. Is there a way to add a recipient to individual spam reports?

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Preferences | "Report Handling Options" | "Public standard report recipients." The SC parser then adds to each parse an option to send to this receipient; you simply uncheck it for those spam that do not come from amazonaws and turn the check mark on for those that do!


    Does SC have a suggestion box? :)

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp This Topic will do but the "official" place for feature requests is the "New Feature Request" SC Forum.

  8. <snip>

    However, reporting within SC is still preferable, because doing so eliminates both a manual forward & any need to repeat the obscuring of trackable stuff like email addresses, which SC already does a reasonable job of.

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp True, that! You could add abuse[at]amazonaws.com (or any other address, for that matter) to your Preferences | "Report Handling Options" | "Public standard report recipients" so you can easily send a report using SC's parser/ reporting mechanism.

  9. <snip>

    Currently, SC reports to ec2-abuse#amazon.com[at]devnull.spamcop.net (apparently devnulls at amazon's request) & email-abuse[at]amazon.com.

    Looking at amazon's own reporting page at portal.aws.amazon.com/gp/aws/html-forms-controller/contactus/AWSAbuse , this references abuse[at]amazonaws.com - I'm wondering if the latter email address is equivalent to email-abuse[at]amazon.com,

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Not exactly; please see SC FAQ article "Reports sent to SpamCop addresses". Note that, as you suggest may be true in this case, SC may do this by request of the abuse address owner but it may also be, as you also hypothesize may be the case here, because the abuse address owner forwards the reports to the spammer.

    or ought to be used instead of/as well as?

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp SC won't but you may do that manually.

  10. I would suggest that you retrieve the spam report number, contact the sender of the newsletter, explain your error and give them the report number. This way they can explain what happened and that their newsletter was reported in error.

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp And/ or refer to the SC Single-page Expanded FAQ (a link to which appears on the SC Forum main page) article labeled "How can I unsend a Report?"

  11. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Perhaps I am also missing something obvious but didn't you answer your own question with the following?

    've been down this road before and had to get an admin to set up the mailhosts because the automatic config process based on sending test emails does not work for MailRoute.

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp This appears to me to be precisely what Lou offered, in different words:

    Your service provider may have changed/updated your mail server configuration which has caused your mailhosts to be out of date.

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp As far as I am aware, only manual intervention by an SC Admin/ Deputy can fix this (I have the same issue from time to time). Good luck!

  12. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Generally speaking, SpamCop seems to leave identifying and contacting "upstreams" to us users. If you have identified such an upstream, you can add it to your SpamCop Preferences | "Report Handling Options" | "Public standard report recipients" and you will have the option of sending SC reports to that upstream address on each parse.

  13. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp You may want to try configuring MailHosts, again (or for the first time if you have never before done so ). If that doesn't help and no one else comes by here with a better idea, contact the SC Deputies at e-mail address deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net.

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp As this Topic appears to be unrelated to the now-defunct "SC" e-mail facility for which the SpamCop Email System & Accounts Forum was intended, I shall move this to the more appropriate "SpamCop Reporting Help" Forum.

  14. <snip>

    My question is when i hit the report spam button is my email address being passed on to these links


    Yes, exactly so! Note that you have the option not send to any addresses that you fear might be the spammer or might be forwarded to the spammer.

    Are some of these links owned by the spammers themselves so when i report the spam im just replying to the spammer ?

    That's possible.

    and getting them pissed off so they just use my email address as a sort of revenge

    That's possible but there are two things that make it less likely than one might think:

    • SpamCop tries to remove from its report any instances of your e-mail address that it sees, so unless you are explicitly including it in your comments/ notes or the spammer is cleverly identifying you in some other way, the spammer will not be able to associate the report with your e-mail address.
    • Spammers have better things to do than retaliate in this way. A more likely explanation, I would say, is that the spammer already has your e-mail address (which is why you received spam to report in the first place) and is just sending more spam to her/ his victims, in general.