Jump to content


Forum Admin
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by turetzsr

  1. Hi, Lance -- welcome!

    My question is this: when I start to see 30-40 spams that end up reporting to the same domain, should I un-check the boxes so as not to send what are ultimately redundant e-mails to the abuse contacts? Or is it important for them to see that the spam is coming from several different IPs within their networks?

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp That would depend on the spam source admin's preferences but you can't know that. I'd be inclined to send them all, since those Admins that don't care about multiples can ignore them but those that want to see them will get them.

    In fact, will spamcop even recognize that an e-mail report was recently submitted to a given abuse contact and determine on its own not to send out the e-mails?

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Not that I'm aware. Sometimes SC won't send reports for one reason or another but I can't remember ever seeing it not do that due to this reason.

    Some of these reports wind up with 9 or so e-mail boxes I have to un-check to avoid sending out too many abuse e-mails and that's somewhat of a burden on my end, but I'm sensitive to the fact that I don't want to overburden legitimate abuse departments, and I understand that e-mailing illegitimate spammer networks probably won't have any effect anyway.

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp IMHO, your being considerate in this way is kind but, as I noted before, results in too little information going to those spam source admins who prefer to receive them.

    Does unchecking all the e-mail boxes still cause the report to be tracked for purposes of blocking a given IP?

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp As long as you actually Submit, yes it does.

    What about the devnull entries...I've read the FAQs and I don't think I quite understand what their purpose is. Should I leave those checked or unchecked for the repeated spams?

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Hm, that's seems to me to be a good question! Hopefully someone else will come by to answer.

  2. Legislation should give the right for one to ban a provider from contacting your email address


    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp A law you might come to regret if a spammer effectively (at least, effectively enough to fool the authorities) spoofs your ISP as the perpetrator, resulting in your being hit with the fines and jail terms.

  3. Some day I'll have to look up what "parsing" actually means. I have no clue what you mean by "top of the parser page."


    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Parsing is the act of the SC parser (the program that analyzes spam headers and content) to analyze the spam headers. The parser page is the page returned to you when you click the "Process spam" button on the form where you paste in the spam headers and body content.

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp SC Glossary entries added:

  4. Forgive me, gentlemen, but my ignorance of the matter really compels me to only percieve what you have written as jargon and mumbo-jumbo. It means something of great import to you, and I truly appreciate that, but to me, it may as well be Attic Greek.


    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Please let me know what, specifically, in my earlier post (other than what was in the referenced FAQ entry) you found to be mumbo-jumbo and I'll try to explain further. I tried to make it English but I know I often fail in such attempts. :) <g>

  5. <snip>

    How can I have any confidence in SpamCop even doing anything at all with the spam I send in faithfully, when it can't even identify a plain basic link in a message body?


    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Well, if SpamCop were designed as a facility to identify links in e-mail messages, it appears to me that you'd definitely have a case. I would refer you to the SpamCop FAQ item labeled "SpamCop reporting of spamvertized sites - some philosophy." Short version; SpamCop's identification of links, when it works, is "gravy." You may be interested in Knujon and/ or Complainterator, more about which you can find in these Forums by using the Search facility.

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Neverthless, since you do seem to have found a possible problem with the SpamCop parser's ability to identify what do appear to be valid URLs, you could address this to the SpamCop Deputies by writing to them at e-mail address deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net to ask if they would be willing to explain what it is about those links that causes the parser to not recognize them as such.

  6. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp My guess is that we will not be able to resolve your problem in this Forum because it is impossible for us to reproduce your exact situation. I would suggest that you send an e-mail about your problem to the SpamCop Deputies at e-mail address deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net.

  7. Hi, kolor,

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp As I understand it, you are trying to submit your spam via the web form at https://members.spamcop.net/ and are seeing errors.


    No data / Too much data

    You are most likely submitting a very large email. Please trim some of the unnecessary data (noting where this has been done) from this posting and try again. SpamCop will no longer accept email larger than 50.0K bytes.

    Other possibilities: You may have a firewall which prevents HTTP POST commands, you may have linked to the wrong URL or your browser does not handle binary submissions correctly (try a different browser)

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Did you try any of the advice, above?

    < snip irrelevant quote that was included only for the below comment >

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Please forgive me if you already know this but it bears mentioning that you will need two different SpamCop reporting accounts for your two different e-mail accounts and you can only report spam you receive at www.o2.pl when logged into https://members.spamcop.net/ with your www.o2.pl user ID and only report spam you receive at gmail when logged into https://members.spamcop.net/ with your gmail account ID.

  8. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp If nothing else, MailHosts will help prevent accidentally reporting your own provider as a spam source, however unlikely it would seem to be in your case. Of course, even MailHosts won't prevent it, as I've found on a couple of occasions, I guess due to my lack of attention after my provider added incoming servers.