Jump to content

MR GNASH

Members
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About MR GNASH

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. Hello again everybody. Gosh, is it that long already? How the days whizz past when your shower of dunces hosts kill you off without justification. To save you scrolling back up through this bruisingly long thread, our silly mag was shut down by Hostingplex who accused us of spamming but provided no evidence of any wrongdoing, then blamed Spamcop, then held our data hostage and ignored all questions and points except to say "LA LA LA WE'RE NOT LISTENING PAY US USD150 TO SEE YOUR DATA AGAIN LA LA LA" for months; and with the help of a tremendously helpful and patient Spamcop Dep and the folk on this page, we compiled a dossier investigating these claims by examining the facts. (And in case anybody was wondering, we now have our data back. This was thanks to a new employee's PERSONAL professionalism and nowt to do with Hostingplex's COMPANY behaviour, which has at no point during the affair been anything less than dunderheaded.) Anyway, about three hundred years ago I said this: Now, nothing's actually been *resolved* -- we're still as much in the dark as ever about why Hostingplex shut us down (they continue not to answer any of our questions and, no doubt quite by accident, deleted the relevant thread on their own forum) -- but as we're back online (with a different host, obv) I thought it only fair to stump up the previously unavailable page so you could check I wasn't a big fat liar all along or something. The Mil's Mailing List page, as mentioned in the reports above, is at http://theweekly.co.uk/mil_mailing_list . It's exactly the same as it was when Hostingplex accused us of spamming without supplying any details or evidence to support those accusations. I'm horribly aware this may appear to be some kind of advertisement rather than the dusty fulfilment of a promised PS, so feel free to whip out the link once you've had a go and cursed furiously at the effort required actually to be accepted as a subscriber to the wretched thing. (Or got on first time and we've immediately used the info to rob your bank account, I suppose.)
  2. Yaas, I'd be interested in the trap thing too. (Not least because I still don't understand it.) On the mentioning-Spamcop point, I hope that wasn't some searing faux pas. To make things gleamingly clear I've added a big disclaimer at the top of the main page emphasising that everything's based on publicly available info and pesky questions and that any conclusions are strictly ours. (Which maybe Pipex's stupid built-in cache'll get around to bothering in the next day or so to notice I've uploaded. Tch.)
  3. Just a quick reply, so I'll probably miss bits. As far as I can tell, 204.etc (the s1.edge server) is Hostingplex's brand new dedicated e-mail server. It appears that all normal servers now send via s1.edge -- this explains the colossal drop in e-mail on (for example) 66.48.80.139 and the sudden appearance and colossal explosion of e-mail from 204.etc. If you look at the dates, 204.etc (which is flagged as boinging into life on 19/10) appeared *during* our send. (We split the list and sent half on 19/10 and half on 21/10.) I've no doubt this is a contributory factor. As Farelf suggested (and I nicked for our timeline) it might be that we happened to be top of the e-mail queue when our neighbour's real actual genuine spam flashed alarms in Hostingplex's face and they didn't bother to look twice. The bounce trap idea (which was also mentioned by someone miles earlier in a clump of posts I've embarrassingly overlooked) -- I wondered about this but (as long as I understand the concept correctly; you don't let something through then bounce it locally -- we didn't) the Spamcop reports all have the subject "Mil's Mailing List #42" -- wouldn't bounces be something like "Re: Mil's Etc" or "Failed: Mil's Thing"? From my investigations, all the reported Mil-42 e-mails were (a) verified newsletters; and ( straight from us to subscribers. For example, I thought at one point we might be caught accidentally because people were forwarding their copy of the newsletter to the wrong address, but obviously in that case our 66.48.80.139 IP wouldn't have been on it. All of this is covered in the dossier, on p137 comment 19b pie-chart 45 or something. At the bottom. Oh aye, yeah -- the aggregate report history. I've suggested this as a feature to our hardy Spamcop Dep contact, who's a bit mystified why anyone would want it (nobody else has asked before) but will bung it up the ladder. Obviously I couldn't sign up for the aggregate reports until *after* I'd found out about the spam accusation, so it'd be handy if we could peer into history and see, for instance, if traps were involved.
  4. We don't mind at all that they're driven by commerce. (Their enormously low prices is what attracted us in the first place, because we are ragged.) What we're objecting to is their repeatedly exhibited lack of interest in facts, fair play, their customers and their own T&Cs. As you may recall, they're holding our files hostage, ignoring our requests for details of the supposed spam (and our dossier of evidence that we're innocent, as contributed to by a valiantly unboreable Spamcop Dep and this forum) and just shouting "LA LA LA, WE'RE NOT LISTENING, LA LA LA, $150" when they bother to reply at all. Their last message makes it perfectly clear they'd rather we went away quietly and wrote off our losses. So we've set up Hostingplex Are a Shower of Dunces at http://theweekly.co.uk/dunces/ instead.
  5. You're right -- our hosts have promoted themselves by their actions from "a shower of dunces" to "stupefying bumbleneds." Their response to our every polite question and request for details and evidence distils accurately to "LA LA LA WE'RE NOT LISTENING LA LA LA PAY US IF YOU WANT TO SEE YOUR DATA AGAIN" (with several days' wait in between for their replies, which is dead helpful when your site's been shut down, obviously). This includes our pretty presentation informed by all the top Spamcop Forum and Spamcop Dep help, featuring a convenient timeline of convincing exoneration. It makes your bones grind, really it does. Incidentally, we are hurling wrapped packets of sandwiches down the chimney at the urchin out of winning kindness and have established a small fire in the grate as proof against the nippy weather.
  6. Just a quick update: I've been corresponding with an epically patient admin and, after a bit of lateral thinking about how to establish the facts without giving away any reports I might not be entitled to see (essentially, I bunged over a list of complaint numbers and samples of what each type of Mil List e-mail looks like -- verified newsletter, opt-in confirmation request, etc -- and the admin checked the report bodies against the samples to see who'd complained about what) we've reached some kind of conclusion. I'm still working on a few details (and, er, have just had my latest request for answers to questions I've now sent about 138,004 times bounced from our hosts' support department as a failed connection) but can reveal that, barring some last-minute double-bluff surprise twist reverse ending, I'm not a sinister criminal mastermind. Hurrah!
  7. Bum. As you'll appreciate, I'm a bit stuck here, because our hosts won't let me in to see my e-mail at all and continually evade my requests to forward the abuse report (which presumably I'd have been sent anyway by Spamcop so is languishing on the server). "Double OPt-in" in a spammers term. Confirmed opt-in is the preferred term, if that is what you are doing. How embarrassing. I've always called it "verifying" but a rapid glance about the place suggested the accepted term was "double-opt-in." Anyway, yes, that's the idea: there's a Mailing List page where you lob in your address and click Sub Up, it sends you a confirmation e-mail with a personalised URL, you click that to confirm; only at that point is the associated address added to the list. You could try it yourself to double-check it's legit, but, of course, our entire place has been shut down. I'll postscript the URL when this has been resolved so anyone with lingering interest can see, which by extrapolation from events so far will be in the year 9000 or something. As a paying reporter, I can see some information on that IP as follows: I'm not a paying reporter, but that's exactly the info I see -- I wasn't sure if it was okay to post the summary rather than a ref. Vexingly, it's *so* close to conclusive, which is why I was hoping the extra step of connecting rep to track was available. (I did sign up for Spamcop e-mail, so presumably that's why I have access too.) No, we're the List bits only. Maybe the bounces, come to think of it -- theweekly.co.uk's recently been adopted by spammers as their all-new false domain for the attached-gif spam which claims to be from a gibberish string at victim.com, so we're getting a lot of narked postmaster bounces; but what can you do? (Unless you know something we can do, which would be ace, but as far as I could tell from talking to other vics, you have to ride it out until your domain's been thoroughly discredited and mostly blocked on the name so the spammers abandon the coughing husk and you can get back to normal. Seethe.) Exc, I'll try that. As I say, if the reporting address has to concealed, that's fine. Obviously it'd be nice to know, because I'm all but convinced it'll turn out to be some fantastically apologetic long-time subber (the List tends to attract people like that; cheerful reading fans you wouldn't leave alone in a room because they'd manage to set fire to the place while scratching their nose), but it's the meat of the facts that's the important bit. That would be a big surprise, because of the verification bit. We simply don't know your address until you confirm the sub. (Obviously, there are clear, unambiguous unsub links and instructions at every step, plus in every erratic newsletter, and you don't need an unsub code or anything.) I can definitively state even with the minimal info in the summaries that the reported MLM42 messages are proper subber newsletters (rather than the "someone at this address is trying to sub up; please click here to confirm" initial requested e-mail) because of the format of the links in the first report and the fact there are no links in the second. You may want to sign up for a free ISP account - see How can I get SpamCop reports about my network? It says I'm already registered, so I'm guessing the ISP account has the same functionality as the e-mail one. I'm kicking myself actually, because I only discovered when looking into this that you're meant to register your abuse[at] address with abuse.net in order to be sure of personally receiving Spamcop complaints. (I thought Spamcop would always send to abuse[at]) Still, the standard postmaster[at] would have come through -- which leads us straight back to our hosts locking up our site and e-mail and sitting there with arms folded and fingers in ears, if you see what I mean. Spook. The mystery thickens. As I say, from my shallow understanding of Spamcop the fact any block that might have existed was clear by the time I checked a couple of days later suggests I was right in thinking it was a standard auto-delist for a technical infringement. A helpful analysis, but I might politely suggest that it's more than poor form for an ISP not to establish the facts. There's a difference between zeal and a zealot. What irks me from the summary is that one of our neighbours *is* spamming; ironically, I asked our hosts if they could check a while ago because I couldn't understand why we were being blocked on sight when -- by definition -- we could only be e-mailing someone who asked to join, twice. Our hosts explained the size of the shared server. It's a bit like being repeatedly blocked then cleared then blocked as "recidivist spammers" by Certain Large Company, then the next day a bunch of genuine spam turns up via Certain Large Company's open proxies. Gah. Yep, thanks, I'll be whizzing an e-mail off straight after this as also suggested above. I thought I'd check the forums first, because the Report ID FAQ mentioned numbers were tied to reporters, but didn't answer the obvious follow-up question of what happened if you wanted to see another's. Good to know I'm on the right track though. That'd be interesting because, as you'd expect from a slightly popular, wildly irregular newsletter, we have *tons* of bounces the day after each edition. Most are the notorious "I'm not in the office, so I'm sending your entire message back to tell you that" bone-grinders, but we conscientiously zap the dead names to keep our little bit of online drainpipe flowing briskly in the rain while tutting indulgently at the scatterbrained subbers. Except when someone's signed up, changed their address and signed up again, but not bothered to unsub the first one; then we go round and bludgeon them with a rowing oar. Anyway, er, the point was, I hadn't thought of police traps, so that'll be worth knowing if the deps can pin it down. (Deliberately verifying a police trap then complaining when it's sent e-mail seems a bit odd though, unless I've misunderstood your meaning.) Well, I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt -- as I say, my feeling after seeing the summary (which proves by the semi-layout of the links that it's a verified subber; also, if they'd been forwarded Mil-42 by a chum and reported it thinking we'd sent it directly, obviously our IP wouldn't be involved) is that someone's made a silly mistake. My cardboard thunderbolt of blazingish justice is aimed more at our hosts, who have made no attempt to establish the facts (or even answer my requests for details and evidence); the more solid and accurate a picture of the circumstances of the block I can demonstrate, the longer and more packed with diagrams my eventual e-mail to their top bod will be. And everyone's responses here have helped that a lot, so thanks forum. Or maybe it'll turn out I was a sinister criminal mastermind all along. The suspense. My instinctive grasp of quoting, there.
  8. Hello. Is it possible to extract a tracking URL from someone else's report ID? The reason I ask is that I run a silly mag, theweekly.co.uk (IP 66.48.80.139, though the site's currently a holding page with our reg company's nameservers for reasons you'll see), and we've been accused by our hosts of spamming, with the result, they say, that our (shared) IP was blocked by Spamcop on October 23rd and the further result that they've "suspended" us, ie cut us off. Now I've been faithfully reporting spam to dear ol' Spamcop for yonks, so know all about the auto-delisting for innocent parties vacuumed up by accident. And, indeed, when I nipped along to check, our IP was free and clear and as far I can tell was never in the stickier lists like Spamhaus. The trouble is, because of various fairly obvious problems (eg, our hosts e-mailing us except they've shut down our e-mail) I didn't get to poll bl.spamcop.net until a couple of days later when the handy why-you-were-blocked(-if-indeed-you-were) link had vanished. Right. All well and good so far. (Incidentally, I wholly deny that we spam and that we've ever spammed, and all we do via e-mail is erratically bung around a legit double-opt-in Mailing List, but naturally you'd expect me to say that.) Then the beardy-weirdiness starts. It's a week on and by now I've asked our hosts roughly 138,001 times for the Spamcop report tracking URL -- fairly standard if you want to defend yourself against the serious charge of spamming. Nothing doing. Partly in the spirit of justice and ratiocination, and partly out of guilt for using Spamcop for 4.9 years for free, I've signed up properly so I can inspect the 66.48.80.139 reports and work out for myself what might have happened. You've ably spotted, of course, that what I've done is run up against the bit where (apparently) only the original reporter can see the full tracking report. And the original reporter's the trad Anonymous Mole Address so I can't ask for help there. So: is it possible to extract a tracking URL from someone else's report ID? The summary page http://mailsc.spamcop.net/mcgi?action=show...id;val=64585940 excitingly suggests ("Mil's Mailing List #42") that we're demonstrably in the clear because (and I'm sure Mil won't mind me saying) some dopey dimbo fan of Mil's has completely forgotten they signed up for the double-opt-in List, or reported us by accident or something, but it would be *tremendously* helpful to have an iron-clad tracking URL report for the two Mil List entries (1975742966 and 1978246608 -- the other four, ironically the unsubscribe and further info links, would be a top bonus but don't knock yourself out) because, quite frankly, our hosts are being a shower of dunces about this. "But MR GNASH," you quiz keenly, rubbing your chin with a doily, "you might just want the tracking URL so you can find the original complainant and go round and stab them with a big pikestaff or something." It's a loophole, but if you're bothered I'd be happy if whoever had the permish to find the tracking URL (an admin, perhaps?) whipped out the sender's e-mail; all I want is to be able to shew the detailed report to our hosts as evidence that, as I've been telling them for a week now of non-service, we are thoroughly innocent. (But please leave in the sending domain, because if it's the idiots at Comcast I'm going to go spare.) Incidentally, lord knows what the other summaries are about. Apparently 66.48.80.139 is shared between c800 sites. The two MLM42s are definitely us though. Okay. Thanks. For the short of patience, a handy summary is: 1. Could someone (presumably a super-powered admin) extract the tracking URLs for anonymous report IDs 1975742966 and 1978246608? 2. Could someone tell me if (a) 66.48.80.139 was blocked by Spamcop on or around October 23rd and if so ( was this a result of the previously mentioned report IDs? If I've missed out some vital info or got the wrong end of one or more sticks or something, do peck away (eg, "You fool, you've posted in entirely the wrong forum! It's going to blow! Aieee! Gurgle").
×