Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by lisati

  1. 8 hours ago, TomosJ said:

    Another question what does the following mean "abuse#iri.pl@devnull.spamcop.net"

    This usually means that Spamcop has decided not to bother the intended recipient with reports. There are a number of possible reasons for this, perhaps the email address that Spamcop has a histroy of bouncing, meaning the reports Spamcop have sent haven't made it to the recipient's inbox.

  2. I use Habul version 1.21.0 with Thunderbird 52.5.0, even though some of the documentation I've read suggests that it hasn't been tested on more recent versions of Thunderbird. If you install it and use it to send reports to multiple recipients, I'd suggest checking that the recipients list is set to "BCC" instead of "To"

  3. The initial email I received had all the same email addresses I normally use with Habul, and I subsequently received a Spamcop notification indicating that there was a problem with "my" submission, as if I'd forgotten to forward something as an attachment. I have a feeling that I'm probably safe, in the past the same recipiients have seemed a bit clueless about what Spamcop is or what they do.

  4. This morning I received a response to an email complaint I'd sent using the Habul plugin for Thunderbird. It looks likes the sender hit "Reply-to-all" and ended up sending a copy of their response to the submit.xxxxxxxxxxx[at]spm.spamcop.net email address I normally use to report spam. Do I need to be worried?

  5. I don't know how effective reporting reportint to spam@uce.gov can be, as I don't recall having had any feedback from them. I usually like to forward them copies of spam at the same time I report to spamcop.

    On a side note, one annoyance I've had to deal with over the last few months is that my provider has been bouncing reports sent to spam@uce.gov with a "too long in the queue" type error, and then bouncing their own non-delivery reports as spam. Discussions with them have been a little strained, their latest "excuse" is that there's a problem with the DNS records for the uce.gov email domain, for which I have, to date, found no evidence. Dealing with this annoyance is, as I type, a work in progress.

  6. I used it for a while several years go, and found it useful.

    I don't know if recent versions still have the feature, but I'd advise avoiding the use of the "bounce" option that used to be available for mail that mailwasher classifies as spam.

  7. Unless you're prepared to have a deluge of spam, or you are willing to spend time and energy having some fun with them, don't respond to spammers.

    Use services such as SpamCop to report spam. It might seem like you're not getting any useful response from providers, but I have occasionally had feedback to indicate that action has been taken.

    If you or your ISP are able to, use of blacklists and blocking lists such as the SCBL can be a big help stopping spam in its tracks. Reporting the spam you receive to Spamcop will help them build and maintain their list.

  8. There are spam traps and there are spam traps, it can depend on how they're set up. Some are email addresses hidden on websites where only web crawlers and nosey people who view the page source would find them. Others, of a different kind of sneaky nature, are based on real email addresses that were once active and legitimate recipients of email but have been disabled or fallen into disuse - these will catch you out if you don't look after your mailing list carefully.

  9. On 10/16/2017 at 6:19 AM, Rasmus said:

     It's basically Ubuntu without Canonical tracking your every move, selling your data to third and fourth parties.

    Actually, Ubuntu is based on Debian. I regularly use Ubuntu, and did see some concern expressed a year or two back about what was being tracked, but the discussions fizzled out after the Ubuntu One file sharing service was shut down.

  10. I don't have any direct experience with SendGrid, but suspect that it might not be your fault. The larger the provider, the bigger the chances of innocent victims being adversely affected by the bad behaviour of a small number of other users of their system.

    As I type, none of the IP addresses mentioned are currently listed in bl.spamcop.net, One possibility is that they were listed when delivery of the message was attempted and have subsequently been delisted. Another possibility is that the admin of the recipient's server is lazy and has configured their server with a generic message that erroneously mentions Spamcop.

    It might be worth some time checking the links mentioned in the NDRs (non-delivery reports). The link provided for genuine listings at Spamcop gives some advice on what to check for. In situations where the IP address isn't actually listed, you might want to use an online tool that checks multiple blacklists. This can sometimes provide clues as to what is happening and why.



  11. Here's a tracking link: https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6401611819zadaa8e29814c0564d802a27b7d9c499bz

    For some reason, the parser is telling me, "Possible forgery. Supposed receiving system not associated with any of your mailhosts" for IP address

    As near as I can make out, and unless I'm missing something, it's a genuine Yahoo server, but not one I'd normally see. What does seem odd, however, is that there's no sign of the To: or CC: headers appearing in the message source, as forwarded from one of my Outlook.com email addresses, but I wouldn't expect that to affect the parsing of the Received: headers.