The report says server is not on the list...

[Ellen]

SpamCop doesn't bounce any emails based on the SCBL.  If an IP isn't listed in the SCBL then most likely there is an error at the server that is rejecting the email.

Apparently that was the problem, but since the same message, from the same server, went through just a few minutes later, I don't think any changes were made in the configuration of that server. That's why I think there's a bug in this software.

It is entirely possible that a different server on a different IP at your host/ISP handled the second email and that the server that handled it the first time was and is on the blocklist; it is possible that the server that handled the email the first time you tried to send it was on the blocklist and then delisted; it is possible that the receiving server was caching stale results from previous blocklist lookups and dumped it's cache and refreshed/requeried when the second mail arrives; it is possible that the receiving server queries several lists and the sending server IP was on a different list and then delisted but the server reported that it was on the SC list ... I have seen all of the above at various times.

Without seeing the IP from the bounce message I can't be more specific.

[dlivesay]

I am sorry that you were annoyed with my previous answer.

Apology accepted.

At that time it didn't appear to me that spamcop was involved at all and that there was another answer to the problem of being blocked.

Everybody on this forum seems to have this "SpamCop can do no wrong" attitude that really ticks off people who come here looking for answers.

At any rate, the only thing that spamcop does is to provide a list of IP addresses that spam comes from.

If that's true then the name is very misleading. A cop is someone who pulls you over for speeding, not someone who maintains a list of speeder's license plate numbers. A better name, if they want to stick with the law enforcement metaphor, would be SpamNarc or SpamInformant.

Unfortunately, it is like so many other things in life where criminals get involved.

Are spammers really criminals? I'm not convinced. I hate what they do, but then, I hate a lot of things that are perfectly legal. We live in a society that has enshrined the profit motive. Spammers exist because there's money to be made doing what they do. I am just as angry at the idiots who keep them in business as the spammers themselves, but nobody seems to be putting any heat on them.

I read an article a while ago about how someone had hacked into a spammer's network (yay!) and got ahold of their customer list. It was pretty shocking. People who buy products from these people are often well educated professionals. People who should know better!

The other shocker was that, when he added it all up, he found that the spammer had netted about three million dollars in six months' time. How many people would walk away from that kind of money because a lot of people think it's not nice? How many would stop it even if it's illegal? Legislation might put spammers in jail (where we have to support them) but for every one we retire there are ten more waiting to take their place. It just won't work.

We need to educate people about the consequences of patronizing these people. If people stopped buying from them, spam would disappear in a month.

Spammers have caused a lot of problems.  spamcop is, at least, trying to prevent spammers from operating and usually fixes mistakes quickly.

Personally, I don't get a lot of spam. I guard my e-mail addresses very carefully. They are posted on several Web sites, but I doubly encode them so spiders won't find them. That's not the case with my e-mail at work, however. There I have had to do business with a lot of Windows/Outlook users and have unfortunately wound up in a lot of their address books, so when they inevitably get infected with spam worms, they splatter my address all over the net. Why doesn't Microsoft get more heat for their contribution to the spam problem?

If you don't know anything about spam and what people are doing about it, it is a subject where you really ought to get some basic knowledge if you are going to use the internet for email.

First of all, I've been using the Internet for e-mail for 20 years. Second, I know a lot about spam. I apparently know a little more about how to avoid it than most people. I think a little education in this regard would also go a long way in curbing the problem, and it wouldn't cause as many problems as these spam blockers are.

[dlivesay]

Without seeing the IP from the bounce message I can't be more specific.

Do you mean the IP of the host that bounced the message or the IP of the "offending" host? If the former, I never saw one, but I'm pretty sure it mentioned the villanova.edu domain. If the latter, I posted it in my first post.

[Wazoo]

Everybody on this forum seems to have this "SpamCop can do no wrong" attitude that really ticks off people who come here looking for answers.

I don't recall seeing that claim made, and would argue that a bit myself ... The arguement thus far has been getting the "evidence" needed to research anything from you ..???

Are spammers really criminals?

Theft of bandwidth, theft of services, these days of joined at the hip viral issues on hijacking end-user computer systems ... ??? What's it going to take to convince you that spamming is not an "above board" business enterprize?

I've been using the Internet for e-mail for 20 years

That's a pretty impressive factoid, in that the "Internet" hasn't quite been around that long .... Could guess that you just might be including ARPANET and DARPANET, but those days are a far cry from "the Internet" ....

We need to educate people about the consequences of patronizing these people. If people stopped buying from them, spam would disappear in a month.

This is called "preaching to the choir" ...

[Wazoo]

Without seeing the IP from the bounce message I can't be more specific.

Do you mean the IP of the host that bounced the message or the IP of the "offending" host? If the former, I never saw one, but I'm pretty sure it mentioned the villanova.edu domain. If the latter, I posted it in my first post.

and that IP is the one that's causing all the confusion ... you claim some now-non-existent bounce message, vice the researched SpamCop item of "has no record of this IP" ....