Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
turetzsr

One Person's Opinions

Recommended Posts

...The following is an off-topic follow-up to SpamCop Forum "thread" "Wrong address is being detected !!!"

<snip>

No apology. The "Dittos to Steve" comment was unnecessary and unwarranted.

...Seems like a reasonable reply to me, if I understand what Rick was saying: he was seconding my reply, which, as I explained in one of my posts, was an answer to the OP's question.
Suggesting that the user configure his Mailhosts is good advice, but as I have said many times before, if you're not going to answer the question, don't post.
...Two points:
  • In my view, providing a solution to the problem is at least as good, and in this case, even better, than answering the question ("Have the spammers figured out a way around Spamcop???")!
  • If you're not going to take over administration of the Forum, please do not publically direct how other contributors answer the questions. Because of your Forum tag, it looks like official SpamCop Forum policy, which you do not set. If you're offering a personal opinion, that's welcome, but please clearly label it as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suggesting that the user configure his Mailhosts is good advice, but as I have said many times before, if you're not going to answer the question, don't post.
Excuse me, but I did answer the question, as the poster himself attests. I also think it is fair to ask folks to use the tracking URL mechanism as Steve did. I also think it is fair to post links to the official SpamCop site for background info, particularly if there's a risk of getting it wrong through paraphrase.

Do you dispute?

-- rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I posted in the original Topic;

Suggesting that the user configure his Mailhosts is good advice, but as I have said many times before, if you're not going to answer the question, don't post.

Coming in late due to connectivity kloss, then a power outage. However, exception has to be noted.

The actual problem was seen in the parser output http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z3672773088z9...4923da544933faz as;

Received: from tdev156-170.codetel.net.do (HELO speedtouch.lan) (190.80.156.170) by sw1 (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2010 18:32:24 +0000

190.80.156.170 found

host 190.80.156.170 (getting name) = tdev156-170.codetel.net.do.

24.123.149.141 not listed in dnsbl.njabl.org ( 127.0.0.9 )

24.123.149.141 not listed in cbl.abuseat.org

24.123.149.141 not listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net

24.123.149.141 is not an MX for rrcs-24-123-149-141.central.biz.rr.com

24.123.149.141 not listed in dnsbl.njabl.org ( 127.0.0.3 )

Possible spammer: 190.80.156.170

sw1 is not a hostname (emphasis added by me)

Looks like a forgery

As seen in looking at the Tracking URL which now has had the MailHost Configuration applied to the Reporting Account, the 'solution' to the user's issue was in fact offered up in the initial Forum replies. Granted the 'real' solution would be to have the ISP/Host fix their server, but ..... the abswer was in fact posted here for public view and had a successful result.

I didn't, but should have, taken the time to actually look at the FAQ post, and should have noticed it did not mention the "MailHosts Configuration" solution!

Interesting, I suppose. The "Official/Original FAQ" entry Why does SpamCop want to send a report to my own network administrator? has not been updated to include the MailHost Configuration of your Reporting Account as a possible solution. On the other hand, I also note that a Wiki page has not been developed on the same subhect matter either. Looks like additional work could be done by a number of folks.

I agree with the Forum foks here .... a successful 'answer' was in fact provided in the Replies offered up in the original Topic/Discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<snip>

I agree with the Forum foks here .... a successful 'answer' was in fact provided in the Replies offered up in the original Topic/Discussion.

...Thanks, Wazoo!

...Playing the Devil's advocate, one might (reasonably) conclude that replies that point to meta-posts (for example, FAQ or Wiki entries that may themselves have references to yet other pages) are a bit like the mathematician in the following story.

...An engineer and a mathematician were both asked to solve a pair of simple problems. The first was: move a pot of water from the stove to the floor. Both offered the same solution: lift the pot off the stove, walk a few feet away, bend down, and place the pot on the floor. The interrogator then asked each party how she/he would solve problem two: how to move a pot from the stove to the table. The engineer replied, "why, I'd go to the stove, lift the pot, carry it to the table, and place it there." The mathematician's reply was, "I'd take the pot I previously placed on the floor to the table, thus reducing the problem in part to one that's already been solved!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(...) replies that point to meta-posts (for example, FAQ or Wiki entries that may themselves have references to yet other pages) are a bit like the mathematician in the following storyble, thus reducing the problem in part to one that's already been solved!"

Or, alternatively, the mathematician who, upon discovering that his desk is on fire, gets a bucket of water and sets it down on the desk, saying, "...the rest is intuitive."

-- rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×