abuse[at]bit.ly being dev/nul'd

[cciu]

I've found manual reporting of abused links to the address abuse[at]bit.ly to be extremely responsive, timely and helpful. Unfortunately, their powers-that-be haven't managed to change the WHOIS info so that SpamCop's abuse reports properly go to abuse[at]bit.ly yet....they still go to abuse[at]ntt.net

So I thought I'd include abuse[at]bit.ly in the extra notification field when I report abuse bit.ly links....but SpamCop dev/nuls them, with no explanation as to why.

So my question: can SpamCop not dev/nul that address, or at least explain why they're doing that?

Presuming that bit.ly abuse is as responsive to SpamCop reports as they are to me personally, is it possible to override the WHOIS info and report bit.ly links to abuse[at]bit.ly?

Thanks,

John

[Farelf]

Hi John,

Needs response from SC staff of course - but I can at least confirm

Look up an address in the abuse.net contact database

postmaster[at]bit.ly (for bit.ly)

abuse[at]bit.ly (for bit.ly)

and

whois.arin.net

CIDR: 168.143.0.0/16

OrgAbuseEmail: abuse[at]ntt.net

[cciu]

Needs response from SC staff of course - but I can at least confirm

Look up an address in the abuse.net contact database

postmaster[at]bit.ly (for bit.ly)

abuse[at]bit.ly (for bit.ly)

and

whois.arin.net

CIDR: 168.143.0.0/16

OrgAbuseEmail: abuse[at]ntt.net

Yeah, looks like SpamCop gives priority to what WHOIS says over what Abuse.net says. Not sure if that's by design or what....

The further question is why SpamCop is dev/null'ing abuse[at]bit.ly

John

[turetzsr]

Hi, John!

...Does dev null - SpamCop Dictionary help?

...A SpamCop Admin will be better able to tell you what is happening in this case. If none appear here to answer the question, you could send it to the SpamCop Deputies at e-mail address deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net.

[cciu]

...Does dev null - SpamCop Dictionary help?

...A SpamCop Admin will be better able to tell you what is happening in this case. If none appear here to answer the question, you could send it to the SpamCop Deputies at e-mail address deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net.

LOL, thanks I know what dev/null is...my BS in Computer Science taught me that circa 1982.

I'm wondering why abuse[at]bit.ly has been dev/null'd, i.e. why SpamCop refuses to send reports to that address, and if that refusal can be reconsidered.

Considering the tons of bit.ly spam that I'm seeing, I thought someone here might know already, or a SpamCop deputy might answer here for everyone's benefit, so I started here in the forums first. If I don't get a response, I appreciate the direct email for the deputies and will try that.

Thanks,

John

[turetzsr]

LOL, thanks I know what dev/null is...my BS in Computer Science taught me that circa 1982.

<snip>

...Oh, I figured that! <g> The definition wasn't the part to which I was referring, I meant to point you to:

<snip>

Reasons for discarding reports include bouncing of previous Reports that were sent to user[at]domain, as well as SpamCop Deputy and SpamCop Admin intervention due to listwashing, ROKSO listing, obviously ignoring reports, passing reports to inappropriate places, etc.

<snip>

... please see ... Ellen's description of why Reports are turned off.

...It doesn't precisely answer your question for your particular case, of course, that explanation will have to wait for a reply from a member of the SpamCop staff.

[kmolloy]

It looks like reports to abuse at bit.ly were bouncing so they were turned off.

[Farelf]

Thanks Kelly. So it seems the crucial assumption -

...Presuming that bit.ly abuse is as responsive to SpamCop reports as they are to me personally, ...

- may fail. I can see bit.ly getting a little tired of/overwhelmed by SC reports. But at the end of the day they would/should be well served by timely advice of spammers abusing their service. They should at least increase their mailbox size to cope. Once they have a reputation amongst spammers of being unresponsive to abuse that level of abuse will only increase.

Some URL shortening services/redirectors suffer from a surfeit of SC reports, and (perhaps) subsequent SURBL listing - there are discussions in these pages involving one or two of them. I guess the Innocent Bystander system doesn't provide any actual relief from this type of abuse unless they are actually munching their way through the reports one-by-one, investigating the first instances per link of alleged illegalities/breaches of AUP/TOS/CRA, trashing the offending links and applying for IB on each confirmed or refuted link. Which apparently they are not. Certainly not a good business to be in with a tight operating margin or as an amateur. The "big boys" snipurl.com and tinyurl.com have any SC reports going to their providers too.

An actual resolution seems out of reach.

[cwg]

Offer them an aggregate report? Something done hourly or in some user selectable time frame?

[Farelf]

Offer them an aggregate report? Something done hourly or in some user selectable time frame?

Seems a good suggestion, as a sort of 'health check'. Presumably they could work that out with the deputies, along the lines of an ISP report. If they are as good as the O/P believes they are then they might follow up that possibility if he suggests it to them.

There have been cases of URL shortening services being shut down due to spam complaints - at least one under such threat has appeared on these pages in the past. I guess ntt.net is fairly understanding when it comes to bit.ly - or they simply haven't got around to it yet. If I was bit.ly I would be paying more attention.