Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ZapZombie

"Cannot resolve http:/ /www.weblinegreatsp.com/"

Recommended Posts

win32whois http:/ /www.weblinegreatsp.com

& also for http:/ /www.webgreatgoldensp.com/

& http:/ /www.weblifegreatsp.com/

IP: 78.80.111.20

..

Querying whois.ripe.net:43 for 78.80.111.20...

..

% Information related to '78.80.96.0 - 78.80.127.255'

inetnum: 78.80.96.0 - 78.80.127.255

netname: TMOBILE-CZECH-ADSL

descr: xDSL customer network

country: CZ

admin-c: HR6606-RIPE

tech-c: HR6606-RIPE

status: ASSIGNED PA

mnt-by: AS13036-MNT

source: RIPE # Filtered

role: Hostmaster Radiomobil

address: T-Mobile Czech Republic a.s.

address: Tomickova 2144/1

address: Praha 4

address: 149 00

address: Czech Republic

admin-c: TM2924-RIPE

tech-c: TM2924-RIPE

tech-c: TN898-RIPE

tech-c: JK5069-RIPE

remarks: --------------------------------------------------

remarks: In any case of abuse, security or copyright issues

remarks: please contact:

abuse-mailbox: mailto:abuse[at]t-mobile.cz

remarks: --------------------------------------------------

nic-hdl: HR6606-RIPE

mnt-by: AS13036-MNT

source: RIPE # Filtered

Edit by SteveT (turetzsr) to intentionally break the URL links to avoid accidental navigation to the spamvertized sites.

Edited by turetzsr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

today same for

http:/ /wwwq.ubestgreatneteurodice.com/

http:/ /wwwu.ugreatcasheurodice.com/

http:/ /wwwb.ugreattopeudice.com/

http:/ /www.webgreatgoldensp.com/

[edit to break links, title amended to minimise internet search engine indexing]

Edited by Farelf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are spamvertized links, I assume? Spammers get paid to broadcast those, why do you think it is okay for you to do the same in the forum? What are you thinking? DON'T post clickable links in a public forum (here or anywhere else), please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point taken.

Frustration here, having caused frustration, feeling overworked, causing overwork.

Frustration having to look up the ip#s by hand.

I hope the spamvertised websites will be taken down.

Ehm ... Is reporting "Cannot resolve <unclickable link>" appreciated?

I only will post more of those if those áre appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<snip>

Ehm ... Is reporting "Cannot resolve <unclickable link>" appreciated?

I only will post more of those if those áre appreciated.

...SpamCopAdmin should speak to that but something you may wish to review while waiting is the SpamCop FAQ (links to which may be found near the top left of each SpamCop Forum page) entry labeled "SpamCop reporting of spamvertized sites - some philosophy."

...If SpamCopAdmin doesn't reply within a decent interval of time, you could try to send the question to the SpamCop Deputies by sending an e-mail to deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Ehm ... Is reporting "Cannot resolve <unclickable link>" appreciated?

I only will post more of those if those áre appreciated.

Can understand the frustration when it is apparent that a whole raft of spamvertized links are resolving to a single area of network abuse responsibility and it might be so easy for the reporting address for this many-headed monster to be added to the parser lookup to tidy up/streamline the reporting process and maybe put some additional pressure on those miscreants.

But, regardless, as you have supposed (I think) some of the source of that appreciation might be ordinary reporters who might borrow your results while/as long as the reporting addresses are not provided by the parser, saving them from recapitulating the work you are doing. The level of interest from them might be difficult to assess, even if you were to conduct a poll on the matter - response rates to polls have always been low here, we are not a phenomenally busy forum nor are "we" much addicted to sociability despite the common interest - or perhaps because of it, not being quite sure of a reporting membership stereotype but I'm sure "individualist" comes into it somewhere.

As to the acceptance of the reporting address data by SC staff to automate the process for future "spamvertizing" transgressions from within the same hosting network? Well, while the object of posting reporting addresses found (that the parser has "missed") in this part of the forum is for just that purpose, when it comes to "spamvertized" links as opposed to mail sources/servers, then the parser is a far less handy tool for the resolution/assignment of responsibility than it is for the mail sources, for all sorts of reasons, and there is no SC block list incorporating the "hits" made to exert that kind of pressure on the abusers (though another list - SURBL - may use some of that data). Steve T has indicated some "philosophy" and some of the factors about that topic in the FAQ. I will point straight to that source - SpamCop reporting of spamvertized sites - some philosophy.

While the SC resolution and reporting of the links has never been THE priority, a core of reporters has always insisted on it, believing the "payload" of that sort of spam is a pretty darned significant target, despite the evolving (or cyclical) spammer strategies to minimise the effectiveness of such reporting and the hurt it might cause them. Some (of us) suspect the proportion of such reporters may have reduced over time/the uptake of "quick" reporting and of VER in aggregate may have increased - and there are more specific/effective tools than SC to address spamvertizing or some kinds of it.

On the whole, if you are resolving the abuse addresses anyway, it certainly won't hurt to post them (perhaps just as the www, wwwu, etc bit, if present, plus the domain name, without the http//: bit). We have never known whether or not the public response in these forums is representative of the impact posts might have, or of any good they might do. We DO know Google is indexing the forum like crazy, hence my sensitivity to any "broadcasting" of spammers' links - and goodness knows what might happen to the site's reputation/trust ratings if any such turned out to be malicious or otherwise known "bad" sites.

It is probably not all that common to find such large target(s) as you have (=vulnerability), they are mostly a bit stealthy/sly in recent times it seems to me. It will be interesting to see what the SC Staff might do with it. But please don't get frustrated, whatever the outcome (the Staff will always do what's best for SC and, as any beancounter would tell us, that's also what's best for "us"). And, as in all matters of spam, only do as much as you are comfortable in doing. Better and more effective to stay in for the long run than suffer "burnout".

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  

×