Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
manchot

[Resolved] abuse[at]smtp.com is valid

Recommended Posts

Reported a phishing spam that came thru smtp.com yesterday:

5971584147 ( 192.40.177.60 ) To: support#smtp.com[at]devnull.spamcop.net

The headsers themselves recommend abuse[at]smtp.com, although whois only has

support[at]smtp.com; so I wrote to smtp.com who said they used to get spamcop reports

but they mysteriously stopped a few months ago...

They say they've found and killed the spammer's account..

so whassup?

- manchot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble is the parser defers to abuse net for smtp.com = support[at]smtp.com as you have seen and that address started bouncing reports "support[at]smtp.com bounces (99 sent : 99 bounces)"

Looks like someone needs to update abuse.net, as you have also seen from whois.arin.net

OrgAbuseEmail: abuse[at]smtp.com

I see only two reports sent (to devnull) in the last 90 days but, if smtp.com are actually responsive, the small number of reports doesn't matter - something gets done.

Hopefully either SC or smtp.com can sort this out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reports to support[at]smtp.com have been disabled by administrative decision.

- Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin -

- Service[at]Admin.SpamCop.net -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming administrative decision = not just because of bounces. Marking "Resolved".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming administrative decision = not just because of bounces. Marking "Resolved".

Right.. so just what *does* "administrative decision" mean?

Will SC start reporting to abuse[at]smtp.com ? They do seem responsive,

so why wouldn't SC change their administrative decisions??

j.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right.. so just what *does* "administrative decision" mean?

<snip>

...While I can not say for sure, I am interpreting "by administrative decision" to mean "for reasons we [spamCop staff] believe are good ones but upon which we prefer not to elaborate." Since it's their service (and they therefore have the right to make even arbitrary decisions about it) and I pay nothing for it, I am not in any position to argue, nor would I argue if I were -- I trust SpamCop staff to not be arbitrary in matters involving such decisions.

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  

×