Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
C2H5OH

Abuse contact for '109.121.192.0 - 109.121.254.255' is 'lir <at> netg.bg'

Recommended Posts

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Yes, I get "No reporting addresses found for 109.121.206.199, using devnull for tracking." But RIPE says:

Abuse contact info: lir[at]inetg.bg

which matches the address you suggested in your Topic name. But SpamCop also says:

There are several possible reasons for this:

  • The site involved may not want reports from SpamCop.
  • SpamCop administrators may have decided to stop sending reports to the site to prevent listwashing.
  • SpamCop uses internal routeing to contact this site, only knows about the internal method and so cannot provide an externally-valid email address.
  • There may be no working email address to receive reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi turetzsr, yes, I know there are several reasons why Spamcop might not want to send a report.

In this case however, Spamcop says "no reporting addresses found".

That's different from the occasional "does not wish to receive..." or "I refuse to bother.." etc messages.

Or when a report is devnulled because 90 out of 90 reports have bounced.

Maybe the error message could be modified to more accurately state the true reason, "known hostile" or "anti-listwashing"; or would that give the bad guys too much help?

- Just a suggestion....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi turetzsr

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp That's my Forum user ID but I prefer "Steve T" (see my "sig"). :) <g>

yes, I know there are several reasons why Spamcop might not want to send a report.

In this case however, Spamcop says "no reporting addresses found".

That's different from the occasional "does not wish to receive..." or "I refuse to bother.." etc messages.

Or when a report is devnulled because 90 out of 90 reports have bounced.

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Please note that the quote in my last reply explaining why SC might not send a report was not a general reply to your inquiry but, rather, was a quote from an SC parse of 109.121.206.199, specifically!

Maybe the error message could be modified to more accurately state the true reason

<snip>

- Just a suggestion....

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp My guess is that your proposal will not be actioned by SC for fear that it might give away more about their spam parsing algorithm than they are willing to reveal. :) <g>

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  

×