Abuse contact for '193.113.8.0 - 193.113.11.255' is 'protect[at]bt.com'

[C2H5OH]

Abuse contact for '193.113.8.0 - 193.113.11.255' is 'protect[at]bt.com'

SpamCop parse reports this;

Host www.bt.com (checking ip) = 193.113.9.162
Resolves to 193.113.9.162
Routing details for 193.113.9.162
[refresh/show] Cached whois for 193.113.9.162 : protect[at]bt.com btcertcc[at]bt.com
abuse[at]btconnect.com bounces (13 sent : 7 bounces)
Using best contacts
No reporting addresses found for 193.113.9.162, using devnull for tracking.

So SC found protect[at]bt.com, but used abuse[at]btconnect.com?

Separate question as to why abuse[at]btconnect.com has started bouncing spam reports...