Jump to content

What makes a valid complaint, and other ideas...


denisdekat

Recommended Posts

Hello,

I am very grateful and supportive of spamcop. Recently I got two of my servers black listed. One of them came from one spam complaint.

Spamvertised web site: http://www.protectyourstuff.com http://www.protectyourstuff.com is 63.247.65.34; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:54:11 GMT http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?i=z1122233484z4...c1856e4383e203z

This was only one spam complaint. The guy who runs, the list told me is is double opt. Much like this forum. He is actually very on top of his list. You would be impressed. The complaint contained:

You are getting this email because you (or someone

pretending to be you) joined the Internet Resource

Club on 6/27/2004 from IP 24.137.3.129 using email

x.

We were able to track him down, and actually the guy unsubscribed. So basically this guy knew how to stop and yet, he was able to black list us for 2 days. It seems to me that maybe this method should be reviewed to retain credibility,

Another issue that happened recently, was a customer had his default address set to account[at]spamcop.net .

Here is what he said:

"Oh crap!

I have used for ages SPAMCOP to filter out all the spam, seems they have changed their system and are running a beta MAILHOST system....and all these messages were held by spamcop, I released them for reporting and they apparently reported me as the originator. It seems my auto scri_pt did not take into account the 2 or 3 days for the SPAMS to parse properly (see paragraph below). Since they sold out to big brother SPAMCOP has become “dangerous”. Sorry for this, I am sure you know it was not me.

No more spam reporting for me!"

So basically, we got blacklisted twice, and it was higly unfair. I would hope that maybe you guys can review these cases and hopefully something positive comes out. Again, I love spamcp and the service to the community, my concern is that complaints are valid and remain valid so the service remains relevant.

Thank you for your time.

B)

:ph34r:B):huh::o;):D:lol::blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll start and then much more knowledgable people will come along.

First, one complaint never blacklists a server. The only single complaint that will balcklist a server is a spamtrap hit. These are e-mail addresses that have never been used and should receive no mail. Anything sent to them is unsolicited.

Second, Spamvertised sites have nothing to do with adding IPs to the BL. Spamcop does notify administrators of the spamvertised sites with the e-mail you mentioned but this has no impact on the BL.

Third, situations of user error, like your customer who got a server on the BL by not properly configuring his mailhosts (which is a system to protect innocent servers from being listed due to clever forgeries), can be resolved by working with the deputies at deputies at spamcop dot net. The system has numerous redundencies when used to have the user review the output of the parser. Shame on the user for not taking advantage of this and preventing his own servers from being reported. Users can actually be terminated or fined for doing this sort of thing.

--Louis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your post. I am curious to understand how someone signs up with a spam trap, seems either random or strange. I will find out from them if they are doing any harvesting, I am pretty sure they are not...

"The only single complaint that will balcklist a server is a spamtrap hit."

What if this is a faked email or something, my very good friend is the owner of the domain name stinky.com, you would not believe how often it is used as a fake email. If he were to set up a spam trap for non existant emails, what protection would there be there for accurate reporting?

On the user error, thanks for that also. I will talk to him about this as well so he educates himself more on the subject.

Kindest regards! I really appreciate your comments

:):):):D:ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things:

First, anyone who says their list is "double opt-in" is either a) a spammer or indiscriminate email harvester and lying about it, or B) a legitimate marketer who's so out of touch with the world of spam that they use spammer terminology without knowing it. Using the term "double opt-in" is like hearing a realtor say there aren't any "undesirables" in your neighborhood. They might mean zombie vampire baby-stealing Nazis, but that's sure not what leaps to mind.

Secondly, it's very interesting how that user says "My automatic spam reporting scri_pt reported you automatically. Spamcop sold out!" I completely fail to see how this is Ironport's fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The only single complaint that will balcklist a server is a spamtrap hit."

What if this is a faked email or something, my very good friend is the owner of the domain name stinky.com, you would not believe how often it is used as a fake email.  If he were to set up a spam trap for non existant emails, what protection would there be there for accurate reporting?

Because most if not all of the return addresses on spam are forged Spamcop ignores these entirely. Instead it uses an analysis of the header of the e-mail to determine the origin IP of said mail. At no time does Spamcop list or determine anything by an e-mail account. This analysis system is constantly evolving and the recent "mailhost" implementation that your user complained about is one such evolution. Spammers are becoming so good at forging headers that without additional information from the user as to how their mail gets delivered it was becoming impossible to consistently identify the true source. Recognizing this the new system was put in place to protect innocent servers.

--Louis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your post.  I am curious to understand how someone signs up with a spam trap

13701[/snapback]

I think you misunderstand how spamtraps work. It's not a special account designed for a user to receive spam or somehow stop it in any way. A spam trap is an email address that has never been published in any way and isn't reachable by the public. Let's say there's a web page at Spamcop that isn't reachable by any link anywhere on the site. It's full of email addresses like hgsy5347[at]spamcop.net. No one can see that address and there's no person attached to it who's sending mail under that name, so in effect it doesn't "exist." However, spammers use programs that extract email addresses from webpages for abuse and these programs will go right to that "inaccessible" page, grab every address available, and start spamming hgsy5347[at]spamcop.net. Any mail that comes to that address is coming from someone who got it through illegitimate means and the sending IP is automatically flagged and blocked as a spam source. Spamtraps are the only way for an IP to get blacklisted via one complaint because the human element has been removed - no user error is possible.

"The only single complaint that will balcklist a server is a spamtrap hit."

What if this is a faked email or something,

Two possibilities:

1) Someone signed up for your list using an email address they made up and that address just happened to be a spamtrap address. You didn't confirm the legitimacy of the signup with a followup email and started sending mail to that address. Bad policy on your part, as that allows anyone in the world to sign up anyone else in the world.

2) Someone signed up for your list using a spamtrap address and your legitimate "did you request this?" email got you blocked. Possible, but we'd need more information to figure that out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, how could anyone opt in to get your info when you used/purchased someone elses list? You cannot purchase a "confirmed" opt-in list.

Next, how could a spamtrap request your data?

Where did the email originate from? What IP?

You are no longer listed in Spamcop but you are listed in Spews.

See: http://spews.org/html/S1956.html

Down the hall ----> that way

And you thought Spamcop was unfair (chuckle)

Have a nice day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only single complaint that will balcklist a server is a spamtrap hit.

Technically, this isn't yet totally true. There's still the threshold that must be met in the mathematical model of total traffic "seen" .. number of spam reported .. spamtrap hits .. time .... That a spamtrap hit is specially weighted can make it easier to fit the formula, just stating that "a single spamtrap hit can list an IP" just isn't the whole truth.

Of course, the original poster's version of the tale has some serious holes also ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically, this isn't yet totally true.  There's still the threshold that must be met in the mathematical model of total traffic "seen" .. number of spam reported .. spamtrap hits .. time .... That a spamtrap hit is specially weighted can make it easier to fit the formula, just stating that "a single spamtrap hit can list an IP" just isn't the whole truth.

Of course, the original poster's version of the tale has some serious holes also ....

13709[/snapback]

I believe the following rules apply here............

Rule #1: Spammers lie.

Russel's Admonition: Always assume that there is a measurable chance that the entity you are dealing with is a spammer.

Lexical Contradiction: Spammers will redefine any term in order to disguise their abuse of Internet resources.

Sharp's Corollary: Spammers attempt to re-define "spamming" as that which they do not do.

Rule #2: If a spammer seems to be telling the truth, see Rule #1.

Crissman's Corollary: A spammer, when caught, blames his victims.

Rule #3: Spammers are stupid.

Krueger's Corollary: Spammer lies are really stupid.

Pickett's Commentary: Spammer lies are boring.

Spinosa's Corollary: Spammers assume everybody is more stupid than themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...