Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GFPhelps

Encoding Feature for Blocked Reports

Recommended Posts

When I attempt to send spam reports to SpamCop, while logged on to my company's network, over 50% of the reports get blocked due to my company's outbound e-mail scanning policy. (I use Outlook, SpamSource, and send the reports as attachments.) Therefore, I am forced to post via the SpamCop web page -- which works, but is not very efficient or convenient.

Is SpamCop willing to implement an special attachment encoding format to allow the spam reports to be sent without being blocked? This would be a shared encoding format between SpamSource (and other third parties) and SpamCop. It would not have to be a very sophisticated algorithm, just enough to circumvent (in a good way) the blocking due to outbound e-mail scanning. It could be as simple as reversing each pair of characters...

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, what ISP is involved here? Your posting IP relates to an ISP that I don't have in the FAQ as one that is doing the outbound filtering/dropping action. Do I have a new entry to that FAQ?

The actual request would probably be 'no' ... I'm relating this to an ancient (I'm talking years here) go-round along similar lines .. folks wanting to submit thier spam within a .ZIP bundle. The special handling, more code, server loads, and that so many folks have a problem figuring out how to submit properly at all pretty much shot that scenario down. In this suggestion, there's a major portion of folks out there that haven't a clue how to do a simply ROT-13 encoding, so having a "special" button somewhere that may or not be available in some software/application, along with the extra code again to try to handle that first decision (did the user screw up or is this a vaild but encoded submittal) just adds to that kettle of confusion. But again, I don't speak for Julian <g>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I stated, the "ISP" is my company. It is its outbound e-mail scanning policy that is the impediment to sending spam e-mails as attachments to SpamCop.

Can someone from SpamCop get involved in this issue, rather than just ignore it? The issue will not go away and will only get worse as more companies implement their own outbound e-mail scanning policies. The development team at SpamSource is willing to implement a joint solution (from the client side), but it will take the cooperation of SpamCop as well. I am willing to spend some time to help spec out a design. And then, later, to test the new code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you are saying your company allows the spam in but will not allow the same back out and you want Spamcop to make changes and code around your companies problems/policies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I stated, the "ISP" is my company. It is its outbound e-mail scanning policy that is the impediment to sending spam e-mails as attachments to SpamCop.

This could be specifically implemented for you to get back to work and simply JHD for spam that enters the company. I know while I am not hindered in reporting spam that comes into the company, it is only allowed on a time available basis and as of late, that time has not been available.

You may need to speak with the IT department of your company and find out if you should be reporting spam, and if so, let them help you get the messages out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your question is irrelevant and distracts from the issue. Maybe you are not aware that an e-mail client can receive e-mail from one service and then forward it via a different service. The issue is: HOW TO SUCCESSFULLY FORWARD spam TO SPAMCOP VIA E-MAIL WHEN THE OUTGOING E-MAIL SERVER IS SCANNING FOR, AND BLOCKING, SUSPECTED OUTGOING spam (AND VIRUS E-MAIL).

I see discussions all of the time in the SpamCop forums were people are trying to understand why their spam reports are "getting lost." I am sure that in many cases the problem is outbound e-mail scanning, as implemented by their ISP (or their company, if they are reporting spam from work), that is deleting the spam report e-mails before they can be sent. This problem is not isolated to my company, or my ISP (for personal e-mail), and needs to be addressed.

BTW, "companies" should be spelled "company's".

My answer is, "Yes," I am requesting a change in SpamCop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can still paste it into the form on the reporting page.

What are they blocking? Spamcop or the spam? If they are blocking the spam then it should have been blocked on the way in also.

If you are getting personal mail from a different server using your email client at work then maybe that is against their work policies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My answer is, "Yes," I am requesting a change in SpamCop.

I do not see any great advantage for spamcop to do this and any encryption algorithm wil require resources on the receiving end to decrypt the message. You are adding another layer of complexity to a process that is already very complex for the majority of users.

I will admit I don't speak for spamcop, so it is possible they will consider this, but I would not count on it any time soon, even if they do implement it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a bit of an additional side-note, maybe a return request .... the "company" involved here appears to be an outfit that provides hardware that is in reality a major portion of the 'how the internet works' ... if you believe the advertising hype, technical papers, visuals of most any major routing center, removel of this company's equipment would "halt" the internet experience. Wouldn't it be something to have this user's problematic bit of filtering code implemented at some of these major internet traffic points?

Anyway, as I said in my first response (and had been repeated a bit by others) .. you are basically asking for a way to go around code/policies/procedures put into place by your employer (which might have its own repercussions) .. and then asking another company to develop code, add hardware for the extra system load, and add yet another bit of possible problems in order to assist you to accomplish your work-around. Doesn't have the makings of a successful outcome.

You may be much better off talking to your company folks, perhaps something along the lines of a white-listed output mode, such that your specific e-mails would go out unhampered. This might also cover the issue of you trying to work around the corporate security policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is SpamCop willing to implement an special attachment encoding format to allow the spam reports to be sent without being blocked? 

23578[/snapback]

Pretty sure the short answer is no

but there are programs IF your network will allow it installed to report spam such as SpamDeputy stand alone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is spam coming in to your work email account(s), by all means report it to your work Help Desk or Abuse Desk. If it is spam coming in to other accounts, review your policies and procedures to see (or gingerly ask your boss) if you are allowed to spend time on reporting that while at work. If you can educate some people on the evils of JHD along the way, more power to you!

Also, please be aware that the full-uppercase Registered Trademark "spam" should not be used to refer to email or newsgroup postings, per the Trademark holder, Hormel, Inc.

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...My empathy to the OP -- I have the same problem. My employer's network gurus apparently fail to see the hypocrisy in this asymmetry. I resolve it by simply editing the spam before I send it, by replacing the words my employer's filter finds objectionable by "<objectionable word removed>." As this does not cause the SpamCop parser to either find spam sources it would otherwise not find or fail to find spam sources it would have otherwise found, I consider this editing to NOT violate SpamCop reporting policy. YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait until they start filtering "<objectionable word removed>." :)

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  

×