Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mabu

Pointless spam reports to China, et. al

Recommended Posts

I've taken to not reporting spam issues with the most popular spam-haven-hosting companies, like those in China or Russia. Obviously these ISPs know full well their clients are spamming. I see no advantage in sending reports to these companies, and in fact, I see a serious disadvantage in doing so, as you tip them off that the relay they've been exploiting has been "outed", and they can use the report to possibly seek retalitory action against the person reporting them.

As a result, it seems that it would be useful to set the default option of sending reports to known spammer hosting companies to OFF.

Does anyone agree with me? Can we get this changed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see a need for a change. Part of the agreement when you signed up to use the SpamCop.net services were that "you" are responsible for which reports go out and where they are targetted. As part of that process, the review and selection boxes are provided before you hit the Submit button. The option you request is basically already in place.

As this appears to be more of a request for a "New Feature / Suggestion" .. I'm also moving this Topic to a more appropriate Forum section, set up for just that purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm simply suggesting that this would be a useful feature. I'm sure I'm not alone. What's the point of wasting my time or spamcop's resources to send a spam report to an ISP that knows full well their customers are spamming? Why not skip them and send to an uplink?

I have been attacked by spammers for reporting them via spamcop. I know in some cases, using Spamcop increases the amount of spam you will receive if the spam reports get into the hands of the spammer. They have a tendency of forging "from" headers of the domains of people who report them to Spamcop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm simply suggesting that this would be a useful feature.  I'm sure I'm not alone.  What's the point of wasting my time or spamcop's resources to send a spam report to an ISP that knows full well their customers are spamming?  Why not skip them and send to an uplink?

Reports feed the SpamCopDNSBL. No reports, the IP address falls off the list.

They have a tendency of forging "from" headers of the domains of people who report them to Spamcop.

40083[/snapback]

Any address is in the pool for forged addesses .... numerous posts in this Forum from folks that never heard of SpamCop, yet their addess was in use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any address is in the pool for forged addesses .... numerous posts in this Forum from folks that never heard of SpamCop, yet their addess was in use.

40088[/snapback]

Thanks for the insight Captain Obvious. I would have never realized that.

That notwithstanding, I know when I've been the target of retribution. Please don't insult my intelligence with speculation that everything is random in spammer-land. Anyone with any amount of experience here knows that's not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the insight Captain Obvious.  I would have never realized that.

Glad you learned something today, LT sarcasm.

That notwithstanding, I know when I've been the target of retribution.  Please don't insult my intelligence with speculation that everything is random in spammer-land.  Anyone with any amount of experience here knows that's not the case.

40519[/snapback]

I see a failure to read and comprehend action going on here. Pointing out the obverse of your allegations is hardly an attempt to insult your intelligence. I'm sitting here thinking now that with my "experience" dating back to entering memory addresses and data into a computing device by flipping front panel switches would probably fall into your "any amount of experience" field.

Let's also not ignore that your first post asked "Does anyone agree with me? Can we get this changed?" What is your problem with receiving any kind of a response to your query?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<snip>

Let's also not ignore that your first post asked "Does anyone agree with me? Can we get this changed?"  What is your problem with receiving any kind of a response to your query?

40524[/snapback]

...Come now, Wazoo, that's hardly fair ... Mabu has yet to attack the opinion of anyone who agrees with her/him ! :) <g>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Come now, Wazoo, that's hardly fair ... Mabu has yet to attack the opinion of anyone who agrees with her/him ! :) <g>

40527[/snapback]

Wow, in tracking through the "new posts since last visit" I only just now noted that this poster was the same poster complaining about a certain "forum nazi" in another Topic, another Forum section .... guess I need to start looking at the "who posted this" data rather than focusing on the content of a post, huh? Here I was thinking that it was a bit odd to see so many "disgruntled" folks showing up the same day .. feeling a bit silly to only now note that "those folks" were actually only this one person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reports feed the SpamCopDNSBL.  No reports, the IP address falls off the list. ...

40088[/snapback]

So what are the primary options? Just report/munged report/cancel? Being a mole I'm not sure. If it is not there already then I would think a "silent report" button (effectively mole status for that report) might be a useful option. I gather this is more or less what Mabu meant by
... Why not skip them and send to an uplink? ...

40083[/snapback]

The SC FAQ - What is "mole" reporting? - recommends to stick with one or the other but is surely not meant as a universal prescription?

I fear

... the most popular spam-haven-hosting companies, like those in China or Russia ...

40071[/snapback]

is too subjective - or too variable, if not, to accommodate an automated (and universal) response but of course the real killer for that idea is that, apart from spam trap hits, it would lead, as Wazoo has said, to these not being listed at all - since the SCBL is/must be driven by SC evidence.

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  

×