Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
craigd

unable to get blacklist reports - driving us mad

Recommended Posts

Hi Petzl, Thanks for the suggestion. I have done this, but will this mean black listing notifications from spamcop will go to that address? If so I will be very keen to do it.

At present connect.com.au who own the IP range are supposed to forward any messages regarding my IP address but in practice this hasn't been happening. This goes right back to my initial question beginning this topic, which is how can I get spamcop to contact a working email address with any notifications on my mailserver. I do very much hope that your suggestion will solve this.

41033[/snapback]

There is a way to get yourself added as a 'third party' Unfortunately since many spammers use this, some reporters uncheck all 'third party' boxes.

I saw that you wanted to remove the 'offending' party. That is called 'listwashing' from the anti-spam crowd and is not an acceptable practice. If the reporter is duly confirmed and is reporting you, then you can get disciplinary action against them - if you can prove it. If you can prove it, that means you have a confirmed subscription list and that your unsubscribe function is working.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that the unsubscribe address for Crikey borders on being spam itself.

Free Trial

Would you like to sample Crikey for two weeks absolutely free? Enter your email address below and we’ll send you ten Crikey Daily emails crammed with news, opinion, gossip, analysis, humour and scuttlebutt, making you an 'insider' in a world of powerful puppeteers.

     Send me Crikey!

You can subscribe at any time during your free trial, but if you don't make up your mind on our brand of maverick journalism by the end of it, you'll automatically become a Crikey....

copy of actual link If you'd like to unsubscribe from Crikey click here.

does the previous quote sound like a proper unsubscribe link to you? It is the first part of the page that opens when you click on the unsubscribe link sent with the introduction letter.

The page does contain two separate unsubscribe links farther down, but you need to know what kind of subscriber you are to know which link to use.

Edited by dbiel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have sent a request to the deputies to clarify this issue.  It has always been my understanding (perhaps back to my usenet days) that it required 2 REPORTERS to list an IP address, but the actual FAQ (http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/297.html) states: The SCBL will not list an IP address with only one report filed.

41059[/snapback]

You have to read carefully what I wrote. The listing of the IP falls within the description provided in the FAQ.

"While several people have reported mail from your server in the past,"

That means more than one person has reported mail from this IP. The number of reporters is also historical, not necessarily current.

"the recent reports have all been from a single user"

For the past few weeks the only reports against that IP (31 in total) have been by a single user. Even though it's a single user, the history on the IP is many more users reporting spam, which qualifies the IP for listing.

"I have written them and am awaiting a response with their explanation of why they are reporting the mail as spam."

I have heard back from the user and will be responding to the contact with more infomation tonight.

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have sent a request to the deputies to clarify this issue.  It has always been my understanding (perhaps back to my usenet days) that it required 2 REPORTERS to list an IP address, but the actual FAQ (http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/297.html) states: The SCBL will not list an IP address with only one report filed.

41059[/snapback]

and for the record ... here's what I sent out many hours prior, but apparently ignored, even though it does cover some of the same ground Richard points out in a response to Steven's later e-mail ...

From: "Wazoo"

To: "SpamCop, Deputies" <deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net>

Cc: "SpamCop, Argyle" <service[at]admin.spamcop.net>

Subject: BL issue / description

Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 02:22:44 -0600

http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=6038

It got massive quick, complaints about the speed/lack of

'official' e-mail replies.

IP address in question - 203.31.48.230

(currently not listed)

User - craigd - <e-mail address snipped>

Richard is mentioned on page 3 (Linear Post #42)

In Linear Post #44, the statement is made;

"I may be wrong but I understand from the spamcop deputy's email that while

several complaints had been made, they were all by the same person."

Request something be posted to clear up / explain /

amplify the "one person got an IP address listed"

scenario, as that doesn't quite square with the FAQ.

Although one can go with that continued reports

may keep the IP address listed, this isn't what is

said in this Topic/Discussion ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have to read carefully what I wrote.  The listing of the IP falls within the description provided in the FAQ.

41070[/snapback]

Thank you for this update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have asked spamcop by email several times to direct emails regarding this IP address to us, but have not had any success. I guess this is just "too hard".

41037[/snapback]

But you still seem to misunderstand the way the SpamCop system works. The listing has nothing to do with a domain but with the IP address of the mail server. So it is perfectly sensible to send reports to the owner of the IP address.

It is unfortunate that the owner of your IP block is unable to forward the spam reports to you. In that case I'd think that you might consider moving to a new supplier who can help you with the service you require.

Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never realized just how easy it was to get relisted. One user apparently receiving one email per day from a server with a historical volume of something like 100,000 per day and a current volume of something like 10,000 per day. It does seem a bit extreme to me. And I would also have to say that the term "list washing" would not apply since we are referring to a single user.

The unsubscribe link in the current crikley newsletter is of a proper format. It does require typing in the email address, but the "to" line of the sent email does actually show the single address the mail was sent to which is a positive point unlike many newletters that are sent blind.

The from address does match the email.

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z892799280zdd...150e54bfd89aeaz Canceled report

The email definitely does not fall in the "normal" spam category, but could fall in the category of someone not wanting to receive it.

The unsubscribe link does seem to work properly displaying an acknowledgment that it was accepted. I will try to report back on actually how long it takes to become effective.

Here is a case where I would agree with the original poster that SpamCop should provide the information to the sender to allow him to remove the name for the list.

31 reports from a single user over numerous days (no reports for any other user in the current time period.) on email that on the face of it does not appear to be normal spam (unfortunately the subject line does not identify the newletter, only the current topics covered) which unfortunately does add to the "spammy" look when reviewing the list of reports.

Anyway, this is just my thoughts on the subject.

1st edit: the unsubscribe process does generate an email sent to the address that was unsubscribed which serves both as a second confirmation of the removal and in the case of removal being requested by someone else without authorization to do so, the option to resubscribe. And in this case the subject line does clearly identify the mail "Remove subscription <MungedByMe[at]ForThisPost.net> to Crikey Free Trial"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So they require a confirmation on the removal but not the subscribe?

41081[/snapback]

Wrong, sorry I did not make it clear enough. They send a confirmation. The recipeint only needs to reply if they do NOT what to be removed. It is sent to avoid someone unsubscribing someone else without their knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong, sorry I did not make it clear enough.  They send a confirmation.  The recipeint only needs to reply if they do NOT what to be removed.  It is sent to avoid someone unsubscribing someone else without their knowledge.

41082[/snapback]

Correct, but do they do the same in case someone does not want to subscribe? That seems to be the main problem here. I could sign up my bosses/friend/enemies... account but they would need to unsubscribe to get off a list they never subscribed to...still fishy to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct, but do they do the same in case someone does not want to subscribe?  That seems to be the main problem here.  I could sign up my bosses/friend/enemies... account but they would need to unsubscribe to get off a list they never subscribed to...still fishy to me.

41085[/snapback]

Thanks, I was thinking the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct, but do they do the same in case someone does not want to subscribe?  That seems to be the main problem here.  I could sign up my bosses/friend/enemies... account but they would need to unsubscribe to get off a list they never subscribed to...still fishy to me.

41085[/snapback]

I would disagree with the term "fishy" in this case, but failure to use confirmed Opt in definately opens the door for some major problems down the road. Currently the issue relates to only one user.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would disagree with the term "fishy" in this case, but failure to use confirmed Opt in definately opens the door for some major problems down the road.  Currently the issue relates to only one user.

41087[/snapback]

It is only to take one to formally complain to Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) about their sending email without being asked and no link for unsubscribing they would be in trouble

Even if a link for unsubscribing has been corrected no one receiving spam should ever confirm their email address by clicking it This is often a ploy by spammers just to confirm legitimate addresses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have to read carefully what I wrote.  The listing of the IP falls within the description provided in the FAQ.

"While several people have reported mail from your server in the past,"

That means more than one person has reported mail from this IP.  The number of reporters is also historical, not necessarily current.

"the recent reports have all been from a single user"

For the past few weeks the only reports against that IP (31 in total) have been by a single user.  Even though it's a single user, the history on the IP is many more users reporting spam, which qualifies the IP for listing.

"I have written them and am awaiting a response with their explanation of why they are reporting the mail as spam."

I have heard back from the user and will be responding to the contact with more infomation tonight.

Richard

41070[/snapback]

WOW. I must say I'm absolutely disgusted with what I've read here. I'm a small business owner with 1 server including a few domains and I've been having a time intermittently being listed on this site. I've requested information via email and have gotten help to resolve any issues that were relevant and was appreciative of that.

However... just this statement alone really bothers me. Basically what you're saying is... someone for instance who's recently taken over and IP, or had trouble in the past with an exploit or otherwise but has done everything possible to keep their system clean, can/will be blacklisted by a SINGLE reporter if they've had ANY previous reports.

I'm starting to understand why I spend so much time on this site trying to figure out why I get listed for a few hours here and there.

As for the OP, all I can say is his policy/format for his newsletter certainly left him open for vulnerability, people replying here seem to prefer to spend more time crucifying someone trying to rectify a problem.

The site I would hope is here to not only protect those who don't want spam, but to help those who "unwillingly" send, process, relay or otherwise. I do realize there are links to documentation, email addresses to request information from etc. But coming across to people geniuinely trying to better their system with "lrn2sysadmin" attitudes doesn't help anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
people replying here seem to prefer to spend more time crucifying someone trying to rectify a problem.

The site I would hope is here to not only protect those who don't want spam, but to help those who "unwillingly" send, process, relay or otherwise.

42378[/snapback]

Please remember that this site is (for the most part) just other users of one or another part of the spamcop systes. One of the few exceptions, actually, is the person you quoted.

I am a system admin for my real job and part of that is dealing with lots of spam (current numbers are 72.7% today and 74.9% for the month of all messages received were quarantined). Some of out employees have in excess of 97% of their messages quarantined. So obviously, that is where my focus is.

We do not have or use mailing lists directly. We are a public company and our Investor Relations company does maintain a list of interested investors, but they are confirmed opt-in and drop people for 2 consequtive bounces. I have never seen a complaint about these, though they do use their own servers we would get any spamvertized reports. I have seen complaints by people who stop receiving the message because of the bounces, but I have always heard good remarks after explaining why it is done that way (to protect future users of that email address).

If we start to receive complaints, we will be finding a new cIR company, and I made that clear to them when we started. A quick check on the IP I receive their messages at home from (12.130.26.198) shows a single report in the history from Feb and this is a major IR firm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However... just this statement alone really bothers me. Basically what you're saying is... someone for instance who's recently taken over and IP, or had trouble in the past with an exploit or otherwise but has done everything possible to keep their system clean, can/will be blacklisted by a SINGLE reporter if they've had ANY previous reports.

42378[/snapback]

There is no one with the background on the scenario you quoted RW replying to besides those two people, and one will note that the suggested follow-up didn't happen ... so for the rest of "us" .. I can only point to the FAQ that talks about What is the SpamCop Blocking List (SCBL)? .... and specifically point to the portion that talks about the math involved in the listing/de-listing process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WOW. I must say I'm absolutely disgusted with what I've read here. I'm a small business owner with 1 server including a few domains and I've been having a time intermittently being listed on this site. I've requested information via email and have gotten help to resolve any issues that were relevant and was appreciative of that.

<snip>

As for the OP, all I can say is his policy/format for his newsletter certainly left him open for vulnerability, people replying here seem to prefer to spend more time crucifying someone trying to rectify a problem.

The site I would hope is here to not only protect those who don't want spam, but to help those who "unwillingly" send, process, relay or otherwise. I do realize there are links to documentation, email addresses to request information from etc. But coming across to people geniuinely trying to better their system with "lrn2sysadmin" attitudes doesn't help anyone.

42378[/snapback]

It all depends on attitude. Even some of those who come here so mad and frustrated they say things that are offensive, if they are sincere about learning, do get a lot of help from the experienced admins. They usually calm down and are appreciative. For the know-it-alls and the ones who think that the internet should conform to their standards (in other words the ones with no netiquette or even etiquette), they never understand.

Spamcop works as an early warning system for those who are trying to better their system. If they don't correct their problems, they will be picked up by other lists very quickly. If the IP address was previously dirty and they fix things, they won't be on the spamcop bl since spamcop is automatic, but there are plenty of other bls out there that they will be on. They will have to convince the owners of those bls, they have fixed the problems one by one.

Since usually answers are given by other users, they are not always couched in 'customer service' language. However, they usually contain good advice.

Email is not 'simple' - and to have a working internet, those who are admins need to understand a little more about how it works than end users. But even technically non-fluent end users can understand the basic principles.

Some email problems are like no taillights on an automobile. It is a small thing, but not if you have an accident because you didn't see a car ahead of you. So people get tickets when they have a burned out taillight. People get on blocklists for the same caliber problem.

Miss Betsy

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  

×