What does it take to get an ISP in the black list?

[lwc]

I feel I can complain until tommorow and SpamCop ain't impressed...

[Telarin]

Read the "What is Listed" section of the SpamCop FAQ linked at the top of this page.

[lwc]

Oops, I meant Spamcop (now I can't edit it - I would appreciate it if someone edited it)!

[lwc]

Let me ask this then - must I enable the checkbox next to "report to a Third party interested in email source" in order for the sender's system to get blacklisted?

Or in other words, if I want to complain to a sender's system and not about a sender's system, should I just turn said option off and this would make sure it stays only between myself and the sender's system?

[Miss Betsy]

There is a complicated algorithym to determine what IP addresses are listed on the scbl. One reporter can't get an ISP listed. Only if there are reports from more than reporter and in addition whatever criteria is needed to get the IP address listed.

There is no way that a reporter can manipulate reports to get an IP address listed (or, at least no way that I know of, and probably there is no way since spamcop is careful about its integrity and would immediately nip any attempt asap).

There is a lag also between reports and when the bl says that it is listed, I believe. I don't think the actual bl experiences that lag - just what you see when you query the website.

If you are annoyed because someone has not unsubscribed you when you asked, it may be that you are the only reporter (although maybe not the only subscriber) with that problem. Then no matter how many reports you send, nothing will happen. It is better to complain to the list administrator.

OTOH, if it is ordinary spam, keep reporting. Sooner or later, there will be other reports.

Miss Betsy

[turetzsr]

Let me ask this then - must I enable the checkbox next to "report to a Third party interested in email source" in order for the sender's system to get blacklisted?

...No. Telarin explained how you can get the answer to this question, already. If there's something about his suggestion you don't understand, or something about the article he pointed to that you don't understand, please ask.

Or in other words, if I want to complain to a sender's system and not about a sender's system, should I just turn said option off and this would make sure it stays only between myself and the sender's system?

...Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking here. Can you please clarify further? Thanks!

[dbiel]

Oops, I meant Spamcop (now I can't edit it - I would appreciate it if someone edited it)!

Edited per your request

[lwc]

list administrator simply ignores me. The ISPs ignore me. And now it seems Spamcop ignores me too because the other people in the list don't use Spamcop (they probably don't even know what's Spamcop).

Thanks for the edit.

What I fail to understand from the links is what's the difference between enabling and disabling "report to a Third party interested in email source". Does it control whether I want to blacklist the sender's system or not (not=just using Spamgouret to send an abuse letter to the sender's system)? If not, what does it do?

[StevenUnderwood]

What I fail to understand from the links is what's the difference between enabling and disabling "report to a Third party interested in email source". Does it control whether I want to blacklist the sender's system or not (not=just using Spamgouret to send an abuse letter to the sender's system)? If not, what does it do?

It does not. Every report you submit adds to the count for blocklisting. The actual listing depends on other factors, however.

The "Administrator of network where email originates" lines are where SpamCop has determined reports should go based on the abuse.net site and registration details.

Sometimes large ISP's provide small ranges of addresses to others (businesses, for instance) to run their own servers. Because those small IP ranges could also be the spammers themselves, SpamCop will not send reports automatically to them by default.

They can, however, sign up to receive the "Third party interested in email source" reports if the reporter wishes. Of course, spammers could also sign up for these reports. Reporters must decide whether they wish to send reports to these third parties. The checking of the boxes is this decision.

One company that has asked for every report spamcop sends, spamcop[at]imaphost.com, has a bit of history here. Use the search function on that address to find out more. Some reporters will not send them the third party reports.

[Miss Betsy]

If you are sending spamcop reports, they are going to the listed abuse address. If a leased group has signed up for third party reports and you check the box, they will get the report also. If the leased group has not signed up to get third party reports, they won't get them. Who gets the reports does not determine whether or not the IP address is listed. A report adds to the count for the algorithym for the blocklist, but, as Steven said, there are other factors that are counted also.

If you are having a problem with a particular list, IMHO, it is better to send manual reports to the abuse address. As, I think, I said before, one reporter will not get an IP listed and unless others have the same problem as you are - and go to the trouble of reporting via spamcop, your spamcop reports will not get them listed.

It is much better, IMHO, if you have a problem with someone with whom you have a previous connection, to pursue it outside of spamcop, including phone calls and letters. You can use spamcop to help determine the correct abuse address.

It is frustrating when everyone ignores your request to be unsubscribed. However, spamcop only sends the reports and only adds IP addresses to the blocklist when it becomes obvious that many people are being sent unsolicited email.

Since you seem to have a problem remembering what the name for spamcop is, you might double check that you have done exactly what was requested to unsubscribe from this list. Sometimes when things don't work the way I expect, it turns out that I have been too hasty and have mistyped or skipped a step.

Miss Betsy

[dbiel]

It does not. Every report you submit adds to the count for blocklisting. The actual listing depends on other factors, however.

Just so somebody does not read this wrong; Every report you submit does NOT add to the count of blocking, it is only every spam message (regardless of the number of reports sent for that message) that you report which adds to the count used for determining if a specific IP address appears on the SpamCopBL and for how long.

Reports, are just that, simply a notification to interested users that a specific email message has been "reported" as spam. If the list of reports sent includes 10 address, it still only counts as one "Report" against the IP address that was identified as the source of the spam message.

[lwc]

First of all, you must realize the real equation is not even "many reports=blacklisting", but "many people reporting to Spamcop=blacklisting" and what can we do that 99% of the people don't even know what Spamcop is and if even if did, they don't plan to register to it. And even if they did, they don't plan to actually use it.

Now, the university's website for our courses displays our e-mail addresses (which we must give them), so what those students did was just copying and pasting those addresses to their programs (before they realized it's so easy to copy and paste the addresses, they used to just use the site's internal conact form, but this form spams and reveals addresses just the same).

Now why would the site's admins be so lame to allow all that is another story, but as usual they don't care about all this, even when I quoted them their own site's rules (forbridding to steal internal databases, etc.). It's just part of the overall apathy of "just let it slide".

I do not know those students and I certainly wouldn't contact them in any other way than by e-mail (which they simply ignore).

Also, the stuff they send for the tests can't be reached otherwise. We used to have an unofficial site for our courses, but its admin is gone half the time, which is why the students who sent stuff resorted to the e-mail underground. What I'm saying is I can't afford to miss the stuff they send. But I only need part of it, while they force me to get megas and megas of files. The right thing to do would be keep using said site and there I could choose what to download or not. Like the ISP told me, if I wanted to unsubscribe, they'd personally force him to unsubscribe me, but what I want is for him to respect the rules (the University's rules, our ISP's contract and hopefully soon our country's "opt-in spam only" law). And honestly, I also want the ISP to respect its own contract instead of trying resorting to just solving the symptom (read: unsubscribing yours truly to get rid of my complaints...just like I bet the University's site's admins know my e-mail address would be deleted from it when I graduate and all they have to do is hold on until it happens...).

[Miss Betsy]

I forgot that you were the one with the university stuff.

Getting IP address blacklisted probably wouldn't help you either. I bet that you can eventually find some other IT types (and maybe some other students who are technically fluent) who do understand what you are saying and enlist them to 'educate' the admin. As with spamcop, numbers mean something.

Miss Betsy