Error in recipient address

[rconner]

I wonder how many paying users add such addresses.

For my part, I DO run whois lookups and use admin addresses that I find, but only in the case of websites, and only when SC won't or can't find these links themselves. I also don't bother to do this for botnet-hosted websites (there are too many to report, and the legal grounds seem a bit ambiguous). Generally, I punt the latter cases to Knujon to see what they will do with them.

-- rick

[btech]

Good, so I'm not alone.

Prime example:

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z2146084171za...348cce6ff5d6c9z

Tracking message source: 81.9.55.218:
Routing details for 81.9.55.218
Cached whois for 81.9.55.218 : sde[at]cwn.ru ip-noc[at]cwn.ru
Using abuse net on ip-noc[at]cwn.ru
No abuse net record for cwn.ru
Using default postmaster contacts postmaster[at]cwn.ru
Message is 4 hours old
81.9.55.218 not listed in dnsbl.njabl.org
81.9.55.218 not listed in dnsbl.njabl.org
81.9.55.218 listed in cbl.abuseat.org ( 127.0.0.2 )
81.9.55.218 is an open proxy
81.9.55.218 not listed in accredit.habeas.com
81.9.55.218 not listed in plus.bondedsender.org
81.9.55.218 not listed in iadb.isipp.com

Defaults to the postmaster, but the IP-NOC is a recipient. I added them to the 'user-defined' and I really think it's best to do so, unless I hear otherwise from the Admins. If Ellen or Richard have any light to shed on the topic, I'd love to hear it; I'd rather not piss off the powers above if my adding these addresses is against a TOS or something.

[Farelf]

... IP-NOC is a recipient. I added them to the 'user-defined' and I really think it's best to do so, unless I hear otherwise from the Admins. If Ellen or Richard have any light to shed on the topic, I'd love to hear it; I'd rather not piss off the powers above if my adding these addresses is against a TOS or something.

You'd be more likely to draw some comment from Ellen in the NGs but there's little danger of uspetting anyone in this circumstance IMO - the address is revealed during the parser's retrieval of data (along with sde[at] being the owner's personal address). Added reporting is for "experts", implying no TOS implications for adding actual, verified routing and that is, AFAICT, the situation.

It might not be a good idea to add reports if the ISP is a known blackhat - some reporters would be checking SpamHaus to be sure they're not wasting their time or even verging on the counterproductive with added reports. I think a quick Google would serve the purpose as well (or better unless you're familiar with SpamHaus).

[Wazoo]

Re: the hyphenated Domain name issue .... Don has made a post into another Topic that states that this issue has been 'fixed' .. but waiting for code to actually be installed on the servers involved. Please see http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...ost&p=66178