Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

newhorizon's Achievements


Member (2/6)



  1. Well, you know better than I about how folks react to all this schtuff. But lemme nevertheless audaciously submit that it's reasonable for us run-of-the-mill spam victims to assume that the "reference URL" always shows what was shown at the time of the report. When those expectations are dashed, me-thinks it's a bit of an "ouch" for them, even if only a shrug for you. Not looking for a reply. Just throwing an opinion out there...
  2. I get that a lot. I guess I'm a slow reader - I couldn't come close to reading all 55 of those notes in under 1 or 2 mins. Maybe when I reach the rank of "Advanced Member" like most of the rest of you, I'll know how to carefully read more quickly. Well meanwhile, come the end of this year, I hope y'all be patient with me if I come back and check again about dbiel's suggestion to add the rest of the icons into the bottom of the page of the list of topics....
  3. Silly me for not providing a C&C warning. So I goes to the search page, I types in "Forum configuration changes" (incl double quotes), I selects "SpamCop Lounge" and clicks on "Perform the Search". The above note is the only match. Does anybody have an estimate for how much time a person - especially some newbie - needs to search, read, and/or otherwise root around this forum before feeling that s/he can "safely" post a suggestion? Not rhetorical.
  4. That doesn't explain it, imho. Going back to my tracking URL (shown in post #1), it now shows: >Resolving link obfuscation >http://888-luvu.com/z/ > host (getting name) no name >Tracking link: http://888-luvu.com/z/ >[report history] >Resolves to >Routing details for [... etc ...] Which is different than what you (Wazoo) and I saw earlier where this same URL resolved the same domain to So I guess something changed. And now I've learned that a given tracking URL can change what it shows us over time. Me-thinks that the dynamic content of a tracking URL makes it difficult for folks (like us) to have a discussion about what happened at the time the reports were sent...?
  5. I'm still lost, but for a different reason. At http://www.spamcop.net/sc?track=http%3A%2F...luvu.com%2Fz%2F we see: >Parsing input: http://888-luvu.com/z/ >host (getting name) no name > >Reporting addresses: >renbin[at]mail.he.cn >ct-abuse[at]abuse.sprint.net >anti-spam[at]chinanet.cn.net So it's looking like 888-luvu.com resolves to in one case but resolves to in another case? Maybe I'm missing something painfully obvious...?
  6. I see a report being sent to bad_tracking[at]devnull.spamcop.net ( http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z673954712zaa...2f08fdf877da99z ). A first for me. I shor am powerful curious to know what this "bad_tracking" business means....?
  7. Maybe you're right - but I gotta say that I can't buy into the notion that conserving screen space is worth leaving icons entirely unexplained. In any case, it seems from this thread we're in agreement that adding those icons is a good suggestion. Yet altho' Wazoo's educated speculation is perhaps informative, I hope y'all will understand when I say I'm left to wonder why folks would be inclined to post suggestions if they're apparently just /dev/null'd (ie, neither (a) implemented nor ( is the actual reason provided why the request is denied). BTW, is it just my screen, or are the "Poll (New)" and "Poll (No New)" icons exactly the same? And btw (again), how about "Not New" instead of "No New"?
  8. Ah, gotchya. Good reason. Historically, I've found SpamCop useful not only for sending abuse reports, but for simply determining an externally-valid abuse address (by typing ONLY the IP address or the domain name into SC's text box). With SC sometimes using non-public addresses only, this usefulness seems to be fading. I guess I'll stick to http://www.abuse.net/lookup.phtml (but it doesn't allow IP addresses). No need to reply - just kvetching.
  9. (Fast-forward roughly 15 weeks...) Any word? The icons have changed in design - we've got triangles instead of dots now. But they're still not explained in the legend.
  10. Maybe I'm not fully understanding, but let me ask: why conceal ISP abuse addresses behind these [at]routes.spamcop.net addresses?
  11. I wasn't sure if you're advocating 550's over bouncing, and I'm not really a mail server SysAdmin, but I think, if you'll permit me the audacity, that bouncing is the only way to go where the enterprise's SMPT server has little or no knowledge of which addresses are valid throughout the enterprise. Eg: maybe the SMTP server for almamater.edu has no knowledge of the Email addresses at chem.almamater.edu, math.almamater.edu, alum.almamater.edu. And so it's up to the sub-domains to do the (delayed) bouncing. If this makes no sense, you may resoundingly ignore me. Oh, and somebody once told me that 550's (as opposed to delayed bounces) can help a dictionary attack go much faster. (not good)
  12. Frustration, yes. But those who know me well know my skin is thinner than it oughtta be. So me-thinks you're BOTH right. I want to spend more time looking that over than I have today. Off hand, looks good. Later.
  13. I'm not seeing the sense of leaving off the blue envelopes with black dots. So count me as being very much in favor of the above.
  14. How much time would I have needed to spend to keep tabs on other topics to be able to discern that? (Yes, OK, don't tell me: if I had read them, I'd know *this* answer too!) :| So anyway, that's a "nay" to the suggestion box idea...? I understand what netiquette says about lurking. But it says nothing about faulting a newbie for not dismissing what's clearly stated.
  15. Done. Yeah, moving this thread about a proposed SpamCop feature into a forum where SpamCop discussions are *discouraged* seemed strange. But I got over it.
  • Create New...