Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

SpamSpam's Achievements


Member (2/6)



  1. Grammatically, is it Mailchimp? Otherwise, I don't know spamchimp. abuse@mailchimp.com
  2. Abuse contact for ' -' is abuse at selectel.ru
  3. - is info at ecotelecom.ru
  4. Abuse contact for ' -' is ip-admin at violin.co.th
  5. Also regarding, I'd submit the report with the network owner unchecked, so that it is counted towards the spamcop-bl.
  6. https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-8-30-201-0-1/pft?s=
  7. I suspect is part of multitudes of world computer-network cesspools that isn't worth reporting directly to the network owner (I've done a brief lookup that leads me to believe nothing would be done; or, the computer-network owner or spam operation would do something spammy like move the spamming to another of their spamming IP addresses--snowshoe. SC and Senderbase have the records of the network owner's IP spamminess (network reputation) that I go by and more-so trust than spammers/spam networks). As an of-this-moment-example, the same network owner is spamming from one IP address 48 of 90 days--one day spam, two days spam...48 days spam...
  8. 1. Does SC query APNIC at all? 2. ARIN isn't showing the APNIC "referral" (APNIC IP address contacts) that valli.org shows (bottom half of the page). http://multirbl.valli.org/whois-lookup/ Is there another link on ARIN to see the APNIC referral; valli is pulling/parsing ARIN together with APNIC data somehow? The only link I've seen so far has no referral to the APNIC IP address contact. 3. Vague SC suggestion: Query ARIN, APNIC, etc offline and build an all-inclusive offline, semi-up-to-date ARIN, APNIC, etc database and query it as one database.
  9. https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-63-236-31-128-1/pft?s= ( - https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-63-236-76-0-1/pft?s= ( -
  10. .Abuse contact for - is abuse at selectel.ru
  11. One IP address example: www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblock&ip= "In the past 89.8 days, it has been listed ... for a total of 72.5 days". I'm against sending typical reports to an ISP that hasn't cleaned up an IP address in 72 days.. www.senderbase.org/lookup/ip/?search_string= In the last month the IP address has a "spam level" of "critical", sending out "critical" number of spam. I'm against sending typical reports to an ISP that hasn't cleaned up an IP in 30 days and is sending "critical" numbers of spam from that same IP address.
  12. Network Reputation: Some networks wouldn't be on "my" preferred internet; it's just not individual "dirty" IPs but whole networks that are dirty with corresponding admins that control/maintain a dirty network. I say bolden the dirty label of the dirty networks. Too many people don't know the dirty network ecosystems vs the cleaner networks. Those people that know the "dirtiness" of networks--some network dirtiness instances--take a look at it's public reputation and it's often "clean" and "green". I've been going by the Senderbase.org verbage of 30-day spam period rating of individual IP addresses, "medium", "very high", "critical", blank (no rating) as one indicator of the overall "dirtiness" of how a network want's to maintain a clean/dirty network. Or, take a look at the SpamCop BL for a dirty IP (maintained by the network) that is dirty for more than say 5 days; how many days does a dirty network need before the network itself is culpable? Another effort that trys to keep track of network reputations is sitevet.com/hosts / hostExploit. I'd like to see more use of send the report to "clean" caretakers / abuse#isp.net[at]admin.spamcop.net (these reports get forward to secret addresses specificly set up to handle SpamCop reports) and more indication on the SpamCop submission page of "dirty" networks that aren't even worth the time to submit a report directly to the dirty network (instead sending the report to clean caretakers).
  13. Thanks lisati. I read the FAQ upon your mention.
  14. Do "bad" networks always get treated the exact same way as "good" networks? Meaning a bad network may reset the 24-hour clock for the next century every few days? I suppose the added reports count towards devnull reports too that I read up on some today for the first time. (I've actually been a member of SC since perhaps 2000 - 2005, or whatever year it was. Having lots of nuances to SC and SC spam-reporting it's difficult to know all the aspects of SC). Guess my point is, that with the "bad" networks that consistantly spew "very high" and "critical" numbers of spams, as Senderbase puts it, that it seems SpamCop treats "bad" networks too nicely by resetting a 24-hour clock when the network as a whole has "very high" or "critical" numbers of spams for days, reported up to a month by Senderbase for the exact IP address(es). At least for particular 30-day high spam sending IP addresses, they could care less--as the spewing continues for commonly days. Where's my days- or months-long clock for "bad" networks that spew for days or more than a month, rhetorical?
  • Create New...