Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

moonbroth's Achievements


Member (2/6)



  1. Update: the logjam cleared up in the last three hours. All seems to be running smoothly now. Cheers, Nick
  2. I'm based in the UK, and (at the time of writing) have a 23-hour backlog of emails queued up in my public account and waiting for Spamcop to POP them through to the private account. Guess it's just one of those Internet traffic congestion things. Still a delighted user of Spamcop for lo these many years... Cheers, Nick
  3. Found on NANAE: well worth the read! http://www.mortgagespam.com/soloway/MS_v_S...ONS_DEFAULT.pdf Brief summary: ROKSO top-10 spammer Robert Soloway gets sued by Microsoft. In discovery, spammer claims not to have the records requested. So the court issues a default judgement against the spammer unless he can produce the records requested... and even if he can, he'll have perjured himself. The order re: the default judgement is drafted by Microsoft, but the Judge beefs it up significantly before issuing it. All in all, I guess we're going to see another bankrupt spammer before too long...
  4. No: thanks, Merlyn! Cheers, Nick
  5. Jay Stuler's website with information about the lawsuit (inc. a Paypal link for donations) is at http://spamlawsuit.spamshield.org/ The case was recently discussed at Slashdot: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/19/2238208 Cheers, Nick
  6. Hi, sommerfeld -- I guess the question would be whether the message you receive has been personalised to you in any way whatsoever (other than the choice of email address to spam), or whether it's "impersonal" bulk mail. If the only personalisation is that the spammer knows your name and your email address (and possibly your company's/website's name or other easily scrapeable details), but the email is otherwise untargeted commercial drek, I'd report them. If the email appears to be well targeted (like the specialist recruitment spams you report getting), then -- until the volume of such 'occasional' emails grows out of all proportion -- I'd say (shudder) you should Just Hit Delete. I agree the wording is peculiar. Use common sense. The SpamCop Admins surely will. (NB: IANASCA). Cheers, Nick
  7. Well, "up to a point, Lord Copper." Marjolein's fine page still lists uce[at]ftc.gov, which has been dead for quite a while now. And many of the reporting addresses there aren't "authorities" (which was what the OP was after) -- they're useful, but they're not what was wanted. Cheers, Nick
  8. FWIW, I'm in your camp. Here's a couple more useful spam reporting addresses, other than spam[at]uce.gov (the new FTC reporting address, which replaced the old uce[at]ftc.gov last year): webcomplaints[at]ora.fda.gov to report spammers offering drugs (under their US brand names) to the Food and Drug Administration. They'll be interested irrespective of whether you or not or the "supplier" are based in the USA, whether or not the drugs actually exist, etc. enforcement[at]sec.gov for reporting stock-pumping scams (insider tips, recommendations, etc.) to the Securities and Exchange Commission, those stalwart defenders of capitalism. Hope these help! Meanwhile, I'll get back to running a furtive Project Honeypot, a customised SpamItBack, a deeply personal spam Vampire... and mourning the loss of MakeLoveNotSpam. (I loved the way that ran as a screen saver... more fun than Avast! anti-virus scanning... it'd be great if SpamItBack could do the same). Cheers, Nick
  9. I agree. But I have one of their honeypots running anyway. At the end of the day, the New York Spammer sent spam to an address that was demonstrably harvested off a website, after the CAN-spam Act came into force, which never "opted in" to anything. ISTM there's got to be a way to make that hurt... (When I was installing the honeypot last month, I got polite, proactive, human email from one of the guys at the Project offering to help with a configuration problem they identified at their end. I'm very impressed!) Cheers, Nick
  10. Old news. What happened since is visible on Spamhaus and the mirrored Savvis.info website. At the time of writing (late November), Spamhaus reports that Savvis.net are hosting 48 spammers including 12 ROKSO-listed hard-core spammers. When their little racket was exposed in September (see savvis.info for the disgusting details), they were hosting 146 spammers including 57 ROKSO-listed entities. So that's progress of a sort. However, it appears inconsistent with Savvis' press release promising to be good (and to use the ROKSO list as their "principal metric"). Popular opinion on NANAE (news.admin.net-abuse.email) holds that Savvis are happy to remain "bubbling under" as the 11th or 12th spammiest ISP on the Net, taking their pink money while ducking and diving to avoid a return to Spamhaus' monthly "Top Ten Worst spam ISPs" listing. If not, why are a dozen of the spammers they claim to be getting rid of still enjoying their Savvis-provided connectivity, almost three months later? Cheers, Nick
  11. That's true, and that's a problem, but -- as far as I can see -- the top-secret, final-forwarding-destination address isn't bouncing, only the intermediate [name][at]spamcop.net address. Now, are spammers stupid enough to send spam directly to [at]spamcop.net addresses? (I guess we're going to find out in the next few hours and days... ) Cheers, Nick
  12. I'm getting the same bounce messages, too. A test message sent to my [name][at]spamcop.net email address came back with: "5.1.2 - Bad destination host 'DNS Hard Error looking up filter2.cesmail.net (MX): NXDomain' (delivery attempts: 0)" I've had Spamcop POPping mail from my old account for processing for a couple of years now, and have made no changes to any relevant settings. Cheers, Nick
  13. You're more forgiving than me. When an alias starts getting spam, I am always tempted to change it to point to the bit-bucket. (Using a separate alias for everyone I buy from: merchants who leak my details to spammers aren't people I ever want to do business with or hear from again). But YMMV. Cheers, Nick
  14. I think the term you're looking for is "Empty Hat". Cheers, Nick
  15. Care to give me a reference? I will act as you suggest, if the evidence is convincing. Cheers, Nick
  • Create New...