Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

3,449 profile views

RobiBue's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (3/6)



  1. or an option: coal from the locomotives (they are not used atm I believe), build a steam generator, use snow (melted) for steam and viola, you got yourself some power and heat too 😀 ... when we were young 😁 I take it power or internet is out again... back to basic life it is
  2. Reminds me somewhat of a Judy Collins song....
  3. well, got some replies from them and they said that the IP I reported about was not handled by google cloud platform.... heck, the whole internet is the cloud... and anything google is in the google cloud.... marronies!!! (or maybe I am the marroni... ðŸĪŠ )
  4. when I get the "Can't send report" message, I simply resubmit and usually the second time around it works. Honestly, I don't know if I'm "allowed" to resubmit spam (usually not,) but in these cases I believe these measures are warranted. The reason I resubmit is that reports are not sent if the error arises, and it is not possible (yet) to manually force a report to be re-sent.
  5. Yeah they fixed it 😁 but there for a couple of days thereafter the whole site was a mess until they fixed the css access which wasn't being downloaded with the forum pages.... but they eventually fixed that too 👍
  6. "Internal handoff" means that there is no reporting address to be found since it is internally and could be anywhere in any company. It's basically the same as either of the three private IPv4 addresses:,, or the more common home network used in most home networks. This means that there is no set "reporting address" to contact the "owner" or its upstream owner. SC is correct in this assessment and, no matter how strongly you might feel about it being wrong, it still won't find a reporting address since there is none to find. I hope this explanation helps Just in case I am unable to explain it clearly, there is a Wikipedia article related to Unique Local Address Especially in the Properties section
  7. I use https://support.google.com/code/contact/cloud_platform_report instead. with Firefox it works. In the section about Cloud Platform Service I put "not sure" since emails don't really fall into any of those categories... then I place a short note about the received: header line in the Abuse Details box and attach the full email in the additional logs (the plural is somewhat misleading since only one file can be attached...) In the abuse details text box I also mention the lines spf=pass (google.com: domain of ????@gmail.com designates as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=????@gmail.com; of both Authentication-Results: and ARC-Authentication-Results: in the headers.
  8. I don't know. I sure hope so, although they'd investigate them just as they'd investigate the reports sent through SC.... of course, if the reports to google abuse bounce, then the chance is higher by submitting them manually and directly.
  9. My apologies. Due to the CSS misconfiguration of the forum I somehow overlooked that part. All good now
  10. The problem is that abuse@google.com bounces (25774 sent : 16690 bounces) and that's why SC comes back with "no reporting address" If you want to report to google, you have to report manually through your email and not through SC.... I am thinking that those bounces created SC's latest submission hiccups.
  11. I believe the mail server is reaching its HDD limit, hence the SMTP 452 #4.3.1 errors. Somehow I think there is a cleanup job running in the background, but it is also possible that the server's HDD is starting to lose capacity due to corrupted sectors (this is just a thought, although it's feasible taking into consideration the age of the system...) and with that, even a cleanup job won't keep the system happy for long...
  12. in regard to the 452 #4.3.1 errors: the receiving smtp server is most probably at the end of free disk space here I would say that bounces.spamcop.net has reached its free HDD space (or the allocated space for the mail server) maybe @Richard W or @Lking could put in a word to the server's system admin to run a cleanup job (just a loud thought here 🖖)
  13. The problem is not that the site isn't upgraded to HTTPS. The problem is that the certificate is issued to *.cloudfront.net and that is what needs to be fixed... but I agree! I am browsing the forum with a security exception, which doesn't give me much confidence...
  14. Hello Perrin, not knowing how you got informed that you are "blacklisted" leaves me at a loss too. If you enter here (spamcop) your email address web address individually -- that is as a single address (one line only) -- you will be able to see if your email/site are blacklisted by spamcop (SC) but somehow I doubt it by your description of the issue. As an example: I added www.spamcop.net in the field and here is the result: https://www.spamcop.net/sc?track=www.spamcop.net under Statistics you can see the status of the website in the block lists. It is possible that your problem does not stem from SC but from an individual provider who claims that the BL (block list) is from SC ... edit: IIRC SC BLs are only active for 24 hours, which means that after 24 hours they should expire if it was ever listed through this anti-spam service. (If I Remember Correctly SpamCop Block Listings)
  • Create New...