RobiBue

Well, I don’t know about the forum spams being marked as spam in gmail since I only read them in SC. (Anyway, if you receive them as emails, then you should be able — as I do with other email forums — to mark them as never send to spam, and just delete the ones that are “offensive”, as forum emails come from the forum and not from the person sending them...) Ah, but automated mistakes are also bad. That’s the reason SC uses human decision to ultimately report the processed spam... ... of course this would be “semi-automated”, as the automation process would start as soon as 3 or 4 humans decided to mark the post as “spam” (only possible in SC online forums) The Latin phrase for that is “errare humanum est” (to err is human), and I have informed the admin “in situ” of a few odd misdirected posts (fat fingering and lack of caffeine are usually the reasons 🤫) Well, as Lking already explained: I figure, since the “spam-poster” needs an email account to sign in, these people have tons of throwaway addresses, since they can only use them once. (I am curious on how many addresses use the same domain, and thus prevent them, depending on the domain they use, to even create a SC account. Of course, if they use throwaway gmail, yahoo, hotmail, et.al. accounts, that wouldn’t be feasible...)

Well, my idea wasn't to thwart the spammers... (ok, in a way it is 😛) Instead, it would be meant to keep the forums "readable" after 3 or 4 users have reported the posts. They'd still be there if one really desires to read them, but they'd be hidden until they get handled by an admin. personally, they don't bother me (much), but I see the occasional OP who mentions the garbage in the forums (fora, fori, forii, whatever) and /me thinks/ (dangerous thing BTW) that there could be something that could be done besides one or two admins cleaning up garbage left by some 💩es... Usually we don't get much. It seems that today, though, is a different matter... some "recruiter" must have promised a lot of 💵 to some poor souls... That's actually my idea behind it. Have as few spamposts as possible visible to users, and I think that could accomplish it (I'm sure there are some of us users that report those spams, and if it's just 3 or 4 per post it would do the trick...) Just my thought... and then Lking could even enjoy his carb-sugar-caffeine drink in a more leisurely manner

If I query ARIN, I am told it’s a RIPE address... and the abuse email address given, ending in “.ru” does not help my confidence in its trustworthiness... I apologize to all honest Russians, but living here in the Americas leaves me with little trust in Russian owned web addresses. In God I trust, but not in Товарищ владимир и собрат дональд

I just had a brainfart (pardon my French)... Sooo, we have these pesky little 💩 that think that the readers of these forums are interested in their spew 🤮 Well, here is my proposal to alleviate the problem: Reported posts receive a mark/counter (see below: 1 reported...) Posts that are less than 24 hours old and reported more than 3 times get hidden (can be unhid[sic] by the user if he/she so desires) A user with a post reported 4 times would be prevented from posting in the forum (reading is ok, and pm an admin to ask for unblocking) Eventually a forum admin can do some garbage collection (GC) the way they usually do it this would be the forum view with all topics displayed (the two marked "4 reported" would be hidden by default) This would be the "Unread" topics view (hey, no spam but only if 4 reported them beforehand) in Content Types, the user could choose to see the spam (unless the forum admin already done the GC) Suggestions or ideas (or the other way around) are always welcome.

Now that's a new one to me! https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6558965774z4e9bfbe926ede8ccf1c336a6fb42d396z I wasn't thinking much about it when I sent the report, but today I received the following reply from NordVPN abuse desk: well, internet privacy vs internet privacy. ain't that swell...

Around 20 years ago, I used to send my wife occasional emails that would look like she sent them to me, just to make sure that she understood that anybody could send an email with spoofed/fake names. So the From: line in the headers is only valid for “trusted” emails. (And then, only if you trust them ) As Lking states, the Received: line in the headers is the one that gets you closest to the original sender. Many times, though, a computer is hacked and some malware is installed, sending the spam from that computer without the knowledge of the real user. Sending spam reports to the ISP of said user is necessary to alert the ISP that the user is either a spammer or has compromised hardware. It is also possible that a company has their own mail server which is open and can be used as a proxy. For the latter, it is also important to have their ISP inform them that they are running an open proxy allowing spammers to abuse their system. HTH

/me/ stands corrected. Thank you 😊. wasn’t aware that the headers could share importance with a DB file structure (mbox in this case)

atchooly.... is there a reason why the first From line doesn't have a colon ":" From bounce@menshealth.com Mon Jul 8 01:35:59 2019 Return-Path: <bounce@menshealth.com> X-Original-To: x Delivered-To: x in my book, that would be a reason for failure...

and so the G🦗H advances further to becoming a master 🙏 @gabrielt Glad you found the problem, and with it, also fixed an internal handoff problem with your qmail setup (malformed received line). (wish some big companies: -- with outlook and hotmail -- would fix theirs.... )

Unfortunately, that is not something we "mere mortal users" can solve unless we report manually and not through spamcop. This issue has to be resolved through fixing spamcop's whois lookup with the registries, and following the correct protocol, which apparently ARIN changed a while back. RIPE also seems to have made some changes, but it's affecting spamcop only marginally. Sadly many ARIN redirections to APNIC end up devnulled because cisco/talos seems to have only a minimal desire to keep spamcop up to date (at least so it seems to me personally) What happens now, is, that someone asks in this forum to fix the reporting address (which may or may not happen), and if this reporting address gets manually changed, it is then prone to end up being the wrong address when the registrant changes the info in the whois DB.

yeah, rule #3, but don't forget Russel's Corollary...

I fathom that somehow they were tipped off to remove certain spam-traps from their database, yours included, but not the other addresses. Just my thought...

no, it is not an error, as this network entry really didn't provide an abuse address. Heck, they really didn't provide an address at all: https://whois.nic.ad.jp/cgi-bin/whois_gw?codecheck-sjis=Japan+Network+Infromation+Center&amp;lang=%2Fe&amp;key=202.238.198.169&amp;submit=query&amp;type=&amp;rule= [ JPNIC database provides information regarding IP address and ASN. Its use ] [ is restricted to network administration purposes. For further information, ] [ use 'whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp help'. To only display English output, ] [ add '/e' at the end of command, e.g. 'whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp xxx/e'. ] Network Information: a. [Network Number] 202.238.198.0/24 b. [Network Name] IIJNET g. [Organization] IIJ Internet m. [Administrative Contact] JP00010080 n. [Technical Contact] JP00010080 p. [Nameserver] dns0.iij.ad.jp p. [Nameserver] dns1.iij.ad.jp [Assigned Date] 2018/06/25 [Return Date] [Last Update] 2018/06/25 17:35:04(JST) Less Specific Info. ---------- Internet Initiative Japan Inc. [Allocation] 202.238.192.0/18 More Specific Info. ---------- No match!! looking up the JP00010080 AS number (well, JP number, as it isn't really an AS number) I get: [ JPNIC database provides information regarding IP address and ASN. Its use ] [ is restricted to network administration purposes. For further information, ] [ use 'whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp help'. To only display English output, ] [ add '/e' at the end of command, e.g. 'whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp xxx/e'. ] Group Contact Information: [Group Handle] JP00010080 [Group Name] IP Address Contact [E-Mail] nic-sec@iij.ad.jp [Organization] Internet Initiative Japan Inc. [Division] [TEL] 03-5205-6500 [FAX] [Last Update] 2014/07/22 12:02:04(JST) apply@iij.ad.jp So nic-sec[at]iij.ad.jp would be the address to complain to, and I personally would add a comment to hostmaster[at]nic.ad.jp letting them know that the above entry has no abuse address listed and is spamming

1/2 way agree wit Petzl 😉 fake bounce: no, it's a real bounce spammer has you as return address: yes. That's why you're receiving the bounce 😞 The address that the spammer sent the spam to, is invalid (either never existed or got removed from usage) and since your address was the return address (From:) ... another reason to hate spammers... but no point in submitting that one, as the owner is legit... they just replied to you to let you know that "your" mail couldn't be delivered... that's another reason why spamcop goes after the Received: headers and not the From: email addresses 😉

Oh those times 👴🏼 I think I’m showing my age 😗🎶 But to our microVAX I had direct terminal access

I learn it from a book 🙃🤗🤣

almost -- it's missing the net (sorry for the late reply, have been busy otherwise. Even my spam folder accumulated several days of unreported spam 🤫)

if I use my "potaroo.net" IPv6 checker on the aforementioned IPv6 address: http://www.potaroo.net/cgi-bin/ipv6addr?pfx=2402%3Abc00%3A0%3Aa216%3A%3A19%3A124 I see the following comment in the APNIC entry: remarks: This information has been partially mirrored by APNIC from remarks: JPNIC. To obtain more specific information, please use the remarks: JPNIC WHOIS Gateway at remarks: http://www.nic.ad.jp/en/db/whois/en-gateway.html or remarks: whois.nic.ad.jp for WHOIS client. (The WHOIS client remarks: defaults to Japanese output, use the /e switch for English remarks: output) last-modified: 2014-03-10T22:41:03Z not shown above are other "last-modified" entries, the oldest dating 2009-11-04T06:54:54Z (that's a 10 year old listing), while the shown last-modified is 5 years old, whois.nic.ad.jp should have the current listing although I do not find the abuse address mentioned by MIG, I find 2 entries, both using the same email address https://whois.nic.ad.jp/cgi-bin/whois_gw?key=JP00076967/e and https://whois.nic.ad.jp/cgi-bin/whois_gw?key=JP00065730/e Group Contact Information: [Group Handle] JP00076967 [Group Name] networkhozen [E-Mail] SS01629@enecom.co.jp <--- [Organization] Energia Communications,Inc [Division] [TEL] 050-8201-2351 [FAX] [Last Update] 2017/04/05 16:53:06(JST) one is from 2011 and this one from 2017...

I like Idea #2!, especially if everybody is on-board. a) it would convince amazon to clean up their act with spammers and hosting them, b) especially if they start losing legitimate clientele

If amazon[dot]com is dev/null'ed, then placing it in the [User_Notification] field wouldn't change anything. It would still dev/null the address. @Lking, question about the "Note". Do I understand this correctly, that you send (apart from sending the spam to SC as "bcc") the spam (as attachment) to the three listed entities? How do you know where to send the spam before parsing it? When I send the spam to SC, it gets parsed and /* then */ I know whom to send it as well... (Color me confused)

Uhmmm... scri_pt is safe, but I do have 2 confessions to make: Currently I have no access to the pc I wrote the scri_pt on, and The scri_pt is a vba scri_pt for win word where I just dropped the spam in, ran the scri_pt, and attached the resulting text files to an email addressed to my reporting SC address... The scri_pt works roughly as follows: search for an https?:// domain name with regex and replace the numerical path (or ?argument) with the —ID...— line that’s basically the idea. fun to play and test reg(ular) ex(pressions) : https://regex101.com/r/wN6cZ7/478 (already set up for domain names) and SO has a nice answer for the whole URL: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/27745/getting-parts-of-a-url-regex sorry that I can’t be of more help atm... working these answers off a tablet...

Yeah, unfortunately the spam examples get removed by SC to conserve space (there are so many reports a DB can hold without having to add more HDD...) and when I checked my inbox, the spam from back then had already been deleted as well... but I found examples in my sent folder: I had written a quick and dirty scri_pt, which would replace the numbers after the host name with the text “?—ID-number-<n>-(munged)—“ where <n> is the last digit of the number... and then sent it off to SC for reporting...

Yep, just like I thought, those sigarpi.com links are some of those tracking links. Hitting them, triggers a scri_pt on their server that “assumes” that you’re interested in their products and they send a spew of their junk to the address linked to the number. At least that’s the way it looks. See here... unfortunately nothing has been done about it Deselect the cloudflare report and you should be ok... I know, it’s not perfect, but you’d get less spam and eventually they’ll die out. Haven’t had one since last October...

1. welcome to the spamcop forum. We're mainly just SC users trying to help others in the fight against spam. Sometimes we can, sometimes we can't... That said, some spam messages contain URLs which, if triggered, will cause more spam to be sent to you. Sometimes the ISP is "spammer friendly" and provides the spammer with your email address to "listwash" their DB or provides them with the email headers and they extrapolate your address through tracking codes they inserted in the headers. If you have a Tracking URL (see Jeff G's welcoming post) and would provide it, it would be easier to analyze the reasons for your "multiplying spam" problems and find out a way to alleviate it. I used to have similar problems with some spammers and by not reporting the links, only the source of the email, it reduced the spam volume drastically. I also went in manually to report the links to the hosting companies and removing the tracking extension from the report, to prevent anybody from triggering more spam if they accidentally (or purposely) click on the link.

I never report from the spammed email address, and always munge the latter. Several providers have asked for full headers and I always tell them that the email address is of no concern to them as I do not wish retaliation or listwashing from their customers. They sometimes claim it would be easier with my address, but I insist that they can enforce their AUP solely by the email received headers and the email content. This last scenario happened only twice in my umpteen years of reporting