Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by elind

  1. bit.ly or bitly.com are the same I believe. I regularly receive spam with bitly links and they confirm receipt claiming they have "flagged" this link, even though there is typically more than one bitly link in the spam. However I doubt they do anything because all the spam I receive has the same MO and is certainly the same spammer and easily recognized simply by the fact that it is no shortener at all, and instead is long like ".ly/1%35irksC#durg/tkfgn". If they are in business to provide shorteners, why do they allow lengtheners, which could easily be identified or simply prevented? Secondly, the few times I tried using the bitly claimed "+" operator to view the spam URL, it didn't work and instead went direct to the spam site (typically Russian drugs). Bitly has been advised of this many times, but never answered, nor acted obviously. I have to suspect that bitly profits from spammers.
  2. I don't know what you mean by that. It's a simple enough question and I'm not fueling anything. If spamcop simply wants to say that they have problems with auto copy of reports on quick reports, then they can say so. I don't see why they have a facility that only works in limited ways, without explanation. As to the matter of not identifying hosts, as I said, it seems to me that spammers have figured out how to hide these from spamcop. We've had discussions on that in the past, and I have seen how in many cases even my browser can't find a website (when I've experimented) except after multiple tries. However I have the impression that something has changed, because lately most of my browser attempts connect immediately but spamcop routinely reports it can find nothing. If that is unique to the lists I'm on, or something else I don't know, but I'm getting a real uncomfortable feeling coming here with observations like this and receiving replies about fueling fires that I haven't a clue about. Anyone care to suggest I get a Phd in spamcop protocols before I post again? I don't know what you mean. It most certainly looks if the report analysis says it can't find anything for the URL, doesn't it? I'm getting tired of this childishness. Bye
  3. I've been in discussions about this (spam source/ spam host etc.) before and whatever the philosophy differences, I am still somewhat confused as to why spamcop tries, but seldom succeeds, to identify host URLs at all. It is my impression lately, perhaps since this year, that spamcop doesn't resolve 90%+ of host URLs, whereas it used to most of the time. An example is this one of a few minutes ago. http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z2975392421z4...363c6254e593e4z I immediately get connected with that website if I point my browser to it, but spamcop says it can't resolve it, and I don't think this is a case of wandering DNS lists. Also, spamcop seems to discourage use of knujon. One can put their forwarding address into spamcop, and if one does a manual submit it comes up as an optional report recipient, but I still have to check the box. However a "quick report and trash" submit does not include the knujon address in the reports, and that is how I submit 99% of my reports. I've contacted both knujon and spamcop on this. Knujon said they would try to contact spamcop, but I haven't heard any more. Spamcop just gave me the instructions to do what I had already said I have done. I don't get it. We seem to be losing steam here.
  4. I appreciate the detailed response, but at this point I don't have time to do the extra work. I like spamcop because all I have to do is scan the held mail list for any real mail (hardly ever), select all and select report and trash. Done. I sometimes forward and report manually when I am curious about something new or when spamcop doesn't pick up a new spam, very seldom since I reduced my spamassin rating by one. What you describe takes up more time than I can give it, but as I'm approaching 130,000 reported so far and well onto 200,000 by this year end, I figure that is good enough. However, nobody has made any suggestions about the coldrain, knujon, issue yet. That would be a simple addition except that it doesn't work. I followed the "workaround" instructions. For the knujon email I have described what happens. I changed the email to the alternate given "nonregistered" and that seems to go through to coldrain, but only if I manually submit and manually check off the reporting address to coldrain. If I look at past reports done by batch submission, there is no report shown for coldrain. Perhaps this is a part of the bug described above, but it would be nice to know.
  5. If I look at "past reports" I see none to knujon. If I report manually the box for knujon needs to be manually checked, but when the report results come up it says "Reports disabled for knujon[at]coldrain.net". How do you do report? Do you do all yours individually to spamcop and separately to knujon? I get hundreds per day (to my spamcop address) so I don't have time to do that. I should have added that spamcop also reports "bounces (7 sent; 7 bounces)" which presumably is why they disable further reporting. I haven't investigated that further with knujon. Perhaps they have changed their reporting email, but are sloppy with their website.
  6. Betsy, I disagree with your assessment regarding credit card companies. They discriminate all the time on the basis of many factors. Being in the business of forcing people to spend time and money to defend against unsolicited email is one they could easily apply, although if our legislators had any brains they could make it a requirement, As to whether the product is legitimate or not, that is irrelevant. As far as I am concerned those currently sending me a few hundred identical solicitations per day are simply vandals, and I would try to do them harm in one form or another if I knew who they were, not to mention all the rest. BTW I now see that Knujon is blocked for spamcop reports. So much for that.
  7. I just checked my recent reports. None have Knujon listed, even though it does show as an option (but needs the box checked) when I report manually. ??
  8. Yes, from what I understand of it, Can spam illustrates the incompetence of our legislators quite well; but there are examples of prosecution, few as they may be. However, as far as Credit Card companies go, you don''t have to look far to find that they can choose their customers by any criteria that they want, and set whatever terms they want. To say that they could not decide that supporting spammers was wrong, is wrong.
  9. The FBI and police is fine, but I was under the impression that sending spam was illegal. Is that not good enough and would not facilitating spammers be conspiracy?
  10. I added the report address to Knujon (with workaround) but in the first report that I did manually to check I noticed that the reporting address to them needed to manually checked to be sent. Does that mean that the automatic reports will not be sent unless done manually?
  11. You are right, and it's not the first time I've been told that. So much to read so much to learn......... That though is the weirdest workaround I've seen in a long time. Somebody has some wacky logic in there. I wouldn't be here if I thought it was pointless, and as far as do harm goes, that is what I am doing here and the more the better. Ideally including jail and serious economic costs. However this phrase makes me think of what would seem to be the most harm to them, being cutting off their credit card accounts. Since the ones who actually do sell something need such accounts, does anyone know if there has ever been an effort to involve the credit card companies, most of the big ones are American after all? Yes, I know, legalities are involved, but solvable.
  12. I just tried that and get this error from Spamcop. Can't save "Public standard report recipients". Invalid email format: knujon[at]coldrain.net Preferences not saved! Please go back and try again. What am I doing wrong?
  13. Hello again. I've been busy elsewhere. I'll try that. But does that not mean that they will get mostly reports with the email source, since spamcop often doesn't get the website host? I presume they don't mind. You must be a very kind and forgiving person. The majority of spammers are criminals, not to mention vandals that cost us all indirect costs of many types, yet you don't want to cause them harm? You can stop them from getting to your inbox by just using a blind spam filter. Why bother with the extra overhead and expense (even if not large) of subscribing to spamcop? My driving pain was still less than hundreds of Acai spam every day. But thanks for the thought.
  14. I think that point has be alluded to earlier, and I appreciate that it is a possible issue, however any website that is created on a free basis, or even not, is typically contractually at the whim of the provider. They are the ones who determine appropriateness or not. Taking my recent example, of Acai, any fool can look at the website and the spam complaint and count the spam complaints, from Spamcop or other and see that it is one and the same and delete the sucker in 10 seconds, and there would be zero chance of legal repercussions. I think I need to find a reporting service that focuses on the point of sale, not just the souces of the spam. Without the former there is no point in sending spam. PS. I had a bad day on the road. 9 hours turned into over 11. I guess it was the stimulus for road works to blame.
  15. Betsy, I appreciate your thoughts but I also disagree. Non of us would be here bothering with this if we didn't have a personal contempt for spammers and a wish to do them harm, or so I presume. Otherwise we can just be like all the others who don't bother to do anything and rely on their SP to filter for them, and Spamcop would have no purpose. Specifically you say "No legitimate merchant would spam or even if they were clueless, no reputable webhost or ISP would allow them to." Surely you can't be serious? What "legitimate" merchants do is set up independent commission agents to bring them leads, then claim no connection when the agents are spammers, but they will pay them up to that point. Not all spam is viagra or Acai. Much of it is "seen on Opra", for real. As to ISP's, Comcast and Google are legitimate are they not? Yet they allow spammers to set up web sites without control of any sort, and only when enough complaints come in do they act, reluctantly. We all pay for this eventually.
  16. What would be the point of sending spam if they didn't have a point of sale? That's like saying people who litter don't bother you because they aren't what's laying in the street. Got to run. Traveling all day. Cheers
  17. Spamcop reports to the spam source and to the website host, although I understand the focus is on the email source. So be it, but I see many reports where Google is identified AND a message that they do not wish to receive reports of this sort, so spamcop doesn't send one. In many cases, like most but not all of these recent ones, one doesn't even see that message except something to the effect of "obfuscation". I'm not blaming spamcop for that, but I do think it's pretty poor of Google to pretend they have nothing to do with it and refuse the information. In my opinion the websites are more valuable to spammers than the email sender. As to evidence, I thought I addressed that above. Did you not read it? A complaint about a website does not prove it's a spammer, but a thousand reports with source code does. Acai or penis enhancer. It's all the same, but this started because Acai was exclusively going through Google when it started a few days ago. Now it seems to be easing, but I was getting 10 or more per hour for a while there. All the same crap. What does it take to light your fire?
  18. Thanks, and I've seen that. Presumably the reason it may take 72 hours, or more I think, for a reaction is that this type of reporting doesn't confirm that this is a spammer. Some jerkoff can post a legitimate site to sell Acai to idiots, and I could care less. If you or I report it this way, how does anyone know if we are just not competitors trashing someone? I question if this is the sole evidence they need to cut someone off. It seems to me that the only way to know if they are a spammer is by getting a few hundred or thousand reports from something like spamcop that this is genuine spam, with the documentation attached.
  19. I used to use different ones, but it is a matter of perception of accuracy. I haven't researched the status, but are others just as good? As to the bottom line, I refuse to believe that being aggressive about spammers would be noticed through a microscope in their bottom line. People get lazy when they get fat. (I'm not fat by the way.)
  20. But they are not Google. If I had any damn choice I would use someone else, just because of stuff like this.
  21. I'm still getting a flood of these, but I just noticed that they are dropping blogspot and going to unique URLs for each one that I looked at. Not sure what technique they are using, but as far as Google is concerned, they claim to have the most brilliant minds on the planet, yet take days to determine what is spam and what is not. They could knock out a program to analyze reports, like from spamcop, in minutes. It takes moments to look at these sites and determine what they are. I give them no credit for doing more than the minimum. You are all too kind.
  22. Correction to my partial Google compliment above. They have a notice that these blogspots (some, not all are under investigation, but otherwise the redirects are still active if one clicks past that, and these are coming in still at the rate of tens per hour, if not more. Google is pitiful. Do yours redirect to allow body com?
  23. Update. Here is a tracking URL if anyone want tto check a typical Acai spam: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z2753845073z2...93fb97ee62b996z I guess nobody has anything to add regarding Google policy on this, but for an update I checked the blogspot links for the last 5 of these that I received this afternoon. All of them are suspended, so I guess they have finally figured out how to find them without spamcop help, but it is still irritating that they refuse our reports.
  24. OK OK. I didn't provide a tracking number because I thought it was a simple question that didn't need research. I can't be the only one getting, literally, dozens of Acai spam all from the same spammer (same text etc.) and all with a %$%%%.blogspot.com redirect link, which in turn leads to a chinese hosted website, or Charter etc. I did check a few more out today and find that this particular blogspot URL is now under suspension, so I guess they do do something, if only slowly. I'm guessing that Google is one of those that has told Spamcop that they don't want to be bothered with this crap, and that would be fine if they were more effective at identifying the spammers than Spamcop is, but obviously they are not. I'm just curious if anyone knows anything more.
  25. In random checking on a flood of identical Acai spam, mostly from the same spammer (Again, why do they thing they can sell better by spamming the same address over and over?). However my question is simply that I notice that spamcop does not even show the blogspot URL (which is a redirect), let alone say Google doesn't want to receive reports. Google however has their own form for reporting such spam, yet they won't let spamcop do their detective work for them. Is there something I'm missing here or does Google just not give a damn anymore?
  • Create New...