Jump to content

danorton

Members
  • Posts

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by danorton

  1. Nonsense. SC can stop trusting broken servers. Meanwhile, I'll just add GMX to my blacklist. Can you post a list of all your "trusted" hosts so that I can block them, too?
  2. I know how SpamCop is supposed to work. It's supposed to put IP addresses of spam sources on its blacklist. It's not doing that in this instance.
  3. How do I know how much spam they send to other people? Why do I care? They're spamming me every single solid day. How is that not something that SpamCop should put a stop to?
  4. Yep, sometimes I wonder why I'm bothering to report anything to SpamCop. e.g. this persistent spammer: e.g. http://www.spamcop.net/mcgi?action=gettrac...rtid=5953643863 Persistently reporting it to SpamCop has no effect.
  5. What good is the tracking link? Oh! It's not rejecting the report, it's just posting a useless message?
  6. Okay, here's another that arrived an hour ago. The only timestamp it should consider is "06 Feb 2013 13:10:15 +0000": Return-Path: <evapapemyp[at]gmx.com> Received: from mout-xforward.gmx.net ([82.165.159.131]) by cust1.hostdillo.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <evapapemyp[at]gmx.com>) id 1U34lO-0003xV-NH for daniel[at]danielnorton.com; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:10:15 +0000 Received: from mailout-us.gmx.com ([172.19.198.45]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmxus001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LkOel-1UeLO04C1z-00cNsq for <daniel[at]danielnorton.com>; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:10:08 +0100 Received: (qmail 12614 invoked by uid 0); 6 Feb 2013 13:10:07 -0000 Received: from 117.242.209.130 by rms-us020 with HTTP Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="========GMXBoundary8703136015620523741" Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 08:10:02 -0500 From: "Eva Pape" <EvaPapemyp[at]gmx.com> Message-ID: <20130206131005.87030[at]gmx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: info[at]drculottanorton.com,daniel[at]danielnorton.com,jguevara[at]dianeturton.com,swayman[at]dianeturton.com,rmclaughlin[at]dianeturton.com X-Authenticated: #149303419 X-Flags: 0001 X-Mailer: GMX.com Web Mailer x-registered: 0 X-GMX-UID: ejNgcZtA3zOl2BpTjXwhiq5+IGRvbwCd Subject: offer tablets comparison --========GMXBoundary8703136015620523741 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit et a hr kfl dfkd jMake uahappynhwzyourvkwoman-neekwbuyomkviagra/wuvicialisagr-go to boutique http://bit.ly/WPKVht mtp ccfjne mflmmhm cyegoi pghkhil ppskxcb cyhd hlpsuagn mxm ed dphwuc pxbcmhf jhbgj u wbds --========GMXBoundary8703136015620523741 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <FONT color=3D#ffecf5 size=3D1 face=3DArial>et a hr kfl dfkd</FONT> <DIV align=3Dleft><FONT color=3D#ffecf5=20 size=3D1>j</FONT>Make<BR><FONT color=3D#ffecf5=20 size=3D1>ua</FONT>happy<FONT color=3D#ffecf5=20 size=3D1>nhwz</FONT>your<FONT color=3D#ffecf5=20 size=3D1>vk</FONT>woman-<FONT color=3D#ffecf5=20 size=3D1>neekw</FONT>buy<FONT color=3D#ffecf5=20 size=3D1>omk</FONT>viagra/<FONT color=3D#ffecf5=20 size=3D1>wuvi</FONT>cialis<FONT color=3D#ffecf5=20 size=3D1>agr</FONT><A=20 href=3D"http://bit.ly/WPKVht">-go to boutique</A><FONT color=3D#ffecf5=20 size=3D1>m</FONT> <FONT color=3D#ffecf5 size=3D1 face=3DArial>tp ccfjne mflmmhm cyegoi pghkhi= l</FONT></DIV> <DIV align=3Dleft><FONT color=3D#ffecf5 size=3D1 face=3DArial>ppskxcb cyhd = hlpsuagn mxm ed</FONT></DIV> <DIV align=3Dleft><FONT color=3D#ffecf5 size=3D1 face=3DArial>dphwuc pxbcmh= f jhbgj u wbds</FONT></DIV> --========GMXBoundary8703136015620523741-- [Edited to kill live spam link. Note: you CAN obtain a tracking link, even for an aborted parse (just have to remember to grab it while the parse screen is displayed - or re-do the parse via web form paste-in to access it again).]
  7. What's the procedure for reporting this bug? I have a failing example, too. By demanding that all but my own host's headers pass provides an easy method for spammers to prevent SpamCop from validating email. (I don't know if the IPv6 header validation still must pass, but that was for a long time an easy way to prevent spam from being reported through SpamCop.)
  8. Seriously, Cisco, do you have to lie about it? From the spamcop.net home page: In fact, the service is not improved and the delays are not intermittent. Errors and failures I can forgive once they're fixed, but only a fool will continue to support a liar. I'm outta here.
  9. Well, it’s certainly out of control. If and when they get it back to like it was before, SpamCop can expect my support to be as strong as ever. Right now, however, there's nothing to support, no knowledge of exactly what's going on and no way to help.
  10. Maybe it was when you posted that, but it's not now, the “Report spam†page lacks a link to a page that reports current status, and no attack can be blamed for that.
  11. Okay, so why do I have to dig down into this forum to find out where to find out the status? I would expect to see something on the “Report spam†page, which has a link to a report that hasn't been updated in over a month. Thanks.
  12. Why do I have to dig down into this forum to see the status? Why isn't it included in the main status pages? I've been experiencing this for a week or so. What's the status and what's the expected time to resolve? Thanks.
  13. Nonsense. It's trivial to tell SpamCop to ignore a header it doesn’t know how to parse. Any developer who tells you otherwise is a lying spammer or is just plain ignorant. This is a loophole big enough to drive a mining truck through. It makes SpamCop absolutely useless against any spammer aware of this loophole.
  14. This is nothing new, as people have complained about it for a long time, but to turn the problem on its head, if you want to send spam that can't be reported to SpamCop, put a line like this in the header: SpamCop can't process IPv6 headers and one might reasonably conclude that SpamCop should report the spam as if the line were not present, but this isn't how SpamCop works. Instead, it bails out and rejects the spam entirely. I'm completely stunned that the folks at SpamCop have been allowing this loophole for so long.
×
×
  • Create New...