Lking

I will not take your bat on SCOTUS judges or the source of my news. You obviously can "devine" more about my beliefs than I understand and a better understanding of the law than others. I do not have time. Maybe someone else wants to play.

We disagree about the definition of “Censorship” I use the definition as stated by English Oxford Living Dictionaries The internet would be part of “etc." Using that definition of “censorship” and the definition of spam, “unsolicited commercial email” which I expanded on above; SpamCop’s block list (SCBL) is concerned with spam, not content. By that I mean the SCBL identifies, and restricts recite, of email from the sender of email that recipients have identify as meeting the SpamCop definition of spam. To focus on the content of the email only, I think would be censorship. <opinion> I do not want, my Government, my ISP, your Government, SpamCop, or anyone else or organization deciding, outside of a court, what can be available on the internet. </opinion> Content that laws forbid or restrict should NOT be allowed. That is different. Laws in a free society are written by duly elected representatives and enforced by proper authorities and courts. SpamCop nor other block list, qualify nor have the power to control what is on the internet. Nor do many others that would restrict internet or email content. Most people have opinions about how the internet should and shouldn’t be used. But that is what they are; Opinions. They do not have the authority of law. It should be kept in mind that the SPBL helps, those that choose to use it, identify email they do not want to receive in their inbox. SCBL does not prevent the email from being sent. Yes, as a courtesy to the administrators of the ISP hosting the source a spam report may be sent. It is hoped that the administrator will make a business decision that it will be better for them and their other clients to “cleans” their client list (or help a client remove a virus, etc.). We may all agree that some internet content does not reflect well on the 4 million years of human evolution. We may not all agree on what to do about it.

Within this SpamCop forum covering the fight against spam, the Lounge is the correct place for this discussion. While opinions are welcome and have been expressed in the passed, "we" must also moderate our "free speech" on this forum to avoid admonition on political, religious or slanderous statements. Keep in mind that I, LKing, am only a volunteer on this forum trying to keep this forum useful to those having issues with receiving spam and/or fighting spam. Opinions I express are mine and may not reflect the position of the owners or supporter of this forum. Not being able to draw conclusions about blocklisters in general because each BL has their own rules for which IP to block and for how long, a blanket blocking of Cloudflare would, it seems to me, to be as irrational as blocking gmail/yahoo/outlook because of the large amount of spam sent from mailboxes in these domains. A vary tight definition of spam is 'unsolicited commercial email from a company which you do not/have not had a relationship.' Many people/organizations, SpamCop included, have expanded that definition, but no generally accepted definition included specific content. If you start including email as spam only because you disapprove of the content, that does become censorship. There are on the books in most countries laws against terrorist activity, copyright infringements, etc. Whether those laws are enforced or not, is a separate question.

Or that others have given up on using Hotmail because of the problems.

Before this thread spirals off into never-never land: I was responding to Mr_Wizard. A miss-configured SC Mailhost is a common issue when the parser identifies your ISP as the source of spam. The configuration stability of free email servers (gmail, outlook, hotmail, etc) is sufficient for the general user. However, more advanced email users may have problems when the servers are reconfigured "behind the scenes" without notice to the users. Mavdo, you have reported the effect of some of those changes here. In response to Mr_Wizard's first post I suggested the most common solution to the problem he reported. If that does not resolve his problem, with more information/examples hopefully other suggestions will resolve the problems he is having.

Have you checked the configuration of your Mailhost?

It has been noted before that sometimes the ISP is more focused on the bottom-line that on being a good member of the internet community. In those cases your solution maybe an only recourse. Reporting them to SC does help those that use the SCBL.

janiferlewis I broke the link you provided because when I followed it, 1) the page at first looked kind-of like a "Yahoo-support-service" Then the "tumblr" part of the domain name became obvious. 2) I was redirected to a FireFox look-alike with a EMERGENCY update. (yes I use FF). Further links in your post will result in putting your post in moderation (review before being visible.)

Doing a search on "Outlook" I see problems going back to 2004. With OL messing with the header before you can get/forward it there is no fix farther down stream (towards SC). A quick look at the history leads me to believe that what OL does with the header has changed over time, so a "fix" would also have to be dynamic. That is not a workable situation. Which is to bad for your reporting. Have you looked at the possibility of using something like Thunderbird for you email? I have used it 'for ever' without problem. There also is an addon to help with reporting (to SpamCop and others).

Of course no one else can process your spam and get anything but an error message. For example, if I submitted your spam none of the header would match my mailhost settings so the parser would just throw the example out. Don't know why SC dropped the link in the text except part of clearing your email witch would have been sent as a parameter in the link. But you are correct winnermistak.xyz surly is not a drop box link. When the parser goes down the sequence of Received: header entries, two internal IP are found first (172.16.0.0/12) followed by a break in the chain, so nothing usable. The link in the body would have been a low level priority even if it had not been lost. Notice I broke that link in your last post. I wouldn't want an unknown link laying around for someone to click on in ignorance.

Edited the OP in this thread to remove references to bmorris{AT} addresses as "our drinking friend" suggested. You forgot to do this as you did last time. This is a prime example for why a Tracking URL is the way to reference an example of spam. That would also let the rest of us see what the SpamCop parser did with the example. has no meaning not seeing the results of the processing.

Without regard to the method of submitting the spam, the overall problem seems to be the same. Looking at your Tracking URL I see that the results is also the same as observed in the other thread; the parser is not seeing the body (which in the passed cause the parser to stop) but continues to send reports and feed the SCBL. So in both cases with a properly submitted email, there seems to be something in the format or content of the email which causes the parser not to "see" the body. There also seems to have been a change made to the parser so that although the body is not "see" the header is processed and reports sent. Which would indicate that the-powers-that-be are aware and are working on the issue.

See Spamcop reports "no body text provided" only when forwarding a spam email

The personal tone of this thread is reaching the point "management" may need to step in and temporarily adjust the posting privileges of members. Posters to this forum may, are encouraged to, engage in a free exchange of ideas. That does not include disparaging remarks about the supporters of those ideas.

I will bring the grease to help them on their way!

This is a situation where despair is all to easy to overcome you. I submit all my spam to SpamCop, KnujOn and acma.gov.au. This supports the work of KnujOn to change the effectiveness of ICANN (the long game) and help build the SpamCop block list to protect email users now (the short game). 'Hang in there' is all I can suggest.

As implored time and time again throughout this forum, what is needed, and klappa requested, is a Tracking URL. At the top of your screen, after you have pressed the "Process spam" button you will see: SpamCop v 4.8.5 © 2016 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Here is your TRACKING URL - it may be saved for future reference: https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6316845800z8e04731e5cc30573fc71c1c5db2e64ebz As with the example above, everyone can see the spam, how the parser processed the spam, and the results. The Report id number you provided above lead to a screen only you can see. For example, 6552436687 a report associated with the Tracking URL above. I don't mean to sound harsh. I just get tired of explaining what is described many times.

See the work of KnujOn for an opinion of the effectiveness of ICANN compliance. In paticular "ICANN and your spam" page 5

When you click "send report." The person submitting the spam should be reviewing where the reports are going and "un-check" any reports that are not appropriate. For example, if a The New York Times article was referenced in the body of the spam there would be no point in sending a report to the Times, or to be sure a reconfiguration of you mail server doesn't result in you reporting yourself. The "Checked" /dev/null reports are not sent but retained for statistical analysis.

Things may have changed sense the /dev/null setting was set. I would suggest posting, including IP addresses, abuse{AT} email, example of SendGrid's response, to the <SpamCop Reporting Help> <Routing / Reporting Address Issues> sub forum.

You are correct, I misspoke. A spam report is not bulk email. However, there is no purpose to sending an email that can easily be filtered out. Why spend the cpu resources/bandwidth to send an email that will be ignored/deleted without being read? Having received 182,861 reported spam in the last 24hrs (when I looked) from users/spam traps, SpamCop has other things to do; Look at the "New Feature Request" forum. As posted here several times, the priorities set by SpamCop are: Correctly identify the IP address of the source of spam to support the SpamCop Blocklist used by others to divert suspected spam from client inbox to a "spam" folder for later review. As a service to those reporting spam to SpamCop, send spam Reports to the admin of the source of the offending email. If the policies implemented in this service don't meet a submitter's needs they are free to send the reports to others. Identify links in the body of the spam and send spam Reports to the admin of the "spamvertised" domains. Another motivation for administrators is money. Depending on the economics there are not enough spam Reports to cause a change in action. JMHO as a volunteer here. Thank you for your contribution to the spam fight. It can be frustrating. We all do want we have the motivation and resources to do.

Yes, obviously. But SpamCop can not force an email hosting company to accept help. If abuse{AT} has requested not to receive spam reports, sending them unwanted report email(s), fits the definition of spam. SpamCop does not want contribute to the volume spam in the system. Yes, and Yes.