Jump to content


Forum Admin
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by turetzsr

  1. Hi, Morg2, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp There's no easy answer to your question but in case you're interested in the complicated (and yet still [deliberately] imprecise) details, you can have a look at the sections labeled "Important Definitions," "How the SCBL Works" and "SCBL Rules" in SC FAQ article "What is the SpamCop Blocking List (SCBL)?"
  2. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Keep reporting! Hopefully their IP addresses will wind up on the SC blacklist and all their serious customers (if any) will abandon them and they'll eventually go out of business. Not likely but being hopeful is free.
  3. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Unfortunately, very few of us here can tell -- only SpamCop staff can do that. If no one posts a useful reply here within the next few days, I would recommend that you ask the SpamCop Deputies directly by sending an e-mail to deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net.
  4. Hi, David, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Sorry to hear of your problem. It may not help but you could point your e-mail server admin(s) to SpamCop FAQ article "How do I configure my mailserver to reject mail based on the blocklist?" paragraph 3 (the one that begins with "We recommend") for what SpamCop suggests as best practice. Just be aware that "our server, our rules" would apply. The only recourse you would then have is to threaten to take your business elsewhere. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp FYI, the IP address you mention is not currently listed in SpamCop, either (http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblock&ip= but it might have been earlier and it might be again. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Finally, it is possible that the NHS has run afoul of a spammer taking over some PC on their network. It's happened to other organizations that you'd expect to have good defenses against such things.
  5. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp That seems a fresh attitude -- we see lots of references to admins who don't care and to others who are quick to sanction their customers. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Ah, well that explains your fresh approach. <g> &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Don't hesitate to continue to ask additional questions, Neil!
  6. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Here's a link to best practices from the FAQ: "Am I running mailing lists responsibly? Updated!"
  7. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Just to add: what Lou writes refers to how SpamCop spam traps work; others' spam traps might send bounces (although that would seem to contradict the point of having a spam trap). &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp You haven't described your system completely but it seems to me that you are still subject to tripping spam traps because your clients could be soliciting their prospects using lists that contain spam trap addresses and/ or by asking "prospects" to supply their e-mail addresses online and one or more such "prospects" could be submitting spam trap addresses to try to damage your client's (or your) reputation. If I understand correctly, though, the idea behind confirmed opt-in is that sending only one probe to the spam trap should not cause an issue. Even cautious marketers can wind up sending one e-mail to a spam trap.
  8. Hi, jstuckle, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp That seems a reasonable suggestion. Let's hope that a SpamCop representative stops by to reply. If not, you might try writing to them directly at deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net.
  9. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Odd .. I get 43 hits! Here are the first several after this article and excluding some of the obviously non-useful articles in the "Routing / Report Address Issues" Forum (not suggesting that any of these are relevant): Parser lookup choked Recent listings on web lookup page "nomaster[at]devnull.spamcop.net" Am I the only one [Resolved] No reporting addresses found for /dev/null'ing report
  10. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Maybe ironic that Cisco is "spamming" you but certainly not that SpamCop won't report Cisco as a spammer! <g> &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp CES was the outfit that used to provide the now-defunct "SpamCop" e-mail service; I am surprised at the apparent continued relationship between CES and Cisco!
  11. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp See IETF RFC 5321 "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol" (search for "Received:").
  12. Welcome, JD2974, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp My suggestion would be to type "SpamCop could not find your spam message in this email" (including the quotes) into the handy "Search" tool near the top right side of nearly any SC Forum page and click the black magnifying glass button, then review the articles returned to see if any refer to a situation similar to yours (Topic "Unable to forward any spam emails to SpamCop" would be my guess as likely to fit your situation). Then, if you still have a question, post again here as a Reply.
  13. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp As with all mailhosts issues, please report this to the SpamCop Deputies at deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net.
  14. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp It shouldn't really be much of an annoyance unless you routinely cc yourself on e-mails you send. Since I never do that, I can be certain that any such e-mails are truly spam. <g>
  15. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp You may be aware of this already but in case someone reading this does not, the SC blacklist does not contain networks (for example, B2Netsolutions.com) but, rather, individual IP addresses. You can tell whether an IP address is on the CL BL by using the form here.
  16. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp You might also try sending just the spam e-mail's internet headers rather than the whole spam.
  17. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp If Don didn't do it himself, the SC Forum software did it for him! <g>
  18. Hi, Eldor, and welcome to the SC Forum! &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp This question warranted its own FAQ (a link to which can be found on the SC Forum main page -- look for the link labeled "Single-page Expanded FAQ") entry: "Emailed spam Submissions Disappearing? No Confirmation e-mails?" If you still have questions after reading that article, please raise those questions here.
  19. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Not all servers require a specific usercode and password; some allow "anonymous" login. Sometimes your login and password are encoded in the URL, which may be the case with the "id=1439304614198" part of the URL you posted.
  20. Hi, oceanoblu, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Yes, welcome! &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp My first reading of your question about spam being processed by a human was different from Lou's (Lking's); I thought you were asking about the report (s) sent by SpamCop whereas Lou's answer applies to the spam you reported. Please let us know which interpretation is correct and if mine is the right one then someone will answer that. Hi, kolor, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Please use the SpamCop "search" utility, available near the top right of most SpamCop Forum pages, or your favorite web search utility to look for other SpamCop Forum articles about "nomaster[at]devnull.spamcop.net" and post any follow-up questions you may still have after reading those articles. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Sorry, I am unable to understand your question. Could you please try it in different words? As far as I know, there is no connection between SpamCop reporting and automatic logging in to any server. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp spam[at]ms1.hinet.net is an "abuse" address for many Korean machines and the SpamCop parser has apparently identified a machine that is the responsibility of that abuse address as the source of spam or of a spamvertized URL. abuse#hinet.net[at]devnull.spamcop.net is a special address used by SpamCop to keep track of spam from certain machines that SpamCop has determined it should not send a report to an abuse address (there are several reasons it might do this and they are discussed in other SpamCop Topics, for which you could do a search if you are interested in learning what those reasons are; you will probably find a very large number of such Topics and many will not be relevant -- sorry about that!).
  21. Hi, mschmitt, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp My suggestion would be to try the SpamCop Deputies at e-mail address deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net. Good luck!
  22. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Here is a rough translation to English of the first two lines, which are in Portuguese, of the above post 92614[/snapback] for those who are unfamiliar with that language. Bom dia, confiarebh1, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Spamcop has no connection with or control over the APEWS list. Please read the APEWS FAQ and pay particular attention to Q36 and Q41.
  23. Hi, klappa, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp If I understand correctly, knightshade was referring to a feature of submitting spam via e-mail. For more information about this, please see SC Forum Topic "How do I submit spam via email?"
  24. Hi, klappa, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Please see SC Forum Topic "[Resolved] /dev/null'ing report for ..." and let us know whether that answers your question.
  • Create New...