[How to automatically submit spam?]

Automatic reporting is not always a good idea.  Years ago, I had a forward as an attachment rule that automatically reported spam.  For some reason I had a friend that got caught in that rule and it was automatically reported.  Needless to say, we no longer speak.  Now if you are saying that you will go through the spam yourself before being it gets "automatically reported", then that maybe a different thing.  Having the ability to detect false-positives and false-negatives before reporting is the reason why we have the spamcop page with the information it has on it by the submit button, so we can double check.

Maybe I should ask, what do you mean by reporting automatically?

[IPv6 Routing Support]

...Latest update: Scheduled Service Outage - Thursday May 10, 2012.

Good news to all the IPv6 folks out there.

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5324131362z4...47234ee1c0da1fz

There is some stuff still lacking like this tracking link I found couldn't find a person to report to, but that should be a minor fix. It is something about "Cannot find ip range in whois output".

turetzsr, I think you have connections with Julian. Can you pass on the congratulations?

[IPv6 Routing Support]

The "Right" way of doing this would have been to add the IPv6 detection code, and have it log to a file for debugging. This doesn't change the existing behavior from the user perspective.

The detection code should include checks for the IPv6 loopback address [::1], and treat it the same as 127.0.0.1.

We should face the facts that IPv6 is not human, nor code friendly. IPv4 was easy to code for because it HAD three periods. IPv6 can have any number of colons, but not more than eight. Code that matches IPv6 will always be complex and never as simple as IPv4, as seen below. I suspect this is partly why SpamCop has not fully implemented it yet.

m/^([0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}:){1,7}([0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}){1,1}|([0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}:){1,6}(:[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}){1,1}|([0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}:){1,5}(:[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}){1,2}|([0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}:){1,4}(:[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}){1,3}|([0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}:){1,3}(:[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}){1,4}|([0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}:){1,2}(:[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}){1,5}|([0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}:){1,1}(:[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}){1,6}$/

...Steven, while I share your frustration and agree with your point, I think it may be misplaced to direct it at techie. IIUC, techie is making a suggestion about how to code for IPv6 in general, not how specifically to do it in SpamCop and has made no public judgment about whether the time it has taken is appropriate. On the other hand, techie's "The wrong way is to simply add a check for IPv6, and puke if found, which is what currently happens, as of the update in March 2011" comment seems to assume something that isn't true -- that the current code was intended to address IPv6, which (IIUC) it was not!

These are some generic questions, but I believe they get to the root of the problem. How do you go about reporting IPv6 to the upsteam, which is to say the ISP? How do you add the IPv6 address to a block list?

I believe the main reasons for the delay is that they do not need to just match IPv6, but they also need to get other underlying code updated as well. We know that they are able to find the IPv6 address now, because the page says it found IPv6 and stops. I believe that SpamCop is working on the whois, reverse DNS, blacklisting servers, and also working with the abuse.net DB to get all of it IPv6 compatible. SpamCop needs to get all of their code updated so it handles IPv6 in all of the code, not just the detector portion.

[IPv6 Routing Support]

...That's a very good question and one to which I'm sure everyone here wishes she or he knew the answer, so that we all could have taken that step and it would have been done long ago! My naive guess is that SpamCop is working hard to get it right, rather than just throwing out some solution that doesn't work and that it's harder to get it right than anyone thought.

You are correct there when we talk about it being harder than we thought. In IPv4 we had periods to divide the octets and colons to separate the port number. We would have been fine if they had kept the same number of colons in IPv6, but they have "allowed" IPv6 to collapse the address. This will make it near impossible to find the address, especially since some mailers put a port number in with the host address, and that means there might be an extra colon and a port number. Tack on top, the idea of the collapsing address and it could change the IP that fast.

[IPv6 Routing Support]

...It appears to me that the offending entry is

Received: from localhost ([::1]:53899 helo=mjail0.freenet.de) 
 by mjail0.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID suburbium[at]orenda-dryadis.de) 
 (Exim 4.76 #1)	id 1Rv7Uw-0007Qb-W1; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:23:46 +0100

When I remove that line and submit it to the parser, I do not get the error message about IPv6.

You have some localhost IPv6 header. Here is a teredo IPv6 header that may help in the debugging process:

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5267442767zf...eac94b71891f3fz

BTW, what else can I do to help get IPv6 support going? It seems that SpamCop has been planning IPv6 support for over two years now.