Jump to content

Spambo

Membera
  • Posts

    293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Spambo

  1. I perused the thread. I meant that other options for emailing exist other than your ISP's server. Many are 'free-to-low-cost, and many of them don't record their customer's IP so your ISP won't even enter the picture. If outgoing email is important to your online life then get a backup plan in action.
  2. There are hundreds of free and low cost email providers available. You are not required to use your ISP for the email you send. Unfortunately not much you can really do . . . . . spammers will infest any and every place they can nest for as long as they can get their spewage delivered. Computers "talk" to each other by IP address not names/usernames. Your clients could contact their postmasters and ask them to whitelist your IPA. The postmaster may decide to whitelist your IPA -- it's their choice though.
  3. You need to supply more info! mainserver.us resolves to 217.160.226.66 The SCBL info page at 217.160.226.66 says it's not listed. Most likely the problem is that you're using the same mail server as a spammer. If so you need to have your mail admin get rid of the spammer and the listing will go away automatically.
  4. Yes, but normally it finds the email addresses unless they are in non-standard headers or in a non-standard format (such as user#domain.tld, or ROT-13 encoded addresses). The non-standard format is often found at the end of spamvertised URLs. If you're concerned about your address being revealed you can click on the "Preview Reports" button and use your browser's text search feature to search the reports for your email address, user name, or any other string - but this does add to the amount of time it takes to process each spam report. Or, if you're submitting your spams at the web site, you can manually munge your email address before submitting the spam. Again this adds to the amount of time you'll spend processing your spam.
  5. That's your problem (or at least the main problem). There is no header that begins with the right angle bracket (>) so the parser isn't seeing the headers. The parser needs full unaltered headers.
  6. Find a provider willing to host your domain?
  7. An open relay is a mail server that allows anyone to use it to send emails, not just authorized customers. 65.43.19.28 listed in relays.ordb.org. ( 127.0.0.2 ) It appears that 65.43.19.28 is currently misconfigured. I'd suggest not using SpamCop to send reports to your own provider. Deselect the checkbox(es) for address(es) at your provider and send the spam manually to their abuse department. A note in the report alerting them to their listing at ORDb would also be nice, they may want to fix the server if it is indeed open.
  8. There is something at 67.131.122.3 06/11/04 08:25:15 -0500 ping 67.131.122.3 Ping 67.131.122.3 ... 1 Addr:67.131.122.3, RTT: 105ms, TTL: 113 2 Addr:67.131.122.3, RTT: 102ms, TTL: 113 3 Addr:67.131.122.3, RTT: 103ms, TTL: 113 4 Addr:67.131.122.3, RTT: 103ms, TTL: 113 06/11/04 08:25:33 -0500 Fast traceroute 67.131.122.3 Trace 67.131.122.3 ... [...] 16 205.171.29.82 39ms 39ms 52ms TTL: 0 (kcm-edge-09.inet.qwest.net fraudulent rDNS) 17 65.123.132.138 68ms 49ms 49ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS) 18 67.131.122.254 99ms 97ms 101ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS) 19 67.131.122.3 113ms 103ms 104ms TTL:113 (No rDNS)
  9. The problem seems to be system-wide (at least for free users & reporting only members). Just wait a while and they'll get the problem fixed.
  10. Lots of people are getting them. Apparently the spammer is using trojaned machines to send the spams through IPs that haven't been listed yet on the major blocklists.
  11. The problem appears to be the Content-Type header being improperly wrapped. Notice that the charset="us-ascii" portion of the header is on another line and that line is not indented. Line continuations MUST NOT begin in the first position of the next line. Parsing 1 is the headers parsed as posted and shows the parser balking at the headers not being complete. I corrected the Content-Type header by adding a couple of spaces at the beginning of the second line and Parsing 2 shows the parser accepting the headers.
  12. 'Double 0pt-in' is a derogatory term that was coined by spammers in order to make "confirmed opt-in" appear to be a redundant burden being imposed on email marketers. Anyone claiming to be "double 0pt-in" is either admitting to being a spammer deriding a procedure intended to protect both the recipients and senders or is announcing their ignorance. NEVER trust any sender that claims to be double 0pt-in.
  13. Can you post some sample headers? Email address & other personal information should be munged of course.
  14. You are incorrect. There is nothing "rude" about my post, which is included in your blanket statement. I didn't kiss the OP's a$$ but there is nothing rude either. No insults, no name calling, just cold hard facts.
  15. Care to post a link to the "You're blocking an entire country" post that you cited? The search engine didn't seem to find it, and the only mention of that string was in your message.
  16. I think http://www.rfc-editor.org/ would give a better explanation of RFCs than I could.
  17. Your email account essentially receives the spam at the time your mail server accepts it. This doesn't mean that the spam was immediately available to you or that you downloaded the spam as soon as your mail server received it. Obviously SpamCop cannot know what time you downloaded the spam since that information isn't recorded in the spam's headers. That being said, the average reporting time is kind of a worthless statistic. It is is largely dependant on the destination mail server being RFC compliant and having its clock (including date & Time Zone) set accurately. IMO its only purpose is to encourage people to report their spam promptly. Depending on factors beyond the control of most users some will try to keep their times low and others will try to improve their times by reporting their spam quickly. Either way SC benefits from the faster reporting since the SCBL works better when very fresh spam is reported.
  18. Are you looking at where the spam reports that you are sending are going before you click on the "Send" button?
  19. SC = SpamCop As for RFC and IP, the usage of those acronyms are more widely understood than the words the letters stand for. In both of these cases (Request For Comments & Internet Protocol - which itself is short for Internet Protocol address) probably wouldn't have made things any clearer. Maybe, but first I'd use acronymfinder.com (or a similar service) to try to look up any acronyms I didn't understand.
  20. Maybe your filters don't work, mine do - and I don't have any 'junk folder' to sort through.
  21. If the mail server was RFC compliant and identified the IP where it received the email from then the SC parser wouldn't identify the mail server as the source. Contact your mail admin and ask him/her why their configuration hides the true source of emails from the world. Ask them why they prefer having their server listed in blocklists instead of the particular IP that actually was used to send the email. Points to ponder: Yahoo's mail server doesn't get listed when its users send spam because it identifies the true source of the email. Hotmail's mail server doesn't get listed when its users send spam because it identifies the true source of the email. Thousands of other mail servers don't get listed when their users send spam because they identifiy the true source of the email.
  22. You can suggest it, but that doesn't mean the suggestion isn't stupid. Granting special status to the Solomon Island's mail server's IPs would detract from the SCBLs fairness in all IPs being treated the same. set a precedent for other IPs to be given special treatment. make those servers, and every machine sending email through those servers a target of spammers intent on getting their spewage delivered from machines that aren't listed. A much better solution would be for the mail servers involved to comply with the applicable RFCs and record the IP that they received the email from. If the parser can identify the individual machine an email comes from then it won't identify the mail server used to send the email as a source of spam. If the admins of the mail server are going to hide the true source of emails coming out of their mail server then they should be prepared to suffer the consequences when someone uses their policy decisions to abuse others.
  23. First, SpamCop lists only IP addresses that users are reporting as the source of spam that they are receiving. I seriously doubt that an entire country is listed, but if it only has one IP address then it's possible. SpamCop DOES NOT block ANY email. If emails are bouncing then you need to take it up with the admin(s) that are refusing the emails. SpamCop has no control over them. Next, you failed to provide the IP that is allegedly listed, therefore no one can give you anything but guesses as to why the IP is listed.
  24. I suspect the problem is the MIME boundary in the headers [...] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--55009783207338244787" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-IP:14.128.149.14 ----55009783207338244787 <---------- Content-Type: text/html; [...]
  25. Yes. And Yahoo! And anyone else aiding a spammer. If a domain is providing support to spammers, any kind of support, then they deserve to be LARTed.
×
×
  • Create New...