Jump to content

Blogspot spam reporting


elind
 Share

Recommended Posts

In random checking on a flood of identical Acai spam, mostly from the same spammer (Again, why do they thing they can sell better by spamming the same address over and over?).

However my question is simply that I notice that spamcop does not even show the blogspot URL (which is a redirect), let alone say Google doesn't want to receive reports. Google however has their own form for reporting such spam, yet they won't let spamcop do their detective work for them.

Is there something I'm missing here or does Google just not give a damn anymore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

OK OK. I didn't provide a tracking number because I thought it was a simple question that didn't need research. I can't be the only one getting, literally, dozens of Acai spam all from the same spammer (same text etc.) and all with a %$%%%.blogspot.com redirect link, which in turn leads to a chinese hosted website, or Charter etc.

I did check a few more out today and find that this particular blogspot URL is now under suspension, so I guess they do do something, if only slowly.

I'm guessing that Google is one of those that has told Spamcop that they don't want to be bothered with this crap, and that would be fine if they were more effective at identifying the spammers than Spamcop is, but obviously they are not.

I'm just curious if anyone knows anything more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't be the only one getting, literally, dozens of Acai spam

As has been said before, I don't spend much time reading the spam. But sense you ask nicely I went back and counted. So far today I have gotten 34 spam with Acai in the Subject: Yes the bodies do look similar, but pick a topic and most related spam do look the same for a period of time.

[edit]Looking at your link, my spam is not similar to yours.[/edit]

Edited by Lking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update. Here is a tracking URL if anyone want tto check a typical Acai spam:

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z2753845073z2...93fb97ee62b996z

I guess nobody has anything to add regarding Google policy on this, but for an update I checked the blogspot links for the last 5 of these that I received this afternoon. All of them are suspended, so I guess they have finally figured out how to find them without spamcop help, but it is still irritating that they refuse our reports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correction to my partial Google compliment above. They have a notice that these blogspots (some, not all are under investigation, but otherwise the redirects are still active if one clicks past that, and these are coming in still at the rate of tens per hour, if not more.

Google is pitiful.

As has been said before, I don't spend much time reading the spam. But sense you ask nicely I went back and counted. So far today I have gotten 34 spam with Acai in the Subject: Yes the bodies do look similar, but pick a topic and most related spam do look the same for a period of time.

[edit]Looking at your link, my spam is not similar to yours.[/edit]

Do yours redirect to allow body com?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of them are suspended, so I guess they have finally figured out how to find them without spamcop help, but it is still irritating that they refuse our reports.

I report these whenever I can directly to Google using the facility they set up for this. I haven't checked lately, but the sites do get shut down for the most part, sometimes within a day or so of my reporting. I've seen enough to suggest that Google is acting in good faith.

No one is obligated to receive or act on SpamCop advisories if they do not want them. Otherwise, these would be unsolicited e-mail or, er, spam.

-- rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, some do, some don't, some have warning, some not.

Of Acai spam with a blogspot link some have the warning some don't. Yes, a the 2 i checked have a link to allowbody.

Seems like blogspot is working at it. It would be nice if they were faster, but this may not be their only issue.

Fini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still getting a flood of these, but I just noticed that they are dropping blogspot and going to unique URLs for each one that I looked at. Not sure what technique they are using, but as far as Google is concerned, they claim to have the most brilliant minds on the planet, yet take days to determine what is spam and what is not. They could knock out a program to analyze reports, like from spamcop, in minutes. It takes moments to look at these sites and determine what they are.

I give them no credit for doing more than the minimum. You are all too kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to use different ones, but it is a matter of perception of accuracy. I haven't researched the status, but are others just as good?

As to the bottom line, I refuse to believe that being aggressive about spammers would be noticed through a microscope in their bottom line. People get lazy when they get fat.

(I'm not fat by the way.)

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go here:

http://help.blogger.com/?page=contact

Check the radio button "Report a Terms of Service violation" under the heading " I'd like to ..." and press submit.

Check the radio button "spam (Learn more.)" under the heading "Report a Terms of Service Violation" and press continue.

Enter the URL in the area given under the heading "Report a spam blog" and press submit.

Done!

I find the blogs gone within 48-72 hours :)

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, and I've seen that. Presumably the reason it may take 72 hours, or more I think, for a reaction is that this type of reporting doesn't confirm that this is a spammer. Some jerkoff can post a legitimate site to sell Acai to idiots, and I could care less. If you or I report it this way, how does anyone know if we are just not competitors trashing someone?

I question if this is the sole evidence they need to cut someone off.

It seems to me that the only way to know if they are a spammer is by getting a few hundred or thousand reports from something like spamcop that this is genuine spam, with the documentation attached.

Edited by elind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the only way to know if they are a spammer is by getting a few hundred or thousand reports from something like spamcop that this is genuine spam, with the documentation attached.

I'm confused.

1. What SpamCop reports has Google refused to accept? I see no evidence that the spam is coming from a Google source therefore no reports to refuse. - The spamvertised site is a different.

2. Your example from above doesn't analyze the blogspot spamvertised link. Nor do any of my related quick submissions. So I don't see where a report has been generated for Google.

3. What reports/evidence has been given to Google to close down the spamvertised blogspot link?

Don't get me wrong, I think spammers are the scourge of the earth. On the other hand I don't want my government or you telling me what I can put on the internet.

Of course Google can do whatever their business model allows. I guess the current Acai bean buzz just doesn't light my fire.

Edited by Lking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spamcop reports to the spam source and to the website host, although I understand the focus is on the email source.

So be it, but I see many reports where Google is identified AND a message that they do not wish to receive reports of this sort, so spamcop doesn't send one. In many cases, like most but not all of these recent ones, one doesn't even see that message except something to the effect of "obfuscation".

I'm not blaming spamcop for that, but I do think it's pretty poor of Google to pretend they have nothing to do with it and refuse the information. In my opinion the websites are more valuable to spammers than the email sender.

As to evidence, I thought I addressed that above. Did you not read it? A complaint about a website does not prove it's a spammer, but a thousand reports with source code does.

Acai or penis enhancer. It's all the same, but this started because Acai was exclusively going through Google when it started a few days ago. Now it seems to be easing, but I was getting 10 or more per hour for a while there. All the same crap.

What does it take to light your fire?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spamcop reports to the spam source and to the website host, although I understand the focus is on the email source.

So be it, but I see many reports where Google is identified AND a message that they do not wish to receive reports of this sort, so spamcop doesn't send one. In many cases, like most but not all of these recent ones, one doesn't even see that message except something to the effect of "obfuscation".

Forst of all, thanks for providing a Tracking URL. Looking at your sample, I see nothing wrong in its construct ... headers state Plain-text, URL is shown as properly constructed. The parser did actually find it.

Therefore, we are back to the scenario that has led to many, many existing Topics, Discussions, and even a FAQ entry or three. Due to whatever reasons that either the Cisco/IronPort software engineers won't divulge, or that the answer is hidden within the gobbledygook Engineering Reports that Don and crew have admitted that they don't understand, the parsing server(s) involved decided not to actually do anything with that "found URL" .. thus, no messge about its handling.

Historical evidence is that if refreshed enough times, one might eventually get the parse to occur on just the right parsing server, under the right load conditions, that 'everything' ends up on the target list. The downside to playing this game is all the resources you end up stealing from everyone esle, causing all the extra look-ups which impacts network traffic and speed (and cost), and typically the results end up with some "don't care" Hosts anyway.

Flip side of course, especually since this URL is so "in the clear" ...

  • Do your own manual report.
  • Join the crowd that have moved on to Quick-Reporting, which doesn't do body content parsing at all.
  • Simply accept that this type of a parsing result is actually a known issue that will not be discussed by those that do know the whys and wherefores of the actual 'problem' ...???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does it take to light your fire?

Actually, I really don't care if Blogspot or any other website host is crammed full of advertising websites - whether good or bad. Websites don't clutter my mailbox.

The Emails these people send out do which is why I focus on addressing the junk mail problem. Getting Google (or any other web host) to disable a website is a minor inconvenience and these folk keep moving all the time. Disabling their websites doesn't stop them sending me junk Email. Keeping an effective blocking/reporting process for offending mail servers keeps my mailbox empty. I get around 20 spam items a day in my held mail - the rest I don't even see. I don't recall an Acai spam this week - most seem to be phishing attempts for banks I've never had an account with. I don't see more than one or two spam messages per week in my working mailbox.

So I'm content with the reporting process. Personally, I think 2-3 days is reasonable for any ISP to properly investigate a complaint and remove an offending website. I can recall many complainants in these forums being supported when an ISP acts too quickly and fails to properly investigate before suspending a customer.

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I really don't care if Blogspot or any other website host is crammed full of advertising websites - whether good or bad. Websites don't clutter my mailbox.

What would be the point of sending spam if they didn't have a point of sale?

That's like saying people who litter don't bother you because they aren't what's laying in the street.

Got to run. Traveling all day.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's like saying people who litter don't bother you because they aren't what's laying in the street.

To me, the analogy goes more like, the spam is the litter, the spammer is the litterer, and the site within the spam is just garbage that I do not look at.

Since I have gotten my spam to a reasonable level (thank you greylisting), I currently do full reporting of all spam that reaches my account. However, I don't worry if the web site is found/reported or not. Most of the time, I don't even know if there is a link in the spam until I see where reports are going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be the point of sending spam if they didn't have a point of sale?

That's like saying people who litter don't bother you because they aren't what's laying in the street.

I don't think so... I'm simply suggesting that tackling the actual problem is more effective since it actually relieves the effect on me and others (ie I don't get the junk Emails). Closing down websites doesn't help relieve the problem (ie spam Email).

Hope you had a good day on the road.

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are other people who agree with you that closing down the 'point of sale' is effective. IMHO, closing down websites because of content is dangerous because you don't know why websites might be closed down based on that precedence.

What other contributors to this thread are saying is that no one has to go to that website. I don't and none of the other posters do because we never read the spam (or don't receive it in our inbox in the first place). If no one goes to the website, then there are no sales. If no one gets a spam because of blocklists like spamcop and others, then no one knows that website exists. Of course, you could find it with search engines or links from other sites. But then you are free to do so. It doesn't affect anyone other than you.

Almost all of the spamvertized website reports, IMHO, go either to the spammer directly or to a provider who isn't going to stop them from spamming. IMHO, it is a waste of time to report spamvertized websites as well as possibly contributing to the downfall of free speech on the internet. In addition, webhosting outfits have closed down legitimate websites without investigating to see if the report was accurate.

However, wherever the spam is sent from can be blocked (and very effectively). I don't see it. Dimwits who might buy from that site don't see it. And, no one's freedom of speech is blocked. If there are legitimate email users at that IP address, they have a choice - choose a provider or hire a server admin who knows how to prevent spam from being sent or get their email blocked on a regular basis. You get what you pay for.

Now, I do think that the scofflaws who do not publish accurate information as required by ICANN should be reported. It is a time consuming process, however.

In the old days, the slogan was that anti-spam was based on conSent, not conTent. Nowadays, almost no spam has content that any rational person would want to see. However, the slogan is still true - if I didn't consent in some way (like signing up or buying an item), then it is spam even if it is a message from the President, the Pope, or from your neighbor selling a lawn mower. You might not report your neighbor, but there are plenty of people who would report the President and the Pope and some who would report their neighbor on principle. If I didn't ask for it, it is unsolicited email and therefore spam.

Spamvertized websites were reported in those days as an educational tool so that legitimate merchants would adopt confirmed subscription. Nowadays, there is no need for education. No legitimate merchant would spam or even if they were clueless, no reputable webhost or ISP would allow them to.

There are plenty of people who do go to the trouble of trying to shut down spammy websites, but most of them use other tools than spamcop.

Miss Betsy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One issue that hasn't been mentioned here is the fact that spammers can (and do) plant web links in their mailings that have nothing to do with their spam. This would complicate any scheme to use SpamCop data in some automated fashion to close out websites.

  1. These might be completely unrelated websites belonging to strangers (the granddaddy of all of these is described on my website), planted in order to choke spam filters or to confuse human spam investigators.
  2. Often fraud artists will put links to news websites in their pitches, in order to provide "evidence" for their come-ons. Stock spammers used to do this with Yahoo finance, etc. 419 scammers often cited news links (CNN, etc.) to stories about plane crashes and the like.
  3. Still another breed of spammer, the Joe-Jobber, will attempt to implicate an innocent third party as a spammer or a criminal. You can read about the original Joe Job at http://www.joes.com/spammed.html. If you report such a link to its operator or provider, you are doing EXACTLY WHAT THE SPAMMER WANTS YOU TO DO.

Simply handing over a stack of URLs from spam messages, even those collected by as accurate a source as SpamCop, is not due diligence. We must verify that these links are really spammy, and this is something that machines can't do. Yes, I'm sure you can tell the difference, I'm sure that we all can, but many people cannot; they will simply report everything that SpamCop tells them. So, this data stream will inevitably be polluted with website links that are innocent. When the s**t hits the fan, and all of these innocent victims demand their due, I would not want to be around.

-- rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...