Spamcop does not hide multiple addresses

[turetzsr]

<snip>

(I know now what is tracking URL, I just never gave it importance, I thought after signaling spam my task would be finished.

...The Tracking URL is used by non-SpamCop staff to understand better what is actually going on with your submissions. Most of us here in the SpamCop forums are not SpamCop staff and, therefore, we need the Tracking URL to be able to provide replies that are more than just generalities.

I do not log anymore even in Spamcop site to report, I just use link in the mail I receive from Spamcop, because I do not see why I should log in, I do not care increasing my counter or similar stuff.

...You only need to log in to retrieve a Tracking URL if you do not have it stored elsewhere (for example, SpamCop sends you Tracking URLs in its e-mail replies to your e-mail spam submissions); you only need a Tracking URL to either send it to someone else (for example, a member of the SpamCop staff) or to post here in a SpamCop Forum.

Besides, if I report a spam from my real mail address, you should already know who I am without me logging.)

...No, "we" do not know who you are when you report a spam -- only the SpamCop parser knows who you are when you do that!

[Farelf]

...Anyway I don't need Quick Reporting: (full) web reporting is good enough for me..

That's fine then, for you, under your current spam load. Me too.

O/T: I had the same problem of blocked submissions which was a real problem when my spam loading was high. I found then that my ISP's outward filtering could be foxed (some/most of the time) by batch submissions that included a sizeable (>50K) 'good mail' as the first attachment/leader. There evidently is/was a limit to the depth of their anti-spam scanning. If that good mail is old, the SC processing discards it as "too old". An internal (LAN) e-mail leader is even better - SC parses that out of the attachments stream and ignores it totally.

Waste of bandwidth but ... my ISP doesn't want to know about SC. My ISP compensates somewhat on the bandwidth front by intercepting and discarding backscatter headed my way (magic - they must cache real outwards message IDs or something). Even so, I expressed, frequently and eloquently, my disappointment at their unwillingness to whitelist or otherwise accommodate SC submissions. They were quite unmoved.

Sorry, a bit O/T but may be relevant/of interest or concern to others reading.

[A.J.Mechelynck]

That's fine then, for you, under your current spam load. Me too.

O/T: I had the same problem of blocked submissions which was a real problem when my spam loading was high. I found then that my ISP's outward filtering could be foxed (some/most of the time) by batch submissions that included a sizeable (>50K) 'good mail' as the first attachment/leader. There evidently is/was a limit to the depth of their anti-spam scanning. If that good mail is old, the SC processing discards it as "too old". An internal (LAN) e-mail leader is even better - SC parses that out of the attachments stream and ignores it totally.

Waste of bandwidth but ... my ISP doesn't want to know about SC. My ISP compensates somewhat on the bandwidth front by intercepting and discarding backscatter headed my way (magic - they must cache real outwards message IDs or something). Even so, I expressed, frequently and eloquently, my disappointment at their unwillingness to whitelist or otherwise accommodate SC submissions. They were quite unmoved.

Sorry, a bit O/T but may be relevant/of interest or concern to others reading.

Yes, OT but instructive, and useful to spamfighters with uncooperating ISPs, as I'm sure there are more than a few. What concerns incoming mail, I hate servers which will perform spam filtering (and send "suspect mail" to never-never land) without the user's consent. As far as I'm concerned, incoming spam filtering is OK provided that I get a chance to retrieve false positives, and in my experience even the best filters do stop legit mail now and then. I'll go as far as saying that "filtering by diverting" is even better than no filtering in the sense that it removes the suspicion of "filtering behind my back" without even telling me that they do.

[rob]

It happened again another time.

Tracking URL sent to Don. I have not received answer about my first mail. Maybe he is on vacantion, some other developer here?

I think Spamcop does not work with this Russian spam, it is only me noticing this?

[Farelf]

...Tracking URL sent to Don. I have not received answer about my first mail. Maybe he is on vacantion, some other developer here?

I think Spamcop does not work with this Russian spam, it is only me noticing this?

There will always be someone to monitor the mail - if you have sent two new alerts now there is probably nothing more you can do for now unless SC contacts you again for more information (such as a tracking URL for an uncancelled report or a copy of the actual spam forwarded to them).

The alphabet and language have nothing to do with this problem but it is, quite likely, just from a single spammer controlling it. Maybe there are not many others getting these (compared to most spam) and maybe those others getting it (if some are SC reporters) are not even noticing anything different. There are maybe some who would not care (not everyone elects to munge their detail in reports). That is why it is good that you have raised the alarm. SC needs to be aware. Thanks for doing that.

[turetzsr]

<snip>

some other developer here?

<snip>

...Not relevant directly to rob or others making contributions here but for new and infrequent visitors: Don is not a developer, although he is SpamCop staff.

...rob, a more general contact for other SpamCop staff who "have the ears" of the developers is deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net. Don has in the past indicate that he monitors that mailbox, as well (as do others).