spam traps and how to circumvent most

[garny]

I have sent previous week a request to make use of Spamcop’s spam traps, but there is still no reply. There I did write of a way to circumvent or literally block spam traps. I guess this is no secret for the average spammer, but I have seen no solution to this.

Circumventing spam traps is easy and requires, no manual intervention once setup, but to add newly discovered addresses. The only thing you need is a firewall filter on outbound for all spam traps you know. One easy spam trap is nirvana.admins.ws from http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=2&s=0 . One could also recon to block whole IP ranges like Spamcop’s and others.

I guess there are spam traps that are kept hidden, but then they will collect very limited number of unique attempts.

There is an option to relay spam to Spamcop which is a solution that addresses the problem above, but adds new. How is Spamcop assured that there is no mangling of the header being relayed and anyone could claim the opposite.

[Derek T]

You clearly have no idea how SpamCop works or what a SpamTrap is. Read the FAQ and come back with a sensible question, if you still have any. What part of 'read before posting' did you not understand?

[agsteele]

I have sent previous week a request to make use of Spamcop’s spam traps, but there is still no reply. There I did write of a way to circumvent or literally block spam traps

I'm sorry that I'm not sure I have understood your question.

If your desire is to circumvent spam traps then I fear you'll not find many friends here or much assistance.

If, though, you are saying that you think it is easy to circumvent spam traps and you would like to provide a solution then you might get a few more friends here. But it would help if you could rephrase your question and describe the issue you are trying seek help with.

I can also say that I doubt you will be allowed to use the SC spam traps. They are designed to be confidential and unpublished in order that they do the task required of them.

Andrew

[StevenUnderwood]

I can also say that I doubt you will be allowed to use the SC spam traps. They are designed to be confidential and unpublished in order that they do the task required of them.

And, as we understand it, the spam traps are spread among many different IP blocks, most not owned by SpamCop.

[SpamCopAdmin]

You clearly have no idea how SpamCop works or what a SpamTrap is. Read the FAQ and come back with a sensible question, if you still have any. What part of 'read before posting' did you not understand?

Thank you for your kind and sensitive reply. It should be a big help in cutting down the number of visitors who dare post here.

- Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin -

.

[Wazoo]

Piling onto Derek's post, I also note that the subject matter of the Topic-starting Post doesn't seem to have much to do (directly) with the SpamCopDNSBL, so moving to the Lounge area with this Post.

[garny]

You clearly have no idea how SpamCop works or what a SpamTrap is. Read the FAQ and come back with a sensible question, if you still have any. What part of 'read before posting' did you not understand?

If Derek is such a smart ass, then what part of the 'read before posting' I did wrong?

Don't know what is the freaking idea of yours about spamtraps, but stay assured it is not a god sent black box for cutting spam.

Yea I had some idea for distributing spamtraps, but I have no wish to contribute to this forum anymore.

As Don said

Thank you for your kind and sensitive reply. It should be a big help in cutting down the number of visitors who dare post here

Hope no one disturbs you any more up there in the clouds.

I would be glad to have my account deleted, Wazoo.

[Wazoo]

I would be glad to have my account deleted, Wazoo.

Deletion of data, to include accounts, is something not done as a matter of course here. Even worse, you asked a question in your last Post. There would seem to be the possibility that you'd want to reply to an answer provided, so another reason not to delete your account.

then what part of the 'read before posting' I did wrong?

Don't know what is the freaking idea of yours about spamtraps, but stay assured it is not a god sent black box for cutting spam.

I'm going with an assumption that there is a language issue involved. For instance, as I pointed out, the Forum section you chose to Post into is titled and desxcribed as;

SpamCop Blocklist Help

A forum to help those who use or have had their e-mail blocked based on use of the SpamCopDNSBL by the receiving ISP.

Please read the "Why Am I Blocked?" FAQ entry before posting.

Although spamtraps help feed the SpamCopDNSBL, this Forum section was set up to handle issues of the use of the SpamCopDNSBL.

Thne, using the words you typed to the screen, it's pretty hard to fathom why "you" would want to "make use of Spamcop's spam traps to begin with, much less why anyone would agree to that scenario. I'm having to believe that what you typed is not what you actually meant. However, I haven't been able to decode any alternate definition of the words you used.

Yea I had some idea for distributing spamtraps,

This seems to siggest another whole perspective on the possible intent of your remarks/questions, but ... ??? I'm still not sure.

[Farelf]

Coming in late here - I first had difficulty following the statements/questions but think I see more now from later comments and, although these are matters that can really only be addressed by the SC staff, perhaps I can be a little helpful ...

I have sent previous week a request to make use of Spamcop's spam traps, but there is still no reply.

The FAQ covering the contribution to SC spam traps is http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/402.html - if that is your main purpose and you made contact through the form there, you should receive a reply when the staff have considered your proposals. If you contacted by email direct they may have misunderstood.

... There I did write of a way to circumvent or literally block spam traps. I guess this is no secret for the average spammer, but I have seen no solution to this.

Circumventing spam traps is easy and requires, no manual intervention once setup, but to add newly discovered addresses. The only thing you need is a firewall filter on outbound for all spam traps you know. One easy spam trap is nirvana.admins.ws from http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=2&s=0 . One could also recon to block whole IP ranges like Spamcop's and others.

I guess there are spam traps that are kept hidden, but then they will collect very limited number of unique attempts. ...

Re-read the FAQ I have quoted. SC spam traps are all secret (well, there are a small number of exceptions) but they are ones which receive a great amount of spam. It is all about the spammers' lists. You have to appreciate the spammers causing most inconvenience and clogging of the e-mail systems are those that do not maintain good lists - they even send mail to addresses that have been inactive many years. Their 'business model' is to send as much volume as possible from hijacked resources for which they pay nothing (except to the botnet 'owner' and I bet even there they try to avoid paying). They might remove a known spamtrap from their lists but I doubt if most of them even care - for sure they make no other attempt to maintain their lists to the standards one would expect in business.

...There is an option to relay spam to Spamcop which is a solution that addresses the problem above, but adds new. How is Spamcop assured that there is no mangling of the header being relayed and anyone could claim the opposite.

Again, refer to that FAQ. I am guessing that SC is always adding spamtraps (and removing them) to/from the list of the ones they trust. Again guessing - a new one is easily monitored and results compared to other sources (even member reports) to be assured of fidelity. Any hint that a spamtrap is being manipulated in any way (by owner, by spammers or by others) and it would be suspended. SpamCop staff have been doing this job for a long time and I, for one, am confident they have seen just about every trick (and are always anxious to catch any new ones).

If your proposals are 'different' they would be considered against what SC knows to work and what they can be confident with in terms of fidelity and in terms of how they see the world of spam they address. SpamCop cannot deal with every 'type' of spam operation with equal success and would need convincing to extend their scope. But the secret spamtraps are the basis of the whole SC operation and they are effective in listing a very large number of compromised or deliberate spam sources or indiscriminate relays while they continue to send spam. The other part of the story is they then pass on the details to ISPs (unless those show they cannot be trusted or if they ask not to be given details) to help them eliminate the abuse of their networks. That is how it works, as I see it.