Jump to content

Change reporting address for SPAMvertised redirection website?


jimbocss
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys & Gals,

I've seen some of the posts already on the forum regarding URL redirection websites being spamvertised. In fact there's a thread about two down from mine about the same thing :P

However, my question is different....

I want to actively assist with removing forwards that have been set up on my URL redirection service (http://sqi.sh). However all spam reports are going to my ISP's abuse address and only filtering their way down to me several weeks later. Not only this, but my ISP is getting narky because they think that I am hosting spam / Illegal Content and don't understand that my site is merely a URL redirect.

Is it possible to have all abuse related emails from spamcop for my website forwarded directly to me?

I think its quite important for me to be alerted as soon as my site address appears in a spam email, as I can see from our stats that previous URL's have had 10,000+ visits from unsuspecting public :(

Thanks in advance.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jim,

It would be simpler (not to mention informed and authoritative) if a SC staff member could respond (and they may yet do so) but I can take a stab at responding in the meantime.

It looks like nobody is sharing your site's IP address so I guess id.net *could* set something up through SC for you - but I don't think SC would do that without their say-so and it is not a secure approach (in the event you turned out to be a vile spammer with a desire to wreak untold vengeance on luckless SC reporters and/or unearth the secret addresses of spam traps). There are other ways. The way things are supposed to happen is described at http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/88.html but of course that is not a satisfactory model for an abused "URL-shortening" service.

You could try setting up an abuse address for the sqi.sh domain - http://www.abuse.net/addnew.phtml - then talking to the deputies to see if you can be added as a "Third parties interested in reports" That leaves id.net in the loop. But the deputies would (I imagine) have to (somehow) be very sure of your credentials. The last thing they want to do is risk the security of reporters and spam traps (sorry). (Contact address is deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net). tinyurl.com has such an arrangement in conjunction with their provider he.net as does snipurl.com through softlayer.com. In both cases the providers still get SC reports but the shortening services simultaneously get copies through SC as "Third parties interested in reports" just as described above. I couldn't swear to it but I think that "Third party" business has only been added lately for those two.

HTH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Farelf,

Thanks for the reply. I shall give that email address a try and see what I can work out with SC.

It'll be a right killer for my website if my ISP has to be kept in the loop for these kind of reports, as they'll soon get fed up of receiving them and probably boot me off.

Not really fair considering that all I'm doing is providing a useful public service that has 99.9% legitimate redirects, hosts nothing 'illegal' and is more than willing to be highly proactive in removing the 0.1% of links that redirect to pharmaceutical websites!

:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...It'll be a right killer for my website if my ISP has to be kept in the loop for these kind of reports, as they'll soon get fed up of receiving them and probably boot me off....
There are tools for abuse address 'droids to make their lives liveable (trust me, their workloads are never going to reduce so they really need more than caffeine to cope) - I would be surprised if you provider doesn't already use such to keep on top of things - see http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/352.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, Jim!

<snip>

I've seen some of the posts already on the forum regarding URL redirection websites being spamvertised. In fact there's a thread about two down from mine about the same thing :P

However, my question is different....

<snip>

...Thanks for looking first! :) <g>
<snip>

[M]y ISP ... [wi]ll soon get fed up of receiving [reports] and probably boot me off.

Not really fair considering that all I'm doing is providing a useful public service that has 99.9% legitimate redirects, hosts nothing 'illegal' and is more than willing to be highly proactive in removing the 0.1% of links that redirect to pharmaceutical websites!

...Also see SpamCop Wiki article "Innocent Bystander." Although unlikely from what you've said, perhaps this would help your ISP folks understand what is happening...?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, in an attempt to deter spammers from using my service I have implemented a redirection page which tells people clicking on sqi.sh links where they are being taken to.

I'm also hoping that this will win some points with my ISP, though they are still saying that they are being flooded by SpamCop emails :(

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...