keef Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Here is your TRACKING URL - it may be saved for future reference: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5433615157z8...b3ba058405933cz No source IP address found, cannot proceed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Postwaster Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I just hit this one. My MXes all have IPv6 addresses, and the backup MX forwards to the primary over IPv6. So spam received via the backup will need header mangling in order to be reported, and spam received ‘directly’ may need header mangling. (Also, the primary does greylisting; yahoo.com retries a lot, but most just… go away.) Personally, I'd consider the following substitutions to be fine even though the header text would be changed: Localhost: ::1 → 127.0.0.1 IPv4 in IPv6 (example address): ::ffff:192.0.2.1 → 192.0.2.1 I don't see anything which can be done about other IPv6 addresses (except, possibly, link-local being handled much like RFC1918 addresses?); but once SpamCop start handling IPv6, this will be moot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 <snip> spam received via the backup will need header mangling in order to be reported, and spam received ‘directly’ may need header mangling. (Also, the primary does greylisting; yahoo.com retries a lot, but most just… go away.) <snip> ...If you mean by SpamCop users: don't do that! For more information, please see SpamCop FAQ (links to which are available near the top left of all SpamCop Forum pages) items labeled "Material changes to spam," "Material changes to spam - Updated!" and "What if I break the rule(s)?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keef Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) Here is your TRACKING URL - it may be saved for future reference: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5435821573z3...4129de093f54d1z No source IP address found, cannot proceed. Can someone tell me what to do *without* breaking the rules please? Edited December 1, 2012 by keef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 <snip> Can someone tell me what to do *without* breaking the rules please? ...See my earlier reply, above 82494[/snapback] and also Farelf's 83109[/snapback]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keef Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 ...See my earlier reply, above 82494[/snapback] and also Farelf's 83109[/snapback]. Saw those, but :- "that would be an irresponsible thing to recommend " so assumed it wasn't what we should be doing. Here is your TRACKING URL - it may be saved for future reference: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5437789322z6...617bd951491ba0z No source IP address found, cannot proceed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keef Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Here is your TRACKING URL - it may be saved for future reference: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5437813948z4...28b28219de1c5dz No source IP address found, cannot proceed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Saw those, but :- "that would be an irresponsible thing to recommend " so assumed it wasn't what we should be doing. <snip> ..Yes but I don't know what Steve (Farelf) meant by that -- hopefully he'll drop by soon to explain. All I can think of that he might have meant is: Care must be taken to ensure you are manually reporting to the correct abuse address(es) for the correct source(s) of the spam. Care must be taken to avoid sending a manual report to a spammer or someone friendly to the spammer or to spamming in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 ... All I can think of that he might have meant is: Care must be taken to ensure you are manually reporting to the correct abuse address(es) for the correct source(s) of the spam. Care must be taken to avoid sending a manual report to a spammer or someone friendly to the spammer or to spamming in general. Yes, those were the points - "manual" reports can be risky, particularly for the novice, whereas SpamCop reporting is not. Probably should have instead pointed to the excellent Rick's spam digest, particularly http://www.rickconner.net/spamweb/spamreporting.html which has all the information needed for manual reporting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Yes, those were the points - "manual" reports can be risky, particularly for the novice, whereas SpamCop reporting is not. <snip> ...Ah, okay, thanks for clarifying, Steve. So would you agree that the risk can be reduced by using the SpamCop parser to the degree possible to determine where to send the reports, then canceling the parse? The only thing that I can see that might negate the value of such a strategy in this case is that the IPv6 addresses would have to be removed so that the parse will work and that might remove an important part of the internet headers for the parser, causing it to find the wrong abuse address(es)! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 ...So would you agree that the risk can be reduced by using the SpamCop parser to the degree possible to determine where to send the reports, then canceling the parse? ...Absolutely - mostly we seem to be seeing "internal" IPv6 network routing which can safely be discarded. Anything else, maybe not, but if the delivery to the reporter's network is clear then that is as much as the parser has been concerned with since the advent of mailhosting anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keef Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 that might remove an important part of the internet headers for the parser, causing it to find the wrong abuse address(es)! All gets a bit to complicated for me I'm afraid. I can't be the only one getting these daily now. :- Here is your TRACKING URL - it may be saved for future reference: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5438237110z6...d592fc42b57cddz No source IP address found, cannot proceed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 All gets a bit to complicated for me I'm afraid....In that case, please just delete them. No one here (that has any sense) will think the less of you! <g>I can't be the only one getting these daily now. :- ...Probably not but since nothing can be done about it right now it's a moot point how many people are experiencing it. <frown> But, possibly good news: see SpamCopAdmin Don D'Minion's post in SpamCop Forum article "/dev/null'ing report" last sentence. <g> OTOH, we've heard that, before. <frown> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjp Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) I do not have much faith that CISCO is going to fix the IPv6 problem. Not related to IPv6 but interesting [url=http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2232532/cisco-hires-barclays-to-offload-linksys Edited December 17, 2012 by hjp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpamCopAdmin Posted December 18, 2012 Author Share Posted December 18, 2012 Removing IPv6 information from the headers so that SpamCop will process the spam is a material alteration, which is a HUGE TABOO with us. Changing the SpamCop code so it will handle IPv6 headers is a big challenge. IPv6 support is the focus of the new release, which is due out in a couple of months. - Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin - - Service[at]Admin.SpamCop.net - . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjp Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 The next SpamCop version supports IPv6 parsing. The release should be out within the next 30 days. No promises. It could easily be 60 days, or even 90 days, but we're hopeful that it will be sooner rather than later. - Don D'Optimistic - SpamCop Admin - - Service[at]Admin.SpamCop.net - . It has been over 90 days. Could we please have another update on what could possibly be the delay? Thank You Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 It has been over 90 days. <snip> ...Actually, it's only been just short of a month since the last update telling us that the new release is due "in a couple of months:"<snip> Changing the SpamCop code so it will handle IPv6 headers is a big challenge. IPv6 support is the focus of the new release, which is due out in a couple of months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keef Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Still getting them. Any news yet please? "Here is your TRACKING URL - it may be saved for future reference: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5454711182zb...8af50c8bz" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjp Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I do not have much faith that CISCO is going to fix the IPv6 problem. Not related to IPv6 but interesting Cisco to sell Linksys business to Belkin [url=http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2239064/cisco-to-sell-linksys-business-to-belkin'>http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2...iness-to-belkin When is CISCO going to sell or retire Spamcop? They should do something if they cannot implement IPv6 in a reasonable time and to keep the users fully informed. Estimates of 30, 60 and even 90 days which are not kept is to the point of being funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salamandir Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) They should do something if they cannot implement IPv6 in a reasonable time and to keep the users fully informed. Estimates of 30, 60 and even 90 days which are not kept is to the point of being funny. +1 my impression is that the more spammers discover that they can foil spamcop reporting by using IPv6 addresses, the more spamcop will become an excersise in futility... and i don't want to see that happen. Edited January 29, 2013 by salamandir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salamandir Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Here is your TRACKING URL - it may be saved for future reference: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5458348877z9...f11dbe3107532az Unable to process message. IPv6 addresses are not supported. No source IP address found, cannot proceed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salamandir Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Here is your TRACKING URL - it may be saved for future reference: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5459072449z5...520fe26234bee5z Unable to process message. IPv6 addresses are not supported. No source IP address found, cannot proceed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keef Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Any progress with this please? Here is your TRACKING URL - it may be saved for future reference: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5459770604z9...b8247ea4824d4bz No source IP address found, cannot proceed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Any progress with this please? <snip> ...83830'[/snapback] Dec 17 + "a couple of months" = Feb 17. Nevertheless, it would be nice to have an update from SpamCop as to progress and whether the fix appears to be on target for a mid-February release. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salamandir Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Here is your TRACKING URL - it may be saved for future reference: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5460374709z3...65a8f9432531ddz Unable to process message. IPv6 addresses are not supported. No source IP address found, cannot proceed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.