Incorrect IP lookup in website form mail spam

[cyberdyne2]

I have a web mail form through which I received unsolicited mail for a retailer.

When I forwarded this to Spamcop, the IP of my host was used for lookup as opposed to the IP of the sender / poster.

Can this be looked into please.

Thank you.

Removed url - can anyone just view the page at my tracking url ? Can I send by PM ?

[turetzsr]

If you have a specific question about a section of the FAQ (see link near top of every SpamCop Forum page labeled "SpamCop FAQ"), specifically the items labeled "Why does SpamCop want to send a report to my own network administrator?" and "How do I configure Mailhosts for SpamCop?," that confuses you, please identify/post that section here with your question and we will attempt to help you understand. If you haven't looked at a FAQ yet, please see the information provided at What is SpamCop? Another very good source of information is the SpamCop Wiki entry entitled "MailHostConfiguration."

[Wazoo]

I have a web mail form through which I received unsolicited mail for a retailer.

When I forwarded this to Spamcop, the IP of my host was used for lookup as opposed to the IP of the sender / poster.

???? A web form .. that does what exactly? The easy guess is that it then causes another application on your Host to send you an e-mail. As the Parsing & Reporting System tries to identify the "source" of the e-mail you provide, why wouldn't the result be your Host?

Can this be looked into please.

Removed url - can anyone just view the page at my tracking url ? Can I send by PM ?

Let me try to interpret this bit. You don't want to do any research for your own situation, but you expect someone else to spend time duplicating effort made by many others to provide answers so that you wouldn't even have to ask them in the first place? How things work, what is needed to let things work, defiitions of these special terms, on and on .. all available in the various FAQ, Dictionary, Glossary, and Wiki, nevermind the thousands of existing Topics, Discussions, and Posts within this Forum section. Tracking URLs are all over the place, being the desired mode of showing what was actually submitted to the Parser.

A bit more research and that some folks have asked about Reporting Forum spam and such has been brought up and answwered before would/could have been found. The SpamCop.net Parsing & Reporting System is not the right tool for this issue.

[cyberdyne2]

Let me try to interpret this bit. You don't want to do any research for your own situation, but you expect someone else to spend time duplicating effort made by many others to provide answers so that you wouldn't even have to ask them in the first place? How things work, what is needed to let things work, defiitions of these special terms, on and on .. all available in the various FAQ, Dictionary, Glossary, and Wiki, nevermind the thousands of existing Topics, Discussions, and Posts within this Forum section. Tracking URLs are all over the place, being the desired mode of showing what was actually submitted to the Parser.

A bit more research and that some folks have asked about Reporting Forum spam and such has been brought up and answwered before would/could have been found. The SpamCop.net Parsing & Reporting System is not the right tool for this issue.

These have to be two of the most unhelpful, arrogant replies I've ever received on a public forum. I've used SpamCop for many years but have never bothered anyone with questions or problems. Yet on the one occasion I do actually ask a question this is the response I'm given.

Would it have taken as much effort to provide a shorten, less flippant answer? Is this really the sort of response you want to provide your users with?

Tell you what, forget it, thanks so much for your valuable time, I'll go elsewhere. I hope you're very proud.

[turetzsr]

<snip>

Is this really the sort of response you want to provide your users with?

<snip>

...And in addition to the suggestions raised by Wazoo, you entirely missed the note "The primary mode of support here is peer-to-peer, meaning users helping other users." You are not "our" user (at least, not most of us -- there are a couple of SpamCop staff who occasionally stop in here but only two of hundreds), you're another SpamCop user like almost all the rest of us! In a "peer-to-peer" forum, don't you owe it to your fellow users to shoulder a bit of the load of doing some of the work to try to resolve your problem using the tools that others have already spent a lot of time providing? I'm sorry you didn't get the help you expected but our time is just as, if not more important than, yours!

[Wazoo]

Would it have taken as much effort to provide a shorten, less flippant answer? Is this really the sort of response you want to provide your users with?

Already done in a section you chose not to quote;

The SpamCop.net Parsing & Reporting System is not the right tool for this issue.

[SpamCopAdmin]

These have to be two of the most unhelpful, arrogant replies I've ever received on a public forum.

I agree. I am ashamed that the SpamCop name is associated with these forums.

Not to worry, though, I have written to you via email. Unlike the people who responded to you in the forum, I didn't have any problem seeing where your problem lies.

Please accept my apologies for all the trouble.

- Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin -

- service[at]admin.spamcop.net -

[Wazoo]

Unlike the people who responded to you in the forum, I didn't have any problem seeing where your problem lies.

Based on the user's description of the perceived issue, I'm still waiting for the magic explanation of just how it doesn't fall within the definition provided in On what type of email should I (not) use SpamCop? which, in theory, is required reading as part of the terms of use of the SpamCop.net Parsing & Reporting System.

[SpamCop 98]

I agree. I am ashamed that the SpamCop name is associated with these forums.

And I am equally ashamed at the way SC treats its user volunteers.

[turetzsr]

And I am equally ashamed at the way SC treats its user volunteers.

...IMHO, that's an overly broad brush. The only SpamCop staff I've seen who could remotely be accused of abuse in a public post is Don D'Minion. And, in this case, Don was responding to the OP's negative reaction and expressing an opinion rather than interjecting a jibe about treatment to which an OP hadn't objected, making it at least arguably "on topic."

[SpamCop 98]

And I am equally ashamed at the way SC treats its user volunteers.

...IMHO, that's an overly broad brush. The only SpamCop staff I've seen who could remotely be accused of abuse in a public post is Don D'Minion. And, in this case, Don was responding to the OP's negative reaction and expressing an opinion rather than interjecting a jibe about treatment to which an OP hadn't objected, making it at least arguably "on topic."

All I'm saying is that there are better ways to treat your user volunteers than to upbraid them publicly. And if this thread isn't just about why someone couldn't use a form on their web site to report form abuse I'll eat my hat. To that end, Wazoo's responses were on point.

How's this: when was the last time you saw, publicly, Wazoo and the like being thanked by the PTB?

[turetzsr]

<snip>

All I'm saying is that there are better ways to treat your user volunteers than to upbraid them publicly.

<snip>

...Understood (and I appreciate that you would defend us). But what you wrote was "And I am equally ashamed at the way SC treats its user volunteers" (emphasis mine) -- all I'm saying is that your statement could be taken as accusing SpamCop staff, in general, of upbraiding volunteers publicly and that just ain't the case, only Don has done that. <g>

[SpamCop 98]

...Understood (and I appreciate that you would defend us). But what you wrote was "And I am equally ashamed at the way SC treats its user volunteers" (emphasis mine) -- all I'm saying is that your statement could be taken as accusing SpamCop staff, in general, of upbraiding volunteers publicly and that just ain't the case, only Don has done that. <g>

Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

[Wazoo]

Perhaps not needed, but .... full disclosure ...

Topic starter got ticked off. He/she had subscribed to be notified of any traffic in this Topic. Don also PM'd this user with the same contents as seen in his Post.

In the midst of the huff, said user apparently deleted the e-mail address he/she had generated to Register here to make those Posts. Results were bounce messages galore in the log files here. Unsubscribed the user, cleared out the logs and queue files, kicked a heads-up notice to Don.

The question of what was so obvious other than something addressed in the What Not to Report FAQ/Wiki entries has yet to be responded to by either party, so yes, I still stand on that it wasn't e-mail spam that was in the attempted Reporting.

Based on the removal of the Forum and the newsgroups from the 'official' Help page, it's hard not to perceive that any public accolades could be against corporate policy these days, (Nothing to back that up beyond simple imagination.) The simple fact that there are different philosophies involved in just how to provide support are involved has come up numerous times over the years, some of them boiling down to the pay-check involved<g>