Jump to content

[Resolved] abuse[at]smtp.com is valid


Recommended Posts

Posted

Reported a phishing spam that came thru smtp.com yesterday:

5971584147 ( 192.40.177.60 ) To: support#smtp.com[at]devnull.spamcop.net

The headsers themselves recommend abuse[at]smtp.com, although whois only has

support[at]smtp.com; so I wrote to smtp.com who said they used to get spamcop reports

but they mysteriously stopped a few months ago...

They say they've found and killed the spammer's account..

so whassup?

- manchot

Posted

Trouble is the parser defers to abuse net for smtp.com = support[at]smtp.com as you have seen and that address started bouncing reports "support[at]smtp.com bounces (99 sent : 99 bounces)"

Looks like someone needs to update abuse.net, as you have also seen from whois.arin.net

OrgAbuseEmail: abuse[at]smtp.com

I see only two reports sent (to devnull) in the last 90 days but, if smtp.com are actually responsive, the small number of reports doesn't matter - something gets done.

Hopefully either SC or smtp.com can sort this out.

Posted

Assuming administrative decision = not just because of bounces. Marking "Resolved".

Right.. so just what *does* "administrative decision" mean?

Will SC start reporting to abuse[at]smtp.com ? They do seem responsive,

so why wouldn't SC change their administrative decisions??

j.

Posted
Right.. so just what *does* "administrative decision" mean?

<snip>

...While I can not say for sure, I am interpreting "by administrative decision" to mean "for reasons we [spamCop staff] believe are good ones but upon which we prefer not to elaborate." Since it's their service (and they therefore have the right to make even arbitrary decisions about it) and I pay nothing for it, I am not in any position to argue, nor would I argue if I were -- I trust SpamCop staff to not be arbitrary in matters involving such decisions.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...