ob1db Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Spamcop reported on this attempt to report a spam: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5776062249zf...6b524e99cc84fbz Any thoughts? It looks like it has all the needed dates to me... David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 <snip> Any thoughts? It looks like it has all the needed dates to me... David ...It doesn't appear so to me; specifically:<snip> Received: from 107.63.241.60 by rms-us001 with HTTP <snip> I'm no expert, though, so before you take any further action on this you may wish to wait for someone else to add a more helpful post. <g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I'm with Steve T on this - looks to me like the "Received:" line identifying the source (107.63.241.60) lacks a date-time stamp. Easy (for a human) to see/assume that the stamp appears in the next line (working upwards) however that is not compliant with the "standards". Once again gmx.com writes their own which turns out convenient for them (if they even have SC in mind, which is far from certain) - they don't risk getting their (clients') IP addresses listed. This seems to be a common problem with that organisation, other "no date" cases have noted the same IIRC. I don't imagine there is anything much a SC reporter can do about it - we must leave other, sterner, RBLs to deal with their cupidity; they just don't "get" that the SCbl and detailed reports to ISPs are essentially/potentially helpful rather than punitive, reports often being offered before the spam attracts harsher treatment by those other RBLs. Oh well, it is their "business model" and it either sinks (hopefully so, because it seems to support a lot of spam) or swims in the longer term. JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.