Jump to content

Abuse contact for '109.121.192.0 - 109.121.254.255' is 'lir <at> netg.bg'


C2H5OH
 Share

Recommended Posts

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Yes, I get "No reporting addresses found for 109.121.206.199, using devnull for tracking." But RIPE says:

Abuse contact info: lir[at]inetg.bg

which matches the address you suggested in your Topic name. But SpamCop also says:

There are several possible reasons for this:

  • The site involved may not want reports from SpamCop.
  • SpamCop administrators may have decided to stop sending reports to the site to prevent listwashing.
  • SpamCop uses internal routeing to contact this site, only knows about the internal method and so cannot provide an externally-valid email address.
  • There may be no working email address to receive reports.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi turetzsr, yes, I know there are several reasons why Spamcop might not want to send a report.

In this case however, Spamcop says "no reporting addresses found".

That's different from the occasional "does not wish to receive..." or "I refuse to bother.." etc messages.

Or when a report is devnulled because 90 out of 90 reports have bounced.

Maybe the error message could be modified to more accurately state the true reason, "known hostile" or "anti-listwashing"; or would that give the bad guys too much help?

- Just a suggestion....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi turetzsr

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp That's my Forum user ID but I prefer "Steve T" (see my "sig"). :) <g>

yes, I know there are several reasons why Spamcop might not want to send a report.

In this case however, Spamcop says "no reporting addresses found".

That's different from the occasional "does not wish to receive..." or "I refuse to bother.." etc messages.

Or when a report is devnulled because 90 out of 90 reports have bounced.

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Please note that the quote in my last reply explaining why SC might not send a report was not a general reply to your inquiry but, rather, was a quote from an SC parse of 109.121.206.199, specifically!

Maybe the error message could be modified to more accurately state the true reason

<snip>

- Just a suggestion....

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp My guess is that your proposal will not be actioned by SC for fear that it might give away more about their spam parsing algorithm than they are willing to reveal. :) <g>
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...