Jump to content

method to anonymously reply to 'rebuttals' to reports


webnexus
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have, on occasion gotten rebuttals or responses to my reports. Typically it's something along the lines of "sorry for the inconvenience we've solved the problem" or that they had a virus infected system. I appreciate the response from an admin when that happens and I usually will reply. But that also, by way of mail client, gives them my actual email address which is usually not a problem.

However today I got a response from a spammer that is essentially trying to bully someone who may be uncertain or and trying to cover their tracks and keep themselves from getting blacklisted.

Either way, when he replies, it goes to an obfusicated email, but if I reply it will go back to him directly. If I reply to the SC address it just comes to me. Craigslist does have this kind of option that it essentially relays back and forth using the same random address for the interested parties. Either that or some way to make notes of things like this against the original complaint... something for others to be aware of. I'm just concerned this may turn into a normal thing and reduce SC's relevance.

Below is a portion of the message source with specific information removed (but I left the spammers info in... screw him LOL) and the relevant text highlighted for readability. Of course I've never bought from them, nor would I. It's a clear attempt to make someone insecure about using SC and intimidation.

From: Frank Barrington <info[at]usjewelryliquidation.com>
Reply-To: Frank Barrington <info[at]usjewelryliquidation.com>
To: XXXXXX <XXXXXX[at]reports.spamcop.net>
Message-ID: <1067557756.50755.1431528415160.JavaMail.open-xchange[at]oxuslxltgw02.lxa.perfora.net>
Subject: spamcop user
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Medium
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.6.2-Rev16
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:SBRNYD4l69VxO/mnasbtQzGp+jqS1iNa44zbbrNI5g1cqjPYnMh
CZ0EZi/4YwHEL6HZu4Ii1WvH6iJC7NofDcsOuQ9azcLzQ717yDQ+1p2SCfPJJ8XIsFk5IR0
gIHhfGK1OIOTJH0y8i1i3LNBp6AnJyUyc+INyb4a6KCPcKVjQbDuXtjsXcSh+4iK8ooswO/
isFRWdpNAqv47tjYR4PYQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"/>
</head><body><p>Hello SpamCop user,</p><p>[ Messages are not spam. All messages are sent to previous customers who have accepted and ticked a checkbox to receive newsletters during the purchase process. Should you wish to not receive mail, the unsubscribe option is always available. However, reporting the message as spam when it is not can be construed as malicious can require liability. ]</p><p>--<br>Please use the link below to review the report in question:<br>https://www.spamcop.net/mcgi?action=showhistory;slice=reportid;val=XXXXXX</p></body></html>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rule #1. 'Spammers Lie'

Among the other rules is 'Spammers assume everyone else is dumber than they are."

I too have gotten similar bulling responses to spam reports. I find it easy to separate these for service providers or reported emailers that truly need help resolving their email problems.

I process the belligerent responses using the <DEL> key. Maintaining a dialog history for a given spammer seems quite removed from maintaining a dynamic block list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not concerned about maininting dialog history so much as providing an option to keep the identity of the reportee anonymous from the spamming system regardless of if the spammer is an innocently (if there is such a thing) infected system or an actual spammer being belligerent.

There was also a case 6 or 7 years ago where I had accidently miscategorized an email when I did a blast of about 75. I got a paniced email that her hosting provider was going to cut her off. I told her to forward my apology to them to clear things up but she persisted. I responded 3 or 4 more times but after that I just had to ignore her. I ignored 3 or 4 of her emails before she started calling my business line which was in my signature.

Just another reason why anonimizing the reportee could be helpful and why I put it in the new feature request forum. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, your experience does provide several lessons about having an ongoing dialog with spammers. As one SC user to another I would suggest any one of the many sources of 'throw away' email addresses.

As a user of the reporting system, I think there are other issues that the programmers should be working on for example IPv6. That of course is just my opinion.

Like my opinion, your suggestion is documented here for consideration by the powers that be. Thanks.

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...