Newsgroups spam OK here?

[OldNick]

I asked this some time back when I started, and was told to go ahead and post newsgroup spam and abuse. I have been merrily doing so, using the Web page version of SPamCop and the efforts were processed and absorbed OK by SpamCop. But somebody said that I shouldn't, as newsgroup stuff is not "spam" as such and therefore SpamCop does not carry through on it.

Any help on the above appreciated

[Merlyn]

They were wrong. Usenet spam is as bad as email spam and Spamcop is configured to reprt it. Just keep reporting your usenet spam as usual.

[Wazoo]

I asked this some time back when I started, and was told to go ahead and post newsgroup spam and abuse

Literally reading this and your chosen Topic Title, let's just point out that in general, "we" really don't need to see you posting newsgroup spam here .... Lord knows "we" see enough it ourselves.

As far as reporting, yes it's allowed, but there are a number of issues involved. Newsgroup headers are extremely easy to forge, so you really want to make sure that reports are headed in the right direction. Some ISPs don't seem to get all that excited by reports of newsgroup spam for some reason ... sometimes it helps to point to the specific newsgroup FAQ/Charter to show that certain posts are "not allowed" .... some of the cross-posted to 20 newsgroups is obvious, some of the naked lady posts in a gardening group is obvious, but some of the stuff needs a judgment call by someone to take action, so the more justification offered, the better ....

[OldNick]

As far as reporting, yes it's allowed, but there are a number of issues involved.  Newsgroup headers are extremely easy to forge, so you really want to make sure that reports are headed in the right direction.  Some ISPs don't seem to get all that excited by reports of newsgroup spam for some reason ... sometimes it helps to point to the specific newsgroup FAQ/Charter to show that certain posts are "not allowed" .... some of the cross-posted to 20 newsgroups is obvious, some of the naked lady posts in a gardening group is obvious, but some of the stuff needs a judgment call by someone to take action, so the more justification offered, the better ....

The spams fit the bill of cross-posting and naked ladies in inappropriate places. What justification shhould I be offering? Comments intended for the ISP's etc?

[OldNick]

I asked this some time back when I started, and was told to go ahead and post newsgroup spam and abuse

Literally reading this and your chosen Topic Title, let's just point out that in general, "we" really don't need to see you posting newsgroup spam here .... Lord knows "we" see enough it ourselves.

As far as reporting, yes it's allowed, but there are a number of issues involved. Newsgroup headers are extremely easy to forge, so you really want to make sure that reports are headed in the right direction. Some ISPs don't seem to get all that excited by reports of newsgroup spam for some reason ... sometimes it helps to point to the specific newsgroup FAQ/Charter to show that certain posts are "not allowed" .... some of the cross-posted to 20 newsgroups is obvious, some of the naked lady posts in a gardening group is obvious, but some of the stuff needs a judgment call by someone to take action, so the more justification offered, the better ....

As far as reporting, yes it's allowed, but there are a number of issues involved. Newsgroup headers are extremely easy to forge, so you really want to make sure that reports are headed in the right direction. Some ISPs don't seem to get all that excited by reports of newsgroup spam for some reason ... sometimes it helps to point to the specific newsgroup FAQ/Charter to show that certain posts are "not allowed" .... some of the cross-posted to 20 newsgroups is obvious, some of the naked lady posts in a gardening group is obvious, but some of the stuff needs a judgment call by someone to take action, so the more justification offered, the better ....

Sorry. I don't understand what you mean. What jusitification should I be providing?

[Wazoo]

As far as reporting, yes it's allowed, but there are a number of issues involved.  Newsgroup headers are extremely easy to forge, so you really want to make sure that reports are headed in the right direction.  Some ISPs don't seem to get all that excited by reports of newsgroup spam for some reason ... sometimes it helps to point to the specific newsgroup FAQ/Charter to show that certain posts are "not allowed" .... some of the cross-posted to 20 newsgroups is obvious, some of the naked lady posts in a gardening group is obvious, but some of the stuff needs a judgment call by someone to take action, so the more justification offered, the better ....

The spams fit the bill of cross-posting and naked ladies in inappropriate places. What justification shhould I be offering? Comments intended for the ISP's etc?

Depends on the situation, newsgroup, spam, etc. Pick one newsgroup ... have you chased down the Charter/Faq for that newsgroup? Does it define appropriate content for allowable content, define what's not allowed? Where does the specific spam fit? Was it a one time spam run, was it 30 copies just today, is it a robot that slaps up new postings on a daily basis, is it linking to the same site but allegedly posted by a dozen "different" folks ...??? on and on ....

[SpamCopAdmin]

But somebody said that I shouldn't, as newsgroup stuff is not "spam" as such and therefore SpamCop does not carry through on it.

Yes, SpamCop is processing Newsgroup spam, but that might end because of abuses.

It's expected that what gets reported will be actual spam with a commercial payload. Essentially the same spam we get by email. We're not in the business of enforcing Newsgroup Charters, crossposting limits, off-topic transgressions, signature limits, binaries in non-binary newsgroups, etc.

Reporting should be limited to posts that are so obviously spam that nobody would question it no matter what Newsgroup it appeared in. So obvious that there's no need to dig up charter or crossposting information to show that the post "qualifies" as spam.

- Don -

[loafman]

It's expected that what gets reported will be actual spam with a commercial payload...

Just to clarify, all spam is not commercial in nature. Some is political or religous. Is this a new SpamCop definition of spam? Or does the commercial restriction apply only to newsgroup spam?

...Ken

[Cry Havok]

Are we likely to see parsing of post bodies to identify links - or is it sticking with just parsing the headers?

Certainly, I've never yet seen SC provide any option to report regarding links in the body of a post.

[Wazoo]

Are we likely to see parsing of post bodies to identify links - or is it sticking with just parsing the headers?

Certainly, I've never yet seen SC provide any option to report regarding links in the body of a post.

If you are talking about NNTP postings reported as spam, the words from on high are "no, body links won't be chased down" ... As Don stated earlier in this Topic, NNTP parsing may actually come to a complete halt. Not parsing links was a decision and code change made long, long ago.

[Miss Betsy]

Just to clarify, all spam is not commercial in nature. Some is political or religous. Is this a new SpamCop definition of spam? Or does the commercial restriction apply only to newsgroup spam?

I don't know, but I would guess from Don's answer that 'commercial' applies only to newsgroup spam. The only exception would be if that particular message was also being received via email. And I would guess that the limitation is because in a newsgroup, it would be more difficult to decide whether a post of a political or religious nature was a legitimate post or spam.

spam is really defined as unsolicited, unwanted email. The spam that is causing problems is unsolicited bulk email and that definition also includes viruses. However, spamcop defines what spam can be reported. It excludes bounces and viruses, for instance. Someone will have to correct me on whether spamcop says it has to be suspected as bulk to be reported. At one time, any unsolicited commercial email (UCE) was ok to report via spamcop as well as UBE.

The reportable, or blockable, definition of spam depends on the blocklist owner. It is one of the problems in proposing legislation. No matter what definition one uses besides 'unsolicited, unwanted' one can find an exception. IMHO, blockable spam needs to be UBE. UCE that is not bulk can be handled individually as can unsolicited religious and political email that is not bulk. (And my definition of bulk is more than one - bulk is another problem to define). The definition of 'unsolicited' also includes no prior relationship. If a request for no more communication has been made and ignored, then subsequent emails are spam. I believe that spamcop allows those subsequent emails to be reported, but if I were in charge, they would not be reportable via spamcop.

Miss Betsy

[loafman]

The definition of 'unsolicited' also includes no prior relationship. If a request for no more communication has been made and ignored, then subsequent emails are spam.  I believe that spamcop allows those subsequent emails to be reported, but if I were in charge, they would not be reportable via spamcop.

Would you care to explain your reasoning on that one? If you have taken the time to Opt-Out of commercial communications, which you really should not do in the first place, why would subsequent communications from them not be spam, and/or not be reportable by SpamCop.

...Ken

[Wazoo]

Maybe a small point of order .. The original definition and appearance of something called spam was via NNTP newsgroups. This crap still exists. It was much later in the game tht the inclusion of the more "personal" touch of sending the spew to e-mail addresses came about. These days, with so many "new" computer users that don't have a clue as to what NNTP is or what a newsgroup is leads to the alleged "changed" definition of spam, as most of these new folks only see the e-mail side of the issue.

A lot of the "abuse" of SpamCop reporting of newsgroup stuff came from folks that decided to go beyond just reporting spammy posts ... folks got involved with flame wars, reported those ... someone offered an unpopular opinion, someone else used SpamCop to report .... some newbie crossposted into the wrong newsgroup, someone used SpamCop to report ... on and on .. but the point is that a lot of what was being reported wasn't actually spam, and the complaints coming back to SpamCop were enormous.

[Miss Betsy]

Would you care to explain your reasoning on that one? If you have taken the time to Opt-Out of commercial communications, which you really should not do in the first place, why would subsequent communications from them not be spam, and/or not be reportable by SpamCop.

I am not talking about opting out of unsolicited email sent to you from a stranger.

If you have signed up to receive email promotions (which I do sometimes), and then change your mind and unsubscribe, if they don't unsubscribe you, IMHO, it is more effective to badger them than it is to report via spamcop.

Also, if you have bought a product and they hid the list of emails that they will send you, IMHO, it is not effective to report via spamcop.

Yes, they are spam - both unsolicited (since you either have cancelled or didn't know that you were signing up) and unwanted. They are also commercial. But unless there are lots of other reporters who are in the same position, it is unlikely to put them on the blocklist. It is also unlikely that their ISP will listen to you. They are the ISP's customer. However, you are their customer (at least once and potentially again) and customer complaints carry more weight.

That doesn't mean that if the merchant doesn't listen, that you can't contact the ISP yourself and ask for their help in stopping the unwanted email. However, public blocklists should be confined to bulk email that was sent without any prior relationship.

That's my reasoning. It is unlikely to be a real threat. It also puts spamcop in the arbiter's seat in deciding whether the reporter or the merchant is acting in good faith which like the newsgroup spam is not where spamcop should want to be.

Miss Betsy

[loafman]

That's my reasoning.  It is unlikely to be a real threat.  It also puts spamcop in the arbiter's seat in deciding whether the reporter or the merchant is acting in good faith which like the newsgroup spam is not where spamcop should want to be.

Thanks for the response. I understand where you are coming from, but disagree. Some of us use SpamCop because we have no time to do the manual reports but want to feed the SCBL, so the methods you present are not workable. I wish I had more time to do manual reporting, but its just not there.

...Ken

[Miss Betsy]

But how many of your spam really does come from places where you have signed up and then unsubscribed and they haven't unsubscribed you?

Not very many, I bet. I have had three such problems in the past 3 years. Two were with companies where there must have been a problem with the unsubscribe and I got a thank you from one. The other was Target who signs you up to a long list of associates without telling you they are going to do so and it takes a month for the unsubscribe to work (or did - I haven't shopped there since this incident).

Most of the unsolicited email that I get is from websites that I have never visited and about subjects that I have never expressed an interest in any where - online or off.

A few at my workplace are targeted to the general area of our business (though not of interest to us) and of course, I do buy toner, etc. - though actually I haven't seen any for those kinds of products for a long time.

Miss Betsy

[loafman]

But how many of your spam really does come from places where you have signed up and then unsubscribed and they haven't unsubscribed you?

You are correct, not very many occur that way. When they have occurred, I did try to unsubscribe, tried to get them to correct the problem, then gave up and used SC. That seemed to do the trick.

Not saying that's the way to go for everything, but sometimes you just have to bring out the big guns if you want to get things done.

...Ken

[Miss Betsy]

Well, actually with Target I did try to report via spamcop, but that accomplished nothing. The chances of enough people using spamcop for that purpose at one time in order to blocklist them is pretty small and they know it.

In addition, I had a long discussion with an ISP in the newsgroup. His position was that it was a prior relationship and that, as an ISP, he would consider the spamcop report to be in error. I can certainly see the ISP side - they have a customer and are not getting a lot of complaints about them. One kook thinks that they should have higher standards (like immediately unsubscribing when asked instead of waiting 30 days). At the same time there was a discussion in nanae about how all the spamcop reports some ISP's get are erroneous so they ignore them. I figured that probably some of those reports were considered erroneous because there was a prior relationship and that they thought the reporter just hadn't bothered to unsubscribe properly. (Look at the trouble some people have unsubscribing from the spamcop mailing list! - also regular posts in the newsgroups).

So IMHO, a spamcop report is unlikely to accomplish much - unless it is unmunged, they don't ignore spamcop reports, and thus will actually listwash you. A manual report can include the information that you are dissatisfied as a customer - which, IMHO, has more influence than the very slim possibility of being listed by spamcop.

Miss Betsy