amm Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 I am sending emails from my home office and I am receiving the following error. This has been consistent and longer than 24 hours - weeks. I am a business person trying to work. I find this extremely invasive. I really do not care what your reasons are for having me on your system. If I am not removed I will seek out others and help with a class action suit to bring this type of indiscriminate blocking down. I do not have the know how or the time to figure out why your site is stopping me from sending out emails. I hope this can be forwarded to someone at tech in spamcob. Get me the hell off your site and let me conduct my day to day business. I am in real estate, do not send out emails for advertisement, only for business communication. amm Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients. Subject: Backcountry Sent: 7/1/2004 9:30 PM The following recipient(s) could not be reached: 'alan[at]midwestdevelopment.net' on 7/1/2004 9:30 PM 451 Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?66.82.50.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 You could start with the Pinned work-in-progress FAQ at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=972 , but as you've no time to figure out what your problem is, not sure why I'm going to waste my time here either .. Had you gone to the link provided, you'd have found that the reason this IP made the list was due to spamtrap hits. This is usually due to an infected/compromised system, stupid anti-virus software, e-mail server compromised, or really poor e-mail list management. The lack of data provided in your rant doesn't offer much for anyone here to try to make a guess as to which problem might be impacting you. The rejection notice (interesting that it's a 400 series) is being sent from an ISP that chooses to try to control the spam spew into their system and protect their users from spammers. (Special Note here, it was rejected by the targeted recipient ISP ... there is no way for SpamCop to "reach out" and block your e-mail) The first question - do you run/control your own e-mail server? - appears to be answered with a "no" ... it appears that perhaps you might want to get your ISP involved if one makes the assumption that you're sharing this IP with others ... else your ISP could drop your connection if it turns out that the spew is in fact coming from a machine under your control. Parsing input: 66.82.50.1 host 66.82.50.1 = dpc6682050001.direcpc.com (cached) Reporting addresses: abuse[at]direcpc.com postmaster[at]direcpc.com 07/01/04 22:20:00 IP block 66.82.50.1 Trying 66.82.50.1 at ARIN Trying 66.82.50 at ARIN OrgName: Hughes Network Systems OrgID: HNS Address: 11717 Exploration Lane Address: DirecWAY Network Management Center Address: attn: Network Security Manager City: Germantown StateProv: MD PostalCode: 20876 Country: US NetRange: 66.82.0.0 - 66.82.255.255 CIDR: 66.82.0.0/16 NetName: DIRECPC-1BLK NetHandle: NET-66-82-0-0-1 Parent: NET-66-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Allocation NameServer: NS1.DIRECPC.COM NameServer: NS2.DIRECPC.COM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 66.82.50.1 is a dynamic IP. Why are you running a mail server on a dynamic IP? According to senderbase mail from this IP has gone up 1,064% in the last day. Your machine has been hijacked or you have a worm or you are sending large anounts of spam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek T Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 If I am not removed I will seek out others and help with a class action suit to bring this type of indiscriminate blocking down. How refreshing! Ages since we've had a cartooney. Wonder if it'll bother to come back, read the replies and sort out it's server? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dra007 Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Sounds like his/her mind was already made up...I kinda doubt we will see this ranter again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralsky's Fatal Tumor Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Just in the interest of helping stem the tide, I emailed amm. He replied within minutes, so if anyone else wants to try convincing him he has problems, feel free. I did read the site. I have norton and it is updated daily and the systems scanned as often. There are no Trojans or virus being detected on a full scan. Thanks for the suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Thanks for trying .. but as the rant started with "no time" and your quote indicates that he has been back, spent the time reading, but didn't feel it was worth his time to respond to any queries or to clear anything up, I'll have to pretty much leave him to his issues. As we don't really know whether he's running his own server or playing some other kind of e-mail handling and he's gullible enough to believe that Norton does everything, I see trying to educate him at this point to probably be a waste of time. Matter of fact, one might end up being named in the lawsuit for harassing him at this point. <g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Just in the interest of helping stem the tide, I emailed amm. He replied within minutes, so if anyone else wants to try convincing him he has problems, feel free. I did read the site. I have norton and it is updated daily and the systems scanned as often. There are no Trojans or virus being detected on a full scan. Thanks for the suggestion. Norton does not get all hijacks. This guy is foolish if he thinks all he needs is Norton. I just cleaned two infected machines this week that were riddled with worms and malware Norton did not pick up. They are now using a couple extra spyware programs. I hope you read this amm, your machine could and probably is infected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralsky's Fatal Tumor Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 I just cleaned two infected machines this week that were riddled with worms and malware Norton did not pick up. Really? Were these firewalled machines or unprotected? All I use is Norton and a hardware firewall and I've never had a problem. Were these power-users or the "What? Weather on my desktop? Sure, I'd like to install that program!" type. I'd hate to think there's something out there that could sneak past my finely-tuned combination of hardware, software, and paranoia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Looks like this machine that is supposedly not infected has an increase of sending mail of 1,207% in the last day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 I just cleaned two infected machines this week that were riddled with worms and malware Norton did not pick up. Really? Were these firewalled machines or unprotected? All I use is Norton and a hardware firewall and I've never had a problem. Were these power-users or the "What? Weather on my desktop? Sure, I'd like to install that program!" type. I'd hate to think there's something out there that could sneak past my finely-tuned combination of hardware, software, and paranoia. They had no firewall. Bad browser settings and a few other things. They are not so trusting now :-) I took almost an entire day to clean em! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Sure, I'd like to install that program!" I had a case recently where I had to tell a father (the person who I was helping) that his teenaged son was browsing porn almost every night while on break from college. Most of the spyware was porn related search engines. He had a nice long talk with his son that night... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amm Posted July 2, 2004 Author Share Posted July 2, 2004 You could start with the Pinned work-in-progress FAQ at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=972 , but as you've no time to figure out what your problem is, not sure why I'm going to waste my time here either .. Had you gone to the link provided, you'd have found that the reason this IP made the list was due to spamtrap hits. This is usually due to an infected/compromised system, stupid anti-virus software, e-mail server compromised, or really poor e-mail list management. The lack of data provided in your rant doesn't offer much for anyone here to try to make a guess as to which problem might be impacting you. The rejection notice (interesting that it's a 400 series) is being sent from an ISP that chooses to try to control the spam spew into their system and protect their users from spammers. (Special Note here, it was rejected by the targeted recipient ISP ... there is no way for SpamCop to "reach out" and block your e-mail) The first question - do you run/control your own e-mail server? - appears to be answered with a "no" ... it appears that perhaps you might want to get your ISP involved if one makes the assumption that you're sharing this IP with others ... else your ISP could drop your connection if it turns out that the spew is in fact coming from a machine under your control. Parsing input: 66.82.50.1 host 66.82.50.1 = dpc6682050001.direcpc.com (cached) Reporting addresses: abuse[at]direcpc.com postmaster[at]direcpc.com 07/01/04 22:20:00 IP block 66.82.50.1 Trying 66.82.50.1 at ARIN Trying 66.82.50 at ARIN OrgName: Hughes Network Systems OrgID: HNS Address: 11717 Exploration Lane Address: DirecWAY Network Management Center Address: attn: Network Security Manager City: Germantown StateProv: MD PostalCode: 20876 Country: US NetRange: 66.82.0.0 - 66.82.255.255 CIDR: 66.82.0.0/16 NetName: DIRECPC-1BLK NetHandle: NET-66-82-0-0-1 Parent: NET-66-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Allocation NameServer: NS1.DIRECPC.COM NameServer: NS2.DIRECPC.COM Wazoo, Thank you for the suggestions. Unlike most folks on this site, I do not have the time to spend hours on technical issues. I run outlook 2003. From my home computer. Direcway is the download service provider and I have a dial up uplink. I have had spamblock block my emails on and off for many weeks now. I think most of the folks on this site seem to of lose sight of the fact that there is another world out there were people have other jobs and responsibilities. Not just teching out on a spam blocking site. Part of being a responsible site is making sure that your system doesn't target innocent users. I find being unable to send out emails much more damaging than receiving spam. For me Spamcop "throws the baby out with the bath water". I would not be at this site if the few emails I send from my home office every day were not being block. As for the few that state my traffic has increased....again think about the average user. I send a few emails one night and then not for a few or several days. Of course it would appear that my email traffic has increased. So the spamcop system shuts me down because of this. I do not understand the how spamcop evaluates or blocks traffic, but my "rant" is relevant. If enough innocent "idiots" like me out there keep getting shut down by the spamcop agenda soon spamcop will have problems on its hands. This is not a threat, it is a reality. It is not incumbent upon me to solve spamcop's problems; spamcop is invading upon my right to send email for business purposes. I am a consultant and real estate developer and not being able to work out of my home office is damaging my business. Anyone on this site can be as cynical as they want about me, but if it is happening to me, it is happening to others and if spamcop doesn't solve its issues, the issues will come back to haunt the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 I run outlook 2003. From my home computer. Direcway is the download service provider and I have a dial up uplink. I have had spamblock block my emails on and off for many weeks now. Outlook 2003 is not an e-mail server, so that would indicate that the spam spew source is at your "dial up uplink" host" .... As the spew is still on-going and apparently increasing, your next step should actually be contacting your e-mail provider and raising hell there. Either get you moved to another IP and away from the spammers creating the problem ... or kick them into gear and actually handle their spam spew issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amm Posted July 2, 2004 Author Share Posted July 2, 2004 ... so that would indicate that the spam spew source is at your "dial up uplink" host" .... As the spew is still on-going and apparently increasing, your next step should actually be contacting your e-mail provider and raising hell there. Either get you moved to another IP and away from the spammers creating the problem ... or kick them into gear and actually handle their spam spew issue. Thanks. I will call my dial up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 This is a bit of a hard read (as most legal documents tend to be) ... but it might explain things in a whole different light, coming from a judge that has tried to work our her understanding of how things works in a current effort by a world-renowned spammer trying to get SpamCop to "change it's ways" <g> Per the request of the web-site author, a "direct" link is not listed here, but just follow the suggested link descriptions ... http://lawsuite.word-to-the-wise.com/ The Filings 2004-06-25 SBA PI Denied Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 I am just trying to understand the problem here not being mean. If you are not running an email server, Outlook 2003 is a client not a server it sends your mail through your ISP's server which has a different/static IP address then your dynamic IP. Your dynamic IP is being reported as the source of the spam so either you are running an email server that is insecure or have an open proxy or you have a worm/trojan on your system. So the question is, are you running an email server? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbear Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 It does look as though a dynamically allocated IP is the reported source. If it is the case that his machine is compromised he should have had e-mails blocked on other allocated IP's. How about trying an online virus scan here and an online pest/trojan scan here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Posted July 4, 2004 Share Posted July 4, 2004 Subject: Backcountry Sent: 7/1/2004 9:30 PM The following recipient(s) could not be reached: 'alan[at]midwestdevelopment.net' on 7/1/2004 9:30 PM 451 Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?66.82.50.1 IIRC IP 66.82.50.1 is the IP that direcpc funnels everyone thru -- they do not stamp a received header for the connecting user so this IP gets listed from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amm Posted July 5, 2004 Author Share Posted July 5, 2004 Subject: Backcountry Sent: 7/1/2004 9:30 PM The following recipient(s) could not be reached: 'alan[at]midwestdevelopment.net' on 7/1/2004 9:30 PM 451 Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?66.82.50.1 IIRC IP 66.82.50.1 is the IP that direcpc funnels everyone thru -- they do not stamp a received header for the connecting user so this IP gets listed from time to time. I appreciate the comment as my dial up is my domain and email provider and I connect to them through a backbone in my office and I have never had spamcop trouble with this in my office - only in the home office where Direcpc is the down link. If I am sending email from the home office via the dial up provider, how can direcpc come into play as they only function as the down link (I have a oneway satellite system for the home office)? I am only receiving the block when I try to send emails, not download? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amm Posted July 5, 2004 Author Share Posted July 5, 2004 This is a bit of a hard read (as most legal documents tend to be) ... but it might explain things in a whole different light, coming from a judge that has tried to work our her understanding of how things works in a current effort by a world-renowned spammer trying to get SpamCop to "change it's ways" <g> Per the request of the web-site author, a "direct" link is not listed here, but just follow the suggested link descriptions ... http://lawsuite.word-to-the-wise.com/ The Filings 2004-06-25 SBA PI Denied Interesting write up. I am not a spammer. I am a business person trying to do business using the net. As I stated before, if it is happening to me - I am willing to bet there are a lot of others having this happen. I support any group that tries within reasonable bounds to stop spam. Not at the cost of my ability to use the net - it would be a bit self defeating. "Throwing out the baby with the bath water". You may note that the judge ordered significant changes be instituted by Spamcop and it appears that the Spammer was put in place not by its case, but by its failure to file documents in a timely manner. What ever the outcome, the only winner will be the attorneys billing hours on either side. Unless Spamcop has probono help at its side, I suggest that they take complaints such as my extremely seriously so as not to incurr needless negative publicity or in the worst case legal bills. Legitimate users such as myself have no interest in wasting their time or money on litigation - but if I or others can not use the interenet due to erroneous blocking by Spamcop the alternatives start to look dismal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 I appreciate the comment as my dial up is my domain and email provider and I connect to them through a backbone in my office and I have never had spamcop trouble with this in my office - only in the home office where Direcpc is the down link. Please fill in the blanks. Your description sounds unique/silly/strange that you'd be paying one ISP for uploading and another ISP for downloading. Who is this other ISP? As the story thus far is that one IP is blocked, that IP has been identified as a direcpc e-mail server, and your e-mail is being routed out that server, what exactly would you have someone here figure out for you? You may note that the judge ordered significant changes be instituted by Spamcop Huh? Spammer was put in place not by its case, but by its failure to file documents in a timely manner. Huh, again ..???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dra007 Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 I think he needs a translator. Seems to me he was not receptive to any help given. Just came here to rant and threaten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amm Posted July 5, 2004 Author Share Posted July 5, 2004 Please fill in the blanks. Your description sounds unique/silly/strange that you'd be paying one ISP for uploading and another ISP for downloading. Who is this other ISP? As the story thus far is that one IP is blocked, that IP has been identified as a direcpc e-mail server, and your e-mail is being routed out that server, what exactly would you have someone here figure out for you? Is a one way satellite system unique? Dial up and satellite download? Perhaps I am prototype of direcpc and no one else has this system, or perhaps you understood the description of my system as well as I understood the judge's ruling? I find the many spamcop supporters that opt out by just labelling me as ranter humorous and irresponsible - a sad reflection on the user of the product. Perhaps one day when their email is shut down by some outside source that they do not control or understand, rather than find solutions they will be treated the same. Of course I am upset. My email is being blocked by spamcop and I am not sending spam, I am a legitimate user - sending occassional emails. It sounds as if many of the users of this product believe that all are the devil and no one could ever be innocently hurt by the product. What comes around goes around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbiel Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 Of course I am upset. My email is being blocked by spamcop and I am not sending spam, I am a legitimate user - sending occassional emails. Keep in mind, SpamCop does not block any email - not even spam. What it does do is provide a service to others that trust it with the tools to fight spam. It is up to the individual user, ISP, corporation, etc to use the tools wisely. Blind usage results in false reports which results in problems for legitimate uses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.