madkingsoup Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 Every so often I get spam which suggests that abuse[at]savvis.net in interested as a third party (eg http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z696507191z6e...6c757a21a632ez) However, when push comes to shove, they refuse munged reports. Stop me if I'm reading too much into this but I find it very suspicious that an entity who/which has no connection to the spammer wants to know who is sending spam, but only if they can also find out who is receiving it. Am I being way too cynical here? MkS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agsteele Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 It is hard to say whether you are being cynical or wheter the reasoning you potentially attribute to Savvis is actually their thinking. I do know that our lawyers have advised that suspending or cancelling an account of a customer on the basis of anonymised complaints could leave us open to legal action for breach of contract. Thankfully, we don't have any spamming customers and we would rely on the bulk of reports providing proof on the balance of probabilities. All that is to say that there are many reasons why an ISP might refuse munged reports - some dubious and others reasonable. Better to deal with facts than conjecture. This is probably a Lounge issue - Wazoo can you oblige? Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=savvis.net Savvis == spam support nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madkingsoup Posted November 28, 2004 Author Share Posted November 28, 2004 http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=savvis.net Savvis == spam support nuff said. 20591[/snapback] So they are highly dodgy. Does Spamcop allow anyone to claim third party interest, or are such parties checked out first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted November 28, 2004 Share Posted November 28, 2004 The FAQ here includes pointers back to the original FAQ on the www.spamcop.net pages. The question you last ask is covered under a section called Help for abuse-desks and administrators ... I will note that what is currently showing on "How do I get reports" has been changed somewhat recently (and rather drastically) .... I'm sending a note out myself about some of the words now showing there ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted November 28, 2004 Share Posted November 28, 2004 ----- Original Message ----- From: "wazoo" To: "SpamCop, Deputies" Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 10:32 AM Subject: Is thie FAQ correct? > http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/94.html > In attempting to answer a third-party notification > question, I see that this FAQ has changed > immensely. The last sentence implies a lot ... > is it as wide-open as it appears? > > "your ISP account allows you to spot-check > any IP address for recent reports." > ^^^ Yes, it is correct but isn't as wide open as you may be thinking. The information returned is as simple as: 64.63.192.251 Most recent spam reported about 4.3 days ago 212.199.206.179 Listed in bl.spamcop.net Most recent spam reported about 16 hours ago 216.107.212.130 Listed in bl.spamcop.net Most recent spam reported about 4 hours ago It is a summary only. It doesn't allow the person to look at specific reports or even the types of reports. Following the bl link takes them to the bl page where they can get the specifics available to anyone, i.e.: - System has sent mail to SpamCop spam traps in the past week (spam traps are secret, no reports or evidence are provided by SpamCop) - SpamCop users have reported system as a source of spam about 10 times in the past week The reason it is done this way is because ISPs don't get the spam parsing box regular users get -- ISPs can't report spam through their ISP accounts. This gives them a way to get the same information any user can view. Richard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- In all honesty, I'm having a problem finding the FAQ that covered "third-party notification requests" ... as it appears that this existing FAQ replaced the one I'm thinking of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madkingsoup Posted November 29, 2004 Author Share Posted November 29, 2004 By a total coincidence, while searching for something utterly unrelated, I happened upon a BBC News Online article from September all about Savvis: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3634572.stm "...in January [savvis] bought C&W US, the American arm of the British telecommunications company Cable & Wireless, for $155 million (£87.4 million). Along with C&W US's 3,000 business customers, Savvis inherited 95 major spammers..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonbroth Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 By a total coincidence, while searching for something utterly unrelated, I happened upon a BBC News Online article from September all about Savvis.20671[/snapback] Old news. What happened since is visible on Spamhaus and the mirrored Savvis.info website. At the time of writing (late November), Spamhaus reports that Savvis.net are hosting 48 spammers including 12 ROKSO-listed hard-core spammers. When their little racket was exposed in September (see savvis.info for the disgusting details), they were hosting 146 spammers including 57 ROKSO-listed entities. So that's progress of a sort. However, it appears inconsistent with Savvis' press release promising to be good (and to use the ROKSO list as their "principal metric"). Popular opinion on NANAE (news.admin.net-abuse.email) holds that Savvis are happy to remain "bubbling under" as the 11th or 12th spammiest ISP on the Net, taking their pink money while ducking and diving to avoid a return to Spamhaus' monthly "Top Ten Worst spam ISPs" listing. If not, why are a dozen of the spammers they claim to be getting rid of still enjoying their Savvis-provided connectivity, almost three months later? Cheers, Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madkingsoup Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 Old news. 20676[/snapback] Clearly. Though not old to me. Call it "new olds" if you like! Nor, it would seem, is it old news to Spamcop who have, since I started this thread, dissociated Savvis from ev1.net reports. Old news.... new olds.... explanations always get there in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.