Is pdlweb@yahoo.com a spammer?

[ryandesign]

I'm concerned that the spam reports I write on SpamCop.net are being immediately sent to the individuals responsible for creating the spam I receive.

On the assumption that SpamCop.net knows better than I do who should be receiving spam reports (that being, after all, the reason SpamCop.net was created), I generally let SpamCop.net report my spam as it sees fit. Recently SpamCop.net has wanted to send reports to "pdlweb[at]yahoo.com", apparently a "Third party interested in spamvertized web site" (sic). Being suspicious of the Yahoo address and the peculiar wording of the description, I decided to find out who this is, so I did yahoo.com&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8]a Google search on that email address. I turned up the Google cache of a whois record listing this email address. The current version of this whois record lists the same physical address and phone number, but a different email address and company: GoldToe International Inc. A Google search for this company led me to this page which seems to indicate that this company is involved with spam activities (its IP addresses are listed as blocked / unwelcome). Also found this whois record for the domain simia6activity.info which lists GoldToe as the responsible party. (The current version of this whois record lists somebody else.) The vast majority of the spam I've received over the past 3 months at least comes from one very annoying and persistent spammer who had been using a slew of domains of the form <digit><digit><digit><letter><letter><letter>.<com|info|...> and has recently switched to domains of the form <word><digit><word>.<com|info|...>. So there would seem to be a link between domains of this form and the email address to which SpamCop.net suggests I send my spam reports.

How does a third party interested in receiving spam reports get into SpamCop.net's system? How are such interested individuals screened for being spammers themselves? Have I missed something in my analysis above? Does anybody have any info on who this pdlweb[at]yahoo.com really is or why they're interested in my spam, if not to retaliate against those who report their spams?

[Wazoo]

Quick answer (noting that you'll get to do the digging) is found at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...indpost&p=20874

The Tracking URL of the spam showing the connection would be much appreciated .. and necessary for sending a note in the direction of the Deputies ...

[turetzsr]

Hi, ryandesign!

...Also worth noting is that if you are concerned about such third-parties, you can always turn off SpamCop's "offer" to send reports to them. There's even an Option (at least there is on www.spamcop.net) to turn third-parties off by default.

[ryandesign]

Hi Wazoo. Thank you for your response. Here is the most recent spam I have reported where pdlweb[at]yahoo.com asked to receive a copy. Is this what you're looking for?

http://www.spamcop.net/mcgi?action=gettrac...rtid=1308552384

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z700092683z21...50280853a9f70bz

I'm not sure exactly what you would have me look at in the post you referred me to. Are you pointing me to the FAQ entry on how people can sign up for third-party report mailings? It seems to say that there's no checking at all, that anybody can sign up for these reports. Or are you pointing out that these reports aren't "full" versions? (What's missing?)

[Wazoo]

Actually, the particular e-mail address of the third-party has been brought up over in the newsgroups, Ellen has responded a bit in that thread, but I'm still waiting for her to come up with her final answer on what's happening ... when she replies "over there", I'll cart her 'official' response back here.

Yes, the discussion/Topic I sent you to described my surprise at finding the massive change to that FAQ (not there was a lot of discussion between RW and myself about the wording that exists now) .... The answer to the question you posed is in there, I thought. It's now pretty much an automatic thing, no vetting is done until after the fact, such as the current situation with your identified third-party query.

The Tracking URL (the second item) you provided is on its way to Ellen ... the users over in the newsgroups for some reason didn't want to provide them, trying to play games with using wildcards in URLs for Ellen to try to track down ...??? Thanks for the great feedback!

[Ellen]

Actually, the particular e-mail address of the third-party has been brought up over in the newsgroups, Ellen has responded a bit in that thread, but I'm still waiting for her to come up with her final answer on what's happening ... when she replies "over there", I'll cart her 'official' response back here.

Yes, the discussion/Topic I sent you to described my surprise at finding the massive change to that FAQ (not there was a lot of discussion between RW and myself about the wording that exists now) .... The answer to the question you posed is in there, I thought.  It's now pretty much an automatic thing, no vetting is done until after the fact, such as the current situation with your identified third-party query.

The Tracking URL (the second item) you provided is on its way to Ellen ... the users over in the newsgroups for some reason didn't want to provide them, trying to play games with using wildcards in URLs for Ellen to try to track down ...???  Thanks for the great feedback!

21048[/snapback]

I just emailed you -- I did remove that reporting address and thought I had posted but apparently managed to not post. Long day, lots of mail. Thanks for the url.

What's automatic? what doesn't have vetting? Adding 3rd parties? It has more vetting now then it ever has before. Of course we still have 3rd parties in there from the days when anyone could add themselves to anything and as we come across ones that shouldn't be there we remove them. Now we do have the summary reports where anyone can add themselves but those are only IP/number of reports with *no* information beyond that.