scforumuser Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 Wazoo says in his announcement: "Messages which may be reported: There are several types of responses to forged email that SpamCop has in the past prohibited. However, these messages have become a big enough problem that we now allow them to be reported as the spam that they technically are. Examples of messages in this category: Misdirected bounces Misdirected virus notifications Misdirected vacation emails Misdirected challenges from challenge/response spam filtering systems " I would like a good, clear description of 'misdirected bounces'. Previously any bounce could not be reported - now some can be reported - I need to know which ones can be reported. I still get bounces, usually sent by a mail-washer type program - is this reportable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 Wazoo only provided a link to this recently changed FAQ, Wazoo did say that the language has already caused some confusion. Wazoo says that he didn't write it, it didn't say this the last time he went through the entire www.spamcop.net FAQ while looking to see what the Forum FAQ needed to have in order to contain the entire www.spamcop.net FAQ .... Wazoo says the first he heard about it was a user in the newsgroups today asking the same question, but pointing out that his/her spam submittal had been rejected as a bounce .... However, thanks for noticing the Announcement posting and bringing more attention to it. Still waiting for someone to weigh in and possibly answer the hotbed of traffic going on over in the newsgroups about this changed FAQ entry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sommerfeld Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 Under the "unsolicited bulk email" definition, the new FAQ does not provide adequate guidance for how spamcop users, based on receiving a single copy of an unsolicited message, are supposed to determine that, in fact, the message actually was sent to more than one recipient. Are we supposed to use psychic powers or something? Admittedly, certain cases (H3rb/\|_ V1akra) will be obvious. others, less so. As a specific example, I get occasional spam from recruiters which is aimed at trying to find someone with approximately my (relatively rare) skillset, but the messages are "bulky" in the sense that my name and email address were almost certainly probably scraped off of a web site (conference attendee lists, that sort of thing). But I have no idea whether the recruiter sent out one, two dozen, or five hundred messages... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonbroth Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Under the "unsolicited bulk email" definition, the new FAQ does not provide adequate guidance for how spamcop users, based on receiving a single copy of an unsolicited message, are supposed to determine that, in fact, the message actually was sent to more than one recipient. Are we supposed to use psychic powers or something? 22534[/snapback] Hi, sommerfeld -- I guess the question would be whether the message you receive has been personalised to you in any way whatsoever (other than the choice of email address to spam), or whether it's "impersonal" bulk mail. If the only personalisation is that the spammer knows your name and your email address (and possibly your company's/website's name or other easily scrapeable details), but the email is otherwise untargeted commercial drek, I'd report them. If the email appears to be well targeted (like the specialist recruitment spams you report getting), then -- until the volume of such 'occasional' emails grows out of all proportion -- I'd say (shudder) you should Just Hit Delete. I agree the wording is peculiar. Use common sense. The SpamCop Admins surely will. (NB: IANASCA). Cheers, Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sommerfeld Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 If the only personalisation is that the spammer knows your name and your email address (and possibly your company's/website's name or other easily scrapeable details), but the email is otherwise untargeted commercial drek, I'd report them. IMHO, mail from recruiters *is* commercial drek. (it's undisputably "commercial", and "drek" is in the eyes of the beholder). "untargeted" is, again, impossible to divine without knowing the intent of the sender. i'll keep reporting them as spam. if multiple people are getting and reporting the messages, spamcop can determine whether they're bulky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sommerfeld Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 And, one more. The FAQ now says: Viruses are another form of spam and may be reported to SpamCop as such. I reported one today, and the parser gave me the usual "this message appears to be a virus. don't report viruses" error. Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 And, one more. The FAQ now says:I reported one today, and the parser gave me the usual "this message appears to be a virus. don't report viruses" error. Huh? 22648[/snapback] Send me the tracking url please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 As a test of this issue, I just reported a "wormy" email using the form at "mailsc.spamcop.net" (the one for paying customers) successfully. The message contained a large "details.vbs" encoded attachment which was indeed infected with the W32.Beagle.X[at]mm worm. However, a complicating factor might have been that the web reporting form won't accept anything over 50,000 characters and so the actual infected attachment was truncated before being processed. The parser allowed me to report it to Comcast, however. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sommerfeld Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Send me the tracking url please.22663[/snapback] I sent it to deputies[at]spamcop.net earlier today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Mechelynck Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 About viruses: Is it allowable to report emails in which a virus has been removed by antivirus software? I use Norton AV, and I get lots of mail with base64 attachments bearing the ominous name "Norton AntiVirus Deleted-1.txt". I guess they were intercepted by the software. Until now I JHD on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmaxx Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Lemme get this straight... we are now allowed to report "undeliverable" spam, etc? Hallelujah! Please, would some "admin" type person confirm what we're allowed to report? I've been deleting undeliverables before reporting (as best I could from the subject line) but now if I don't have to do that, I might be able to report more frequently -- i.e I can just log into the webmail, go to "held mail" click on "select all" and "report as spam" without worrying about whether or not it's an undeliverable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I can't answer the issue. Both here and over in the newsgroups, some definitions and explanations are still up in the air. Who changed the FAQ hasn't even been identified at this point. A few items have been addressed by Ellen requesting samples, but she must be answering those folks in private, as feedback to "everyone else" has not appeared in either place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmaxx Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I can't answer the issue. Both here and over in the newsgroups, some definitions and explanations are still up in the air. Who changed the FAQ hasn't even been identified at this point. A few items have been addressed by Ellen requesting samples, but she must be answering those folks in private, as feedback to "everyone else" has not appeared in either place. 22987[/snapback] Ok. Thanks. I'll ping Ellen and/or the deputies in general on this. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.