JIP Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Greetings Hope this is the right group. I was recently reproted via Spamcop and got a warning from my ISP. I send a newsletter out regularly but only to people who agreed. I have since been repeating getting agreement on an opt-in basis, but I'd like to know who reported me to be sure why. I got the following link in the Spamcop report but don't know how to interpret it. Could someone please advise if it gives the complainant's details. No intention of harassing or whatever http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?i=z1444266654z6...6dc977436438d2z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Hi, JIP! I got the following link in the Spamcop report but don't know how to interpret it. Could someone please advise if it gives the complainant's details. No intention of harassing or whatever http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?i=z1444266654z6...6dc977436438d2z 29832[/snapback] ...No, I don't believe that it does. AFAIK, only your ISP and SpamCop Deputies (deputies <at> spamcop <dot> net) have access to that information (paying SpamCop members may be able to find summary-level information about the reported spam). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Greetings Hope this is the right group. Not really, at this point in time. http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblo...p=84.92.103.121 says that the IP in question is not on the BL. Strangely, http://www.senderbase.org/?searchBy=ipaddr...g=84.92.103.121 says no e-mail has ever been seen ..???? I will probably move this back over to the Reporting Help Forum section as it does deal with the Reporting process. I was recently reproted via Spamcop and got a warning from my ISP. I send a newsletter out regularly but only to people who agreed. I have since been repeating getting agreement on an opt-in basis, Not exactly sure what all this means. So the first thought is to once again point to the FAQ and note the links that attempt to deal with the "running of mail-lists" as a starter. but I'd like to know who reported me to be sure why. I got the following link in the Spamcop report but don't know how to interpret it. Could someone please advise if it gives the complainant's details. No intention of harassing or whatever http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?i=z1444266654z6...6dc977436438d2z 29832[/snapback] The real problem here is that the link you offered takes one to the "Abuse report response center" ... where the "interested party" is offered the chance to actually do something about the complaint .... There really isn't anything there that needs "interpretation" (excluding language issues) ... if your ISP sent/forwarded this complaint on to you, you need to make a decision on how to respond and make a selection/provide data, something. That you posted this "live" means that anyone can make a selection for you .... (debating now whether to edit all these referenced links or not ..?) Hi, JIP!...No, I don't believe that it does. AFAIK, only your ISP and SpamCop Deputies (deputies <at> spamcop <dot> net) have access to that information (paying SpamCop members may be able to find summary-level information about the reported spam). 29833[/snapback] Following the "Show how SpamCop traced this message" link on the referenced page takes on to the Tracking URL of the parsed spam .... which in this case is http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z773295786za7...4e02c48a18e0a6z ... report was 'munged' .. so no, you are not going to get the address of the complaining party. On the other hand, if you can clearly document that your sign-up procedures are robust enough that the only way someone could receive this 'newsletter' is only by "confirmed opt-in" .. there is the possibility that the spam reporter could face some sanctions for violating the rules of reporting via the SpamCop tool-set. A free-reporting user could ge banned, a paid-account reporter could get fined. At this point, your description of "getting ageements" doesn't offer enough detail on the opt-in/sign-up process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JIP Posted July 1, 2005 Author Share Posted July 1, 2005 Sorry if there's confusion, I'm new to all this - what I meant was that in the past I only put people on the mailing list if they agreed verbally, but I never kept any records. I am now in the process of sending emails to everyone with the message that unles they reply that they still want the newsletter, they will no longer receive it - and I will store all the affirmative replies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 By an amazing coincidence, you have found him. I submitted that report (Report ID 1449378161), along with a similar one (Report ID 1449378025). Both reports were of misdirected bounces by prometheus.galaxynet.com of spam directed to its users with an envelope from address in a domain for which I run the abuse desk. Misdirected bounces can now be reported per On what type of email should I (not) use SpamCop?. I will do more research soon, after the reboot necessary to reach my offline storage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JIP Posted July 1, 2005 Author Share Posted July 1, 2005 Jeff, what luck. But please remember that I said I'm new at this. I don't know what a misdirected bounce is, or who prometheus.... are. If you locate more details could you please explain in as simple a way as possible. Many thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I don't know what a misdirected bounce is, or who prometheus.... are. If you locate more details could you please explain in as simple a way as possible. In trying to stay ahead of you, there is a FAQ here .. one of the first links there is to a Glossary that included the term you're looking for. And yes, there have been complaints that some language there is actually tooo simple <g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 The following is quoted from Why are auto responders bad? - Misdirected bounces: Problem: Misdirected bounces Description: When a mail server accepts a message and later decides that it can't deliver the message, it is required to send back a bounce email to the sender of the original message. These bounce emails are often misdirected. Solution: Upgrade and/or configure your mail server software so that this situation is never encountered. Configure your software to either reject messages during delivery or accept them permanently. Do not let your software make choices about delivery after it has accepted a message. If you must accept delivery before you know the status of a message, then file it internally - do not send, forward or bounce it outside your organization. The errant message can be placed in a special folder or routed to your postmaster. Avoid offloading your filtering task onto random third parties. You must filter your own mail, not ask others to do it for you. Qmail: Qmail is one popular mail exchanger which suffers from this problem by default. If you use qmail, please apply a patch: spamcontrol or qmail-ldap. There is also an experimental patch for qmail which allows you to send bounces, but isolate them on a different IP address (so that spamcop can block them without blocking other mail): Richard Lyons' BOUNCEQUEUE patch PZInternet.com reports chkuser is a very good qmail patch to avoid misdirected bounces - very easy to install too! http://www.interazioni.it/opensource/chkuser/ For users of qmail-toasters, check out the simscan patch Microsoft Exchange: Microsoft has updates available for their Exchange Servers to control whether the Internet Mail Service suppresses or delivers non-delivery reports: Microsoft Exchange Server 5.5 Microsoft Exchange Server 2000 and 2003 Others: If you know or find other tips for fixing this problem in other popular software, please Post it to the forum and we will be happy to add it to this FAQ. It is important to prevent a global plague of misdirected bounces - already many people are filtering out *all* bounces because they can't sort the misdirected ones from the real ones. This further degrades the reliability of email. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I'm sorry, I crossed hands or something - I am not the original complainant/reporter of Report ID 1444266654 to abuse<at>plus.net, and I hereby retract my statements implying such in my first Post to this Topic. If you are Maria Price of "color me beautiful services" and cmb.co.uk, your newsletter was received by a SpamCop Email System Customer who uses freeserve.com in the UK. If you are not Maria Price, someone using your mailserver warley.plus.com [84.92.103.121] appears to have originated that email on Wed, 08 Jun 2005 at 14:42:23 +0100 BST (British Summer Time). You can reach the original complainant/reporter via email address 1444266654<at>reports.spamcop.net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Thanks for that follow-up ... I got lost trying to connect the dots <g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JIP Posted July 1, 2005 Author Share Posted July 1, 2005 Sorry, I seem to have taken the wrong path in trying to reply to Jeff. I wanted to ask - are you saying that if I email the address you gave, it will go to the complainant direct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Sorry, I seem to have taken the wrong path in trying to reply to Jeff. I wanted to ask - are you saying that if I email the address you gave, it will go to the complainant direct? 29865[/snapback] If that is where the report "comes from", yes, it will go to spamcop then back to the original reporter. There is no guarantee that they will answer your message, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Deleted the problem post, noting that there is an "Edit" button available ... I'm going to point out again that the link offered in the first post is still "live" .. it's a bit disturbing that action has yet to be taken to handle that first step. As far as "replying to the complainant" ... no, your reply will not go "directly" .. it will go to the SpamCop system, then it will be forwarded to the specific user. Whether that user replies or not is another whole story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JIP Posted July 2, 2005 Author Share Posted July 2, 2005 Thankyou folks - for the specific info and for the education. I wish I'd come across Spamcop earlier. I will send an email apologising for my error/ignorance about not having a rigorous enough system. I still don't understand what happened though - I only used to put people onto the mailing list after a face to face meeting at which they verbally agreed. I have never put anyone on without that meeting. However, I am now running a much tighter ship, using both the face to face agreement and a follow up email to the address supplied, and if there is a negative response or no response, then they don't go on the list. Now I have to sort out how to do this random code bit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 <snip> I still don't understand what happened though - I only used to put people onto the mailing list after a face to face meeting at which they verbally agreed. I have never put anyone on without that meeting. <snip> 29879[/snapback] ...Well, I can see the following scenario: JIP: Hey, I have a newsletter - would you like to receive a copy? Responder: <thinks to self: wow, an opportunity to spam someone -- I don't like PersonA, I'll give JIP PersonA's e-mail address>Sure! You can e-mail it to PersonA[at]PA-ISP.net. I can't wait for my first copy -- please send it as soon as you can! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.