Jump to content

Replies from this Forum are on the BL


btech

Recommended Posts

Got this in my held mail:

Received: (qmail 13390 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2005 16:39:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (192.168.1.103)
  by blade5.cesmail.net with QMQP; 22 Jul 2005 16:39:38 -0000
Received: from rwcrmxc17.comcast.net (216.148.227.91)
  by mailgate2.cesmail.net with SMTP; 22 Jul 2005 16:39:38 -0000
Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49])
          by rwcrmxc17.comcast.net (rwcrmxc17) with SMTP
          id <20050722163933r1700nm48ue>; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:39:33 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [216.154.195.49]
Received: from unknown (HELO blade4.cesmail.net) (192.168.1.214)
  by c60.cesmail.net with SMTP; 22 Jul 2005 12:39:32 -0400
Message-Id: <43f9lo$7q1p07[at]c60.cesmail.net>
Received: (qmail 7772 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2005 16:39:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (192.168.1.103)
  by blade4.cesmail.net with QMQP; 22 Jul 2005 16:39:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx.spamcop.net) (216.154.195.60)
  by mailgate2.cesmail.net with SMTP; 22 Jul 2005 16:39:32 -0000
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:39:32 -0400
From: "SpamCop Discussion" <news[at]news.spamcop.net>
To: btech[at]comcast.net
Subject: Topic Subscription Reply Notification
Return-Path: news[at]news.spamcop.net
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: IPB PHP Mailer
X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on blade5
X-spam-Level: 
X-spam-Status: hits=-1.1 tests=AWL,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER version=3.0.2
X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.103 216.148.227.91 
X-SpamCop-Disposition: Blocked bl.spamcop.net

btech,

Wazoo has just posted a reply to a topic that you have subscribed to titled "Interesting spam mail".

The topic can be found here:
http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=4568&view=getnewpost

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the e-mail left the c60.cesmail.net server, hit a ComCast server, that then sent it back to mailgate2.cesmail.net .... it's the ComCast server at 216.148.227.91 that's on the BL .... (well, was perhaps, not showing as listed now at http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblo...=216.148.227.91 )(though still showing at http://www.senderbase.org/?searchBy=ipaddr...=216.148.227.91 at the time of this post)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had an awfully long spam run from comcast servers lately.

Are you sure it came from "servers" as opposed to zombied computers belonging to broadband customers? I'm guessing it's actually the latter. I received a barrage of them today, on a (currently) unfiltered mailing list server, and I sent some manual reports...not that it will do ANY good whatsoever.

DT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure it came from "servers" as opposed to zombied computers belonging to broadband customers? I'm guessing it's actually the latter.

DT

30747[/snapback]

If I'm receiving a notice from this board TO my Comcast account, how would a zombie be in the route from there to my address? I can follow how a server would, but I'm at work, not even on my Comcast connection [at] home... I guess I don't follow.

(BTW- I know my comp isn't a zombie.. i run it as clean as possible)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think DT was referring to the recent spam having come from Comcast zombies, rather than Comcast servers.

Yep...I was responding to Dra007's comment with a slight correction (which is why I quoted his comment in my reply).

DT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think DT was referring to the recent spam having come from Comcast zombies, rather than Comcast servers.

30755[/snapback]

However, it was the Comcast server that was listed (briefly, apparently) that tagged the email, IIUC. It may have been listed for other reasons which their admins quickly corrected.

Although they do nothing about zombies, they apparently do respond to reports about their servers.

Or am I misunderstanding something?

Miss Betsy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or am I misunderstanding something?

I think you're reading everying properly in context, which others didn't seem to be doing. If you re-read this topic sequentially, the comment from Dra007 and my response to him were only tangential, and not directly related to the original issue.

DT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're reading everying properly in context, which others didn't seem to be doing. If you re-read this topic sequentially, the comment from Dra007 and my response to him were only tangential, and not directly related to the original issue.

DT

30781[/snapback]

That's what I thought. So it seemed worth confirming - so that it emphasizes how threads can get tangential!

Miss Betsy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...