Jump to content

Warning!!! spamcop routing tables are corrupt


Miroslaw

Recommended Posts

Spamcop routing tables are corrupt!

That's a heck of a statement for a first post .... also not backed up by any newsgroup traffic, Forum traffic, system status messages, etc.

Refresh them at any report (click on all [refresh/show] links).

This is abusive behavior. Although the cache can and does go stale, some lookups end up being contaminated by various spammer tricks, this "hit Refresh on everything" is very ill-advised.

Example (I did before I found that problem):

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z988483441ze6...a140e09e466578z

Nothing there (now) to offer a clue as to what was being "warned" about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing there (now) to offer a clue as to what was being "warned" about.

There is a refreshed route:

Tracking message source: 213.6.236.163:

Routing details for 213.6.236.163

[refresh/show] Cached whois for 213.6.236.163 : khaled.sayeh[at]paltel.net

Using last resort contacts khaled.sayeh[at]paltel.net

Here on original route (before refresh)

Reports regarding this spam have already been sent:

Re: 213.6.236.163 (Administrator of network where email originates)

Reportid: 1821246414 To: abuse[at]pppool.de

Reportid: 1821246444 To: spamcop[at]imaphost.com

Before refresh both they are the same :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a refreshed route:

Tracking message source: 213.6.236.163:

Routing details for 213.6.236.163

[refresh/show] Cached whois for 213.6.236.163 : khaled.sayeh[at]paltel.net

Using last resort contacts khaled.sayeh[at]paltel.net

Here on original route (before refresh)

Reports regarding this spam have already been sent:

Re: 213.6.236.163 (Administrator of network where email originates)

Reportid: 1821246414 To: abuse[at]pppool.de

Reportid: 1821246444 To: spamcop[at]imaphost.com

Before refresh both they are the same :(

If that is your "evidence", I would say it is now messed up. I would much more trust any abuse address over a personal address like: khaled.sayeh[at]paltel.net which is just as likely could be the spammer sending the messages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is your "evidence", I would say it is now messed up. I would much more trust any abuse address over a personal address like: khaled.sayeh[at]paltel.net which is just as likely could be the spammer sending the messages.

There are abuse addresses on abuse.net for paltel.net. None of them are the pppool.de address.

I don't know what the OP is claiming. I do remember one time, a long time ago, being confused about abuse addresses. The parser sometimes does say one thing one time and another at another time which depends on the length of time it takes to look up addresses. If the look up fails, then the parser falls back on another source. If it succeeds, it uses that look up address.

That doesn't quite fit this scenario, but it may have something to do with the problem the OP perceives.

Miss Betsy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...