petzl Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1066833353z48dd3091087ee88daa46fe1b0fa0c66bz After report is sent SpamCop then say's it sent reports to abuse[at]usen.ad.jp It maybe just a web "typo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 Feeling a but dense for some reason .... Tracking message source: 59.87.250.39: Routing details for 59.87.250.39 [refresh/show] Cached whois for 59.87.250.39 : abuse[at]usen.ad.jp Using abuse net on abuse[at]usen.ad.jp abuse net usen.ad.jp = postmaster[at]usen.ad.jp, abuse[at]usen.ad.jp Using best contacts postmaster[at]usen.ad.jp abuse[at]usen.ad.jp Reports regarding this spam have already been sent: Re: 59.87.250.39 (Administrator of network where email originates) Reportid: 1923235460 To: abuse[at]usen.ad.jp Reportid: 1923235467 To: postmaster[at]usen.ad.jp Reportid: 1923235473 To: spamcop[at]imaphost.com If reported today, reports would be sent to: Re: 59.87.250.39 (Administrator of network where email originates) abuse[at]usen.ad.jp postmaster[at]usen.ad.jp Re: 59.87.250.39 (Third party interested in email source) spamcop[at]imaphost.com Technically, I'm thinking that it looks OK. On the other hand .... From: "Wazoo" To: Deputies Subject: abuse.net lookup "adds" an address Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 02:27:17 -0500 Noted in Tracking URL http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1066833353z4...46fe1b0fa0c66bz Data shown at http://www.spamcop.net/sc?action=rcache;ip=59.87.250.39 Tracking details "whois 59.87.250.39[at]whois.apnic.net" (Getting contact from whois.apnic.net mirror) Display data: Abuse address in remarks/descr field: abuse[at]usen.ad.jp whois.apnic.net found abuse contacts for 59.87.250.39 = abuse[at]usen.ad.jp whois: 59.87.0.0 - 59.87.255.255 = abuse[at]usen.ad.jp Routing details for 59.87.250.39 Using abuse net on abuse[at]usen.ad.jp abuse net usen.ad.jp = postmaster[at]usen.ad.jp, abuse[at]usen.ad.jp Using best contacts postmaster[at]usen.ad.jp abuse[at]usen.ad.jp WHOIS lookup already had the "abuse" address, but the abuse.net lookup added the Postmaster address to the list of targets. Seems like a penalty for someone doing the 'right' thing ....???? Technically, the reporter could/should have de-selected the 'postmaster' address, but ... why was it offered at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petzl Posted September 16, 2006 Author Share Posted September 16, 2006 Feeling a but dense for some reason .... Tracking message source: 59.87.250.39: Re: 59.87.250.39 (Third party interested in email source) spamcop[at]imaphost.com Technically, I'm thinking that it looks OK. On the other hand .... Source IP 61.214.61.236 http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1066583240zebc14e924b4e9ad0bb28bf3252f469f0z 2nd time today this happened (I deselected all the URL's for reporting) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 petzl: You are going to have to be more complete in what you are complaining about here. As Wazoo has already stated, I don't see anything wrong with either of these parses. Are you saying that when you look at the Previous Reports, it shows as not sending them even though you hit send reports and the parse says you did? Or are you saying you cancelled these reports but they now the parses say the reports were sent? The second link shows: Reports regarding this spam have already been sent: Re: 61.214.61.236 (Administrator of network where email originates) Reportid: 1922936867 To: abuse[at]ocn.ad.jp Reportid: 1922936876 To: spamcop[at]imaphost.com If reported today, reports would be sent to:... which aligns with you deselecting the URL reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petzl Posted September 17, 2006 Author Share Posted September 17, 2006 petzl: Or are you saying you cancelled these reports but they now the parses say the reports were sent? The second link shows: which aligns with you deselecting the URL reports. I only cancelled reports to the web links not the IP spurce (which although states an abuse address did/does not send one?) **from past reports** Submitted: Saturday, 16 September 2006 9:01:29 AM +1000: Ro|exMens&LadyVacheronPatekFrom200Bucks 1922936876 ( 61.214.61.236 ) To: spamcop[at]imaphost.com 1922936867 ( 61.214.61.236 ) To: Submitted: Saturday, 16 September 2006 3:27:46 PM +1000: A Job offer 1923235473 ( 59.87.250.39 ) To: spamcop[at]imaphost.com 1923235467 ( 59.87.250.39 ) To: 1923235460 ( 59.87.250.39 ) To: ** Not happened agian since or at least so far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 I only cancelled reports to the web links not the IP spurce (which although states an abuse address did/does not send one?) **from past reports** Submitted: Saturday, 16 September 2006 9:01:29 AM +1000: Ro|exMens&LadyVacheronPatekFrom200Bucks 1922936876 ( 61.214.61.236 ) To: spamcop[at]imaphost.com 1922936867 ( 61.214.61.236 ) To: Submitted: Saturday, 16 September 2006 3:27:46 PM +1000: A Job offer 1923235473 ( 59.87.250.39 ) To: spamcop[at]imaphost.com 1923235467 ( 59.87.250.39 ) To: 1923235460 ( 59.87.250.39 ) To: ** Not happened agian since or at least so far Thank you for finally filling in the holes. I think it might be equally likely the reports were sent but that the Past Reports page is not updating properly. It would require the deputies to check the outgoing logs to see which is correct, however. None of my past reports, going back through 9/12 are showing the blank report like yours appear to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petzl Posted September 17, 2006 Author Share Posted September 17, 2006 Thank you for finally filling in the holes. I think it might be equally likely the reports were sent but that the Past Reports page is not updating properly. It would require the deputies to check the outgoing logs to see which is correct, however. None of my past reports, going back through 9/12 are showing the blank report like yours appear to. Low priority not happening again No one else is asking so may of been a temporary glitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.