Jump to content

Spamcop blacklisting the Shaw servers


wolfclan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Can someone provide an intelligent explanation as to WHY Spamcop has blacklisted the Shaw servers as I have been told in a reply to my emailed complaint to Shaw tech support? I am told many businesses including my own have been affected by this. I certainly won't be using a service that allows this to happen.

There is a current known issue with Spamcop blacklisting the Shaw

servers. The domain you are sending to are using the Spamcop blacklist

therefore messages sent to their servers will be blocked and will return

an error message.

Our administrators are aware of this problem are currently in

negotiations with Spamcop to have Shaw removed from their blacklist. We

thank you for your patience at this time.

Alternatively you can use a separate email account from Google(Gmail),

Yahoo or MSN when a primary email account does not work. At least in

this manner you will still be in contact with your recipient while the

issue is being worked on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaw is notorious for sending spam. The recipient has decided to stop recieving spam from Shaw until the spew stops. SpamCop is working as it is supposed to. If you want additional information you must provide an IP in question. Otherwise it is advisable to read the FAQ and learn how to ask a question to get an intelligent answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone provide an intelligent explanation as to WHY Spamcop has blacklisted the Shaw servers as I have been told in a reply to my emailed complaint to Shaw tech support? I am told many businesses including my own have been affected by this. I certainly won't be using a service that allows this to happen.

If you can provide us with the error message you are getting, we may be able to provide some information about the block.

Either spamcop reporters have received and reporter numerous spams from that IP address in numbers to become a significant percentage of the traffic from that IP address OR more likely, spamcop has received emails at one or more of it's spamtrap addresses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone provide an intelligent explanation as to WHY Spamcop has blacklisted the Shaw servers

Hard to say. A lot of work has gone into the FAQ, the Wiki, the countless Topics and iscussions that already exist here. Just a little bit of research into these items, the How to Post ... Pinned item (just to name a few) would have shown that the SpamCopDNSBL would not list "Shaw servers" ..... it also would have shown how funny the "we are in negotiations" statement actually is. If you've already looked at any/all of that and then decided not to provide the necessary data to answer your question, it's not clear just what else you'd consider 'intelligent' .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone provide an intelligent explanation as to WHY Spamcop has blacklisted the Shaw servers as I have been told in a reply to my emailed complaint to Shaw tech support? I am told many businesses including my own have been affected by this. I certainly won't be using a service that allows this to happen. ...
Good for you wolfclan (if you lurked here you would know that is an attitude we - tinw notwithstanding - believe in and support) - but, to be fair, few if any ISP's keep right on top of the incidence of compromised user machines connected to all of their servers. The SCbl, at least, releases IP addresses from the list with 24 hours of spam ceasing to come from that source (other BLs are not so "easy"). Those others may be cause for more concern (and SC is sometimes nominated as the "cause" when it is not hence our desire to see any technical detail of an actual rejection message).

We're big on self-help. The admin/moderating team don't work for SpamCop, we're just users. Amongst the resources mentioned on or that you can link to from the SC website are SenderBase-shawcable.net which at this instant is showing a 526% increase in daily outgoing messages (not conclusive but suspicious) and Hall of shame which shows shawcable.net at #52/72 (2855/31177380 SpamCop user reports over a week of reporting) which is getting towards conclusive. The earlier part of that page lists the individual IP addresses which were the source of the count and which may or may not be listed in the SCbl as a consequence - that is not inevitable, see the "SCBL Rules" part of What is the SpamCop Blocking List (SCBL)? - but at levels warranting inclusion in the HOS it is likely.

Again, at the moment, there was just one shawcable.net IP address responsible for that HOS inclusion of the domain (and it is #134/200 on an individual basis) and that address is not currently on the BL (weekly total as opposed to a daily monitoring). Note the domain, as such, is not included, ever, in the SCBL - the HOS is merely a summary. But any reports in shawcable.net netspace are reported to internet.abuse[at]sjrb.ca or otherwise in accordance with the abuse handler nominated (by the owner) for the offending IP address. That is intended to enable shawcable.net the opportunity to locate and remove the spamsource before it gets to the listing stage (though they would have to be quick - the spew rate can be phenomenal, even from a single zombied computer).

I'm not pretending this explanation to be "intelligent", merely human-directed. If you were wanting more you may have set the bar too high, at least when it comes to this little black duck. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to say. A lot of work has gone into the FAQ, the Wiki, the countless Topics and iscussions that already exist here. Just a little bit of research into these items, the How to Post ... Pinned item (just to name a few) would have shown that the SpamCopDNSBL would not list "Shaw servers" ..... it also would have shown how funny the "we are in negotiations" statement actually is. If you've already looked at any/all of that and then decided not to provide the necessary data to answer your question, it's not clear just what else you'd consider 'intelligent' .....

iscussions?

Forgive me for being new to your site and not being familiar with the nuts and bolts. I have spent a great deal of time already getting here. If your time is so precious then don't respond. Pointing out the hard work that has gone into your forum is aknowledged however this appeared to be a new issue at least for me. This is the first time I have heard of spamcop and the first time it has interfered with my emailing.

I was merely looking for an answer that I was unable to get from Shaw. They said it was a "known issue."

The parties I emailed to had no knowledge they were not getting email from Shaw users nor were they aware they were under the protection of spamcop.

The statement by the Shaw techie pointed out spamcop so I was trying to get an answer.

Here's a link provided

http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?64.59.134.9

I presume then it is Shaw that needs to resolve this problem at their end and accordingly there is no short answer to my problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Here's a link provided

http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?64.59.134.9

I presume then it is Shaw that needs to resolve this problem at their end and accordingly there is no short answer to my problem.

Read my previous, in this topic - and follow the internal link in the one you provided to Query bl.spamcop.net - 64.59.134.9 - that address is no longer listed. Allowing a short time for the remote accesses to update there is no SC-related reason for mail from 64.59.134.9 to be rejected by any recipient IP address but that (or any other address you are routed through) could re-list/list if the spam source(s) there are not permanently shut down. Yes, it's a shawcable responsibility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good for you wolfclan (if you lurked here you would know that is an attitude we - tinw notwithstanding - believe in and support) - but, to be fair, few if any ISP's keep right on top of the incidence of compromised user machines connected to all of their servers. The SCbl, at least, releases IP addresses from the list with 24 hours of spam ceasing to come from that source (other BLs are not so "easy"). Those others may be cause for more concern (and SC is sometimes nominated as the "cause" when it is not hence our desire to see any technical detail of an actual rejection message).

I very much appreciated your time and efforts in providing such a detailed response especially the efforts of those who continue to fight spam abusers. They are the real target of my frustrations.

Best Regards,

wolfclan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately that IP shows countless reports of abusive spam, some as early as today:

Submitted: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:54:02 AM -0500:

Euro million lottery

2180231960 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: internet.abuse#sjrb.ca[at]devnull.spamcop.net

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Sunday, March 04, 2007 6:41:09 AM -0500:

CONSOLATION WINNING NOTICE.

2180085164 ( http://www.powerballlottery.com/ ) To: kevin[at]thoughtconvergence.com

2180085162 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: internet.abuse#sjrb.ca[at]devnull.spamcop.net

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Sunday, March 04, 2007 6:27:14 AM -0500:

[spam] WINNER

2180030144 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: internet.abuse#sjrb.ca[at]devnull.spamcop.net

2180030143 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: [concealed user-defined recipient]

2180030142 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: internet.abuse[at]sjrb.ca

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Saturday, March 03, 2007 11:45:45 PM -0500:

CONSOLATION WINNING NOTICE.

2179588418 ( http://www.powerballlottery.com/ ) To: kevin[at]thoughtconvergence.com

2179588417 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: internet.abuse#sjrb.ca[at]devnull.spamcop.net

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Saturday, March 03, 2007 6:43:11 PM -0500:

WORK ONLINE FROM HOME AND GET PAID WEEKLY

2179298817 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: internet.abuse#sjrb.ca[at]devnull.spamcop.net

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Saturday, March 03, 2007 6:28:25 PM -0500:

LIAISON OFFER!!!

2179235193 ( Forwarded spam ) To: [concealed user-defined recipient]

2179235192 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: internet.abuse#sjrb.ca[at]devnull.spamcop.net

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Saturday, March 03, 2007 5:39:48 PM -0500:

WORK ONLINE AND GET PAID

2179218890 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: mole[at]devnull.spamcop.net

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Saturday, March 03, 2007 2:00:34 PM -0500:

PERSONAL

2178950208 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: internet.abuse#sjrb.ca[at]devnull.spamcop.net

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Saturday, March 03, 2007 1:49:28 PM -0500:

LIAISON OFFER!!!

2178913514 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: internet.abuse#sjrb.ca[at]devnull.spamcop.net

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Saturday, March 03, 2007 12:24:17 PM -0500:

LIAISON OFFER!!!

2178834017 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: internet.abuse[at]sjrb.ca

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Saturday, March 03, 2007 11:36:52 AM -0500:

OFFICIAL PRIZE NOTIFICATION

2178726884 ( http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/ ) To: jnbrox[at]gblx.net

2178726883 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: internet.abuse#sjrb.ca[at]devnull.spamcop.net

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Saturday, March 03, 2007 10:34:24 AM -0500:

CONSOLATION WINNING NOTICE.

2178647764 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: internet.abuse[at]sjrb.ca

I predict it will be listed again soon. Your only hope is that Show must have a number of IPs in use for sending mail.

Edited by dra007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very much appreciated your time and efforts in providing such a detailed response especially the efforts of those who continue to fight spam abusers. They are the real target of my frustrations.

Paid reporters can see the following reports (first page only displayed here) that would have been sent to their administration but it looks like they had reports disabled and were not getting them. Looking at the parse now, seems to be sending again to: Reporting addresses: internet.abuse[at]sjrb.ca. Perhaps this was the issue they were in discussion with SpamCop representatives about, that they had reports disabled.

Report History: 24 hours

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:54:02 AM -0500: 
Euro million lottery 
2180231960 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: internet.abuse#sjrb.ca[at]devnull.spamcop.net 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Sunday, March 04, 2007 6:41:09 AM -0500: 
CONSOLATION WINNING NOTICE. 
2180085164 ( [url="http://www.powerballlottery.com/"]http://www.powerballlottery.com/[/url] ) To: kevin[at]thoughtconvergence.com 
2180085162 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: internet.abuse#sjrb.ca[at]devnull.spamcop.net 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Sunday, March 04, 2007 6:27:14 AM -0500: 
[spam] WINNER 
2180030144 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: internet.abuse#sjrb.ca[at]devnull.spamcop.net 
2180030143 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: [concealed user-defined recipient]
2180030142 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: internet.abuse[at]sjrb.ca 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Saturday, March 03, 2007 11:45:45 PM -0500: 
CONSOLATION WINNING NOTICE. 
2179588418 ( [url="http://www.powerballlottery.com/"]http://www.powerballlottery.com/[/url] ) To: kevin[at]thoughtconvergence.com 
2179588417 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: internet.abuse#sjrb.ca[at]devnull.spamcop.net 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Saturday, March 03, 2007 6:43:11 PM -0500: 
WORK ONLINE FROM HOME AND GET PAID WEEKLY 
2179298817 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: internet.abuse#sjrb.ca[at]devnull.spamcop.net 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Saturday, March 03, 2007 6:28:25 PM -0500: 
LIAISON OFFER!!! 
2179235193 ( Forwarded spam ) To: [concealed user-defined recipient]
2179235192 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: internet.abuse#sjrb.ca[at]devnull.spamcop.net 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Saturday, March 03, 2007 5:39:48 PM -0500: 
WORK ONLINE AND GET PAID 
2179218890 ( 64.59.134.9 ) To: mole[at]devnull.spamcop.net 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HOLY SMOKES! SC users have reported over 260 spams coming from the IP [64.59.134.9] in just the last 7 days! That's one of the spammiest IPs I've *ever* seen. I want it PERMANENTLY blocked.

Wolfclan...you really, really need to find another route through which to send your email. Shaw cable has had a horrible reputation for this sort of thing, and now I see why....they must be completely incompetent.

DT

Edited by DavidT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

iscussions?

A week with no power, trying to play catch-up here and elsewhere, clean up inside the house, outside all over from the storm damage, excuse the missing "D" .. typing on a keyboard with the letters worn off the keys and wearing gloves does have its downside.

Forgive me for being new to your site and not being familiar with the nuts and bolts. I have spent a great deal of time already getting here. If your time is so precious then don't respond. Pointing out the hard work that has gone into your forum is aknowledged however this appeared to be a new issue at least for me. This is the first time I have heard of spamcop and the first time it has interfered with my emailing.

I was merely looking for an answer that I was unable to get from Shaw. They said it was a "known issue."

And that's exactly the issue .... a "known situation" ... FAQ entries in place, numerous items that you had to intentionally scroll by and ignore prior to making your post that contained no data for anyone here to work with ....

The parties I emailed to had no knowledge they were not getting email from Shaw users nor were they aware they were under the protection of spamcop.

The statement by the Shaw techie pointed out spamcop so I was trying to get an answer.

Which are available 'here' without even needing to register in order to post here to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...