Jump to content

mycowal[at]ml.free.fr blocked by spamcop


LuBa
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

First sorry if it's in the wrong forum, no time to check all, and I barely understand all the TOS. So if it's in the wrong section, an admin is free to move this post.

Here's my problem:

My provider is scarlet.be, they use spamcop for spam issues.

I subscribe a mycology forum at ml.free.fr that's considered spam by spamcop. IT ISN'T. On discussion forum we always have our own messages, distributed to all members, and of course we receive it back as a proof it passed through the list.

Today I was unable to send messages to mycowal[at]ml.free.fr. IT'S ENOUGH.

Earlier problem:

<luc.bailly[at]scarlet.be>: host pop.scarlet.be[193.74.71.110] said: 553 5.3.0

spam Rejected - http://spamcop.net/bl.shtml?212.27.60.41

Today, when sending through Outlook Express (in French, no time to translate, sorry):

Une erreur inconnue s'est produite. Objet 'Hé del Dude 1 - 28.05', Compte : 'pop.scarlet.be', Serveur : 'smtp.scarlet.be', Protocole : SMTP, Réponse du serveur : '550 5.7.1 bulkmail l53A5NR25513 from 62.235.108.62 rejected', Port : 25, Sécurisé (SSL) : Non, Erreur de serveur : 550, Numéro d'erreur : 0x800CCC69

Other members of that forum have the same problem with spamcop (they're on scarlet.be as well).

Thus my request is very simple: I'd like the hosts of the listservers of mycowal[at]ml.free.fr to be removed from the list of spammers on SpamCop.

Thanks in advance for your attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick answer, can't be done! Longer answer will be provided by others soon. Bottom line, you are sharing space with a spammy ISP, it's them that have to fix the problem.

Bon chance!

PS. There seem to be no reports on 193.74.71.25, the IP rejected in the mail. More likely the recieving server is naming spamcop wrongly in the rejection message.

Edited by dra007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well gee whiz .... you know, I'm pretty busy also. It's very frustrating to point out that a ton load of information exists in the various FAQs made available here (I've no real idea where you found a TOS to get excited about) .. but one entry in particlar has a fairly clear title ... links exists in numerous places ... in fact, this very Forum section has this entry Pinned so it stays at the top of the first page;

Pinned: Why Am I Blocked? FAQ

Please read before posting

It's obvious you skipped over that and all of the other data ... placed so you wouldn't really need to waste your time posting this Frequently Asked Question .. and others wouldn't have to waste their time retyping in all the same answers ....

1. SpamCop.net does not have the power to "block your e-mail"

2. The SpamCopDNSBL does not contain entries that look like addresses, Domain names, etc.

2. You provided a link that was provided by the ISP that is rejecting your e-mail. Did you follow that link?

That link http://spamcop.net/bl.shtml?212.27.60.41 would have then led you to even more FAQ entries to explain what could be happening, but more importantly, the link http://spamcop.net/w3m?action=blcheck&ip=212.27.60.41 was also provided .. and had you followed that link ... you'd have seen;

212.27.60.41 not listed in bl.spamcop.net

On the other hand, abuse reports would have gone to

Parsing input: 212.27.60.41

Cached whois for 212.27.60.41 : abuse[at]proxad.net

Using abuse net on abuse[at]proxad.net

abuse net proxad.net = abuse[at]proxad.net

Using best contacts abuse[at]proxad.net

A paying member could have pulled up a bit of history, but that doesn't appear to be the 'full' reason for getting into the SpamCopDNSBL, as there are only four reports showing for the last 90 days ... actually all are 29 May and after ... and appear to be basically the "misdirected bounces" issues, which are specifically addressed in several FAQs ... so the probable issue boils down to spamtrap hits .. yet more FAQ entries ...

Now for the nest question, do you believe that any of these reported spam e-mails belong to "you" ..???

Submitted: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:06:23 AM -0500:

Listar: Post sent to moderator.

2316228121 ( 212.27.60.41 ) To: abuse[at]proxad.net

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

Submitted: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 3:02:25 AM -0500:

Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender

2308925782 ( 212.27.60.41 ) To: abuse[at]proxad.net

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

Submitted: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 12:48:27 AM -0500:

Listar: Post sent to moderator.

2308792624 ( 212.27.60.41 ) To: abuse[at]proxad.net

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

Submitted: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 12:48:25 AM -0500:

Listar command results: --

2308792505 ( 212.27.60.41 ) To: abuse[at]proxad.net

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

If not, then one would have to suggest that the server at 212.27.60.41 is shared with someone else, therefore also reinforcing that it "was not your e-mail" that was blocked, but that spam spew was seen coming from that IP address, that IP address made its way onto the SpamCopDNSBL .. and the receiving ISP has chosen to use the SpamCopDNSBL data in a blocking fashion, which SpamCop.net itself does not recommend. Or, they have rejected your e-mail for some other cause/justification .... but chose to 'blame' SpamCop.net for some reason.

But again, if it was listed, it has aged off the list already ....

Oh yeah, http://spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblock&a...p=62.235.108.62 also says;

62.235.108.62 not listed in bl.spamcop.net

Parsing input: 62.235.108.62

No recent reports, no history available

Cached whois for 62.235.108.62 : abuse[at]scarlet.be

Using abuse net on abuse[at]scarlet.be

abuse net scarlet.be = abuse[at]scarlet.be

Using best contacts abuse[at]scarlet.be

http://mailsc.spamcop.net/sc?track=193.74.71.110

193.74.71.110 not listed in bl.spamcop.net

Parsing input: 193.74.71.110

No recent reports, no history available

Cached whois for 193.74.71.110 : abuse[at]kpn.be

Using abuse net on abuse[at]kpn.be

abuse net kpn.be = postmaster[at]scarlet.be, abuse[at]scarlet.be

Using best contacts postmaster[at]scarlet.be abuse[at]scarlet.be

So at this point in time, there does not seem to be any involvement by SpamCop.net at all ...

..... hmmm, did I say anythng about folks wasting their time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Thus my request is very simple: I'd like the hosts of the listservers of mycowal[at]ml.free.fr to be removed from the list of spammers on SpamCop.
The request is simple but the situation is far from that simple. You say ml.free.fr does not send spam. There is no reason to dispute that but certainly someone using the same IP address(es) as ml.free.fr in proxad.net netspace does appear to be reported for sending spam from time to time and getting the entire address(es) blocked as a consequence, until that spam stops. It is not an option to exempt those spammers who share the IP address(es).

What are the realistic options? You might ask scarlet.be to whitelist ml.free.fr. ml.free.fr might request better managed servers from proxad.net, ones which are not shared with spammers (or their own server, not shared). Proxad.net might rid their server(s) of more of the spammers. You could even ask scarlet.be to stop using the SpamCop blocklist but that is not so attractive a proposition as you might have thought, as addressed further below.

SpamCop is sending proxad.net warnings of the spam activity. If it goes beyond a certain volume for the particular IP address then that address is placed on the blocklist. But only until the spam stops. In that regard, SpamCop is doing proxad.net a favour. There are other blocklists which might take longer to react to spam content but which are far harder to get off of. SC gives proxad a chance to avoid that. Note also that it is most likely scarlet.be subscribes to those other blocklists also. It would be few providers which use SC only.

Why your transmission from 62.235.108.62, a scarlet.be server, was rejected is not clear - you see there is no mention of SpamCop in the notice and anyway, as Wazoo has demonstrated, none of those IP addresses is currently listed on the SCBL.

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...