Reporting options concerns

[washmail]

I have a few reporting concerns;

1.) My main email account (in another country) is manually configured to relay all my email to my local email account. Because of this, my main mailserver does not keep copies or filter any of the emails. I therefore uncheck all options to send my spam reports to them and make a short comment in this regard. Is this the correct action?

2.) Why does the report not get sent to my local mailserver's report address(es) by default? I've had to manually include them.

[Miss Betsy]

If spamcop reports are going to your main email address (I am not sure what boxes you are unchecking) because the parser has selected them, then either your main email address mail server is harboring spammers or there is something peculiar about the headers. Have you configured mailhosts? If the relay is not recognized as trusted, then, I believe the parser will stop there and it is a good thing that you are unchecking the boxes since you would be reporting (and adding to the blocklist) your main address.

Or perhaps you are talking about user copies of spamcop reports. Or maybe the notification that you have submitted a spam. Are the boxes you are checking in the spamcop report or in some sort of preferences for a reporting account or a spamcop email account?

Perhaps someone else will understand your question (I am a little hazy about relaying vs forwarding email and the implications for spamcop reporting), but you will have to be more specific about what exactly you are unchecking and what you want to receive, I believe.

Miss Betsy

[washmail]

I am referring to the boxes in the spamcop reports that suggest the reports be sent to the main mail server's abuse report address(es). As their involvement in my mail delivery is passive, I don't believe I should be sending them spamcop reports. I am just asking if this makes sense?

(The spamcop reports are not suggesting that a copy be directed to my main e-mail address.)

I haven't configured mailhosts as yet due to the complexity of my setup. (I've just posted a query in that forum.)

Can you offer any help regarding my second concern here?

[Farelf]

... I haven't configured mailhosts as yet due to the complexity of my setup. (I've just posted a query in that forum.) ...

And answered there. Suggest you do this before sending any reports. Reports go to the sources of spam (or spamvertized websites mentioned in the spam). Your providers/relays should not be getting reports at all unless they are the sources of your spam. It is possible that SpamCop is misidentifying the source, which might be cleared up once you have your hosts configured. Or they might actually be the source and they should find getting a "heads up" useful to avoid getting onto SC and other blocklists. If they become blocklisted they will be of reduced usefulness to you (because they will be blocked in trying to send to some addresses).

... Can you offer any help regarding my second concern here?

There seems to be a misconception (maybe mine in interpreting what you are saying). SC-nominated reports only go to the spam sources, as a courtesy by SC. Quite independently of the notification process, reports count towards having the IP addresses identified placed on the SC blocklist. You can add addresses (only if a paying reporter) to whatever addresses you want for whatever purpose you care to explain to them in the optional notes.

[washmail]

Thank you for clearing that up, I did indeed have such a misconception.

May I suggest this factor be explained to those signing up.

(I will be configuring mailhosts shortly.)

[agsteele]

1.) My main email account (in another country) is manually configured to relay all my email to my local email account. Because of this, my main mailserver does not keep copies or filter any of the emails. I therefore uncheck all options to send my spam reports to them and make a short comment in this regard. Is this the correct action?

If the ISP for your main Email address is appearing in the list of sources for the spam then I believe you are absolutely correct not to include them. Remember that this isp should be confirgured in your mailhosts. You will need to temporarily turn off forwarding when processing the the mailhost stuff. But remember to continue the manual check to ensure their servers are not listed.

2.) Why does the report not get sent to my local mailserver's report address(es) by default? I've had to manually include them.

Why would you want them to receive the report? They would not be the source of the spam. The SpamCop reports are designed to go to the 'owner' of the originating mail server - not to the servers that forward the message to its final destination.

Andrew

[turetzsr]

Thank you for clearing that up, I did indeed have such a misconception.

May I suggest this factor be explained to those signing up.

<snip>

...Unfortunately, that is beyond the power of those of us who frequent this Forum -- we are (for the most part) ordinary users, just like you. You could place this suggestion into the SpamCop New Feature Request Forum.

[washmail]

...Unfortunately, that is beyond the power of those of us who frequent this Forum -- we are (for the most part) ordinary users, just like you. You could place this suggestion into the SpamCop New Feature Request Forum.

Thanks, I will get to that.

I presume (and hope) that those who are not "ordinary users" are monitoring these other forums for input.

[StevenUnderwood]

Thanks, I will get to that.

I presume (and hope) that those who are not "ordinary users" are monitoring these other forums for input.

That is/was the reason for that section. There is little evidence that it is "monitored". Very few of the suggestions have been acted on.

The best I hope for is that they scan it when working on parts of the system for possible inclusion.

[washmail]

You will need to temporarily turn off forwarding when processing the mailhost stuff.

Andrew

Logically this makes sense, but how necessary is it?

It may not be suitable as in my case -

I don't use a mailbox for the example address concerned which is merely a passive (semi-)permanent relay. I could potentialy lose mail in the short testing period etc.

However, I did solve this verification problem by using a non-relayed or forwarded address I also happen to have with the same Mailhost.

But this may not always be an option; I'm sure there's others who would have a problem here.

And what if someone doesn't have the authority or knowledge to turn off their forwarding setting?

* (Perhaps this should rather be discussed in the appropriate forum...)

[Miss Betsy]

But this may not always be an option; I'm sure there's others who would have a problem here.

And what if someone doesn't have the authority or knowledge to turn off their forwarding setting?

* (Perhaps this should rather be discussed in the appropriate forum...)

The parser is extremely complex code, IIUC. There is only so much accommodation to special circumstances that can be made.

If someone doesn't have the authority to turn off their forwarding setting, then probably spamcop is not the answer to their spam problem and they will need to bug whoever is in authority to /do/ something or choose another method of spam control. If they don't have the knowledge, then it is possible to gain it here in the forum if they want to take the time to learn.

Miss Betsy

[StevenUnderwood]

The parser is extremely complex code, IIUC. There is only so much accommodation to special circumstances that can be made.

If someone doesn't have the authority to turn off their forwarding setting, then probably spamcop is not the answer to their spam problem and they will need to bug whoever is in authority to /do/ something or choose another method of spam control. If they don't have the knowledge, then it is possible to gain it here in the forum if they want to take the time to learn.

Miss Betsy

I had a service (poboxes.com) which simply relayed the email to a specific address and there was no mailbox there for it to stop at. Mailhost worked fine as long as the receiving account was configured first. The mailhost recognized that account was already included.

[Miss Betsy]

I am glad that your mailhost configuration worked out.

I have very little knowledge of the difference between relaying and forwarding (and POP or IMAP, for that matter), however, for those who may ask questions in the future, I am sure that one needs to be precise in using those terms when posing a question because they work in different ways.

Normally, email accounts have an option for forwarding to another email address. I suppose, since there was not an email address at the server it was forwarded to, but the server accepted it and sent it to another email address, the correct term was relaying. People who don't have the authority nor the knowledge to figure out how to set up mailhosts with that situation are unlikely to be able to set it up in the first place, I would think. I certainly wouldn't have a clue.

Miss Betsy