Jump to content

won't let me report spammed site


Cornholio
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm having a problem with a spam I forwarded. Spamcop says that the email sender's ISP has reported that the spam will cease (which is all good) but it also won't let me report the spammed site (which is a different ISP).

Here's the link: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1422147826z5...3d90d84c397966z

I understand not sending reports to the email sender's ISP, but why won't it let me report the spammed site (notewarm.com)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...FWIW, it seems to work fine for me:

<snip>

If reported today, reports would be sent to:

Re: 85.201.79.181 (Administrator of IP block - statistics only)

abuse[at]tvcablenet.be

abuse[at]pandora.be

postmaster[at]tvcablenet.be

Re: http://notewarm.com/ (Administrator of network hosting website referenced in spam)

abuse[at]ocn.ad.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DNS games in progress

first parse request for notewarm.com also showed the ocn.ad.jp address

a second request returned;

Parsing input: notewarm.com

Cannot resolve notewarm.com

No valid email addresses found, sorry!

There are several possible reasons for this:

The site involved may not want reports from SpamCop.

SpamCop administrators may have decided to stop sending reports to the site to prevent listwashing.

SpamCop uses internal routeing to contact this site, only knows about the internal method and so cannot provide an externally-valid email address.

There may be no working email address to receive reports.

A third request returned;

Parsing input: notewarm.com

Routing details for 123.202.228.243

[refresh/show] Cached whois for 123.202.228.243 : fionat[at]ctihk.com hostmaster[at]ctihk.com

Using abuse net on hostmaster[at]ctihk.com

abuse net ctihk.com = postmaster[at]ctihk.com, fionat[at]ctihk.com, abuse[at]hkbn.net, abuse[at]ctimail.com

Using best contacts postmaster[at]ctihk.com fionat[at]ctihk.com abuse[at]hkbn.net abuse[at]ctimail.com

Statistics:

123.202.228.243 not listed in bl.spamcop.net

More Information..

123.202.228.243 not listed in dnsbl.njabl.org

123.202.228.243 not listed in dnsbl.njabl.org

123.202.228.243 not listed in cbl.abuseat.org

123.202.228.243 not listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net

Reporting addresses:

postmaster[at]ctihk.com

fionat[at]ctihk.com

abuse[at]hkbn.net

abuse[at]ctimail.com

Then actually hitting the Tracking URL link provided;

Tracking link: http://notewarm.com/

[report history]

Resolves to 201.83.24.231

Routing details for 201.83.24.231

[refresh/show] Cached whois for 201.83.24.231 : virtua[at]virtua.com.br

Using last resort contacts virtua[at]virtua.com.br

Finding IP block owner:

Routing details for 85.201.79.181

[refresh/show] Cached whois for 85.201.79.181 : abuse[at]tvcablenet.be

Using abuse net on abuse[at]tvcablenet.be

abuse net tvcablenet.be = postmaster[at]tvcablenet.be, abuse[at]pandora.be, abuse[at]tvcablenet.be

Using best contacts postmaster[at]tvcablenet.be abuse[at]pandora.be abuse[at]tvcablenet.be

Hint: see all the previous discussion material about things like 'rotating DNS' .. bot-nets .. etc.

09/07/07 17:23:29 dns notewarm.com

Canonical name: notewarm.com

Addresses:

123.202.228.243

123.224.172.86

201.83.24.231

221.125.110.250

58.89.244.158

61.244.106.118

75.47.248.190

75.60.220.164

76.243.198.63

80.66.253.137

81.95.182.51

84.101.32.176

84.159.223.213

85.176.239.143

85.228.126.145

no doubt. checking in a few will show a whole bunch of different IP addresses involved ....

The parser deals with whatever the Domain resolved to at the moment of the look-up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DNS games in progress

no doubt. checking in a few will show a whole bunch of different IP addresses involved ....

...

The parser deals with whatever the Domain resolved to at the moment of the look-up

Yes, I'm familiar with rotating DNS, etc. However in this case, that is not the problem. Spamcop is finding IP addresses for the site and reporting addresses, it just will not let me send the report!

Maybe the issue is that since the email sender's admin has indicated that the spam will cease, Spamcop assumes that this applies to the spammed site as well (even though the two are unrelated)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the issue is that since the email sender's admin has indicated that the spam will cease, Spamcop assumes that this applies to the spammed site as well (even though the two are unrelated)?
No, the two are unrelated - all that happened with the spamvertized site was that, after you reported, the parser resolved a reporting address. That doesn't mean you can retrospectively use SC to send a report to the now-resolved address (where would that all end? The reporting addresses keep changing in many instances). You can, of course, send a manual report but in so doing lose the shield of SpamCop. Gathering evidence and requesting the domain registrar to take action might be a more productive tactic (but that is getting away from the SC function).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the two are unrelated - all that happened with the spamvertized site was that, after you reported, the parser resolved a reporting address.

No... I never reported. There was never the option to do so. A reporting address was resolved the very first time, but it wouldn't let me report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No... I never reported. There was never the option to do so. A reporting address was resolved the very first time, but it wouldn't let me report.
Aha, I get it ("At last," thinks the long-suffering Cornholio) a bug of sorts then, definitely. Since SC's "mission" is the mail originator's IP address I guess there's not a lot of priority given to the secondary "targets". Even so, it is annoying, has an "unfinished" feeling about it. I will email the Deputies but I fear other matters would take precedence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aha, I get it ("At last," thinks the long-suffering Cornholio) a bug of sorts then, definitely. Since SC's "mission" is the mail originator's IP address I guess there's not a lot of priority given to the secondary "targets". Even so, it is annoying, has an "unfinished" feeling about it. I will email the Deputies but I fear other matters would take precedence.

Heheh. :D Thanks. Let me know what they say.

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...