paul.hunt Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 When Blogspot is used as a spam site, referenced in the spam, DO NOT device-null my copy to Blogspot. If I didn't want to complain to them, I wouldn't have copied to them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 When Blogspot is used as a spam site, referenced in the spam, DO NOT device-null my copy to Blogspot. If I didn't want to complain to them, I wouldn't have copied to them! You will need to expand on this a bit more... are you manually adding the blogspot address or is the parser adding it? A TrackingURL would be helpful to explain why the address has been dev/nulled. The only reason that any address is dev/nulled is because the deputies have found that either the address is bouncing or that they are at best non-responsive to reports. They could also have specifically requested not to receive reports from SpamCop. If that is the case, a manual report is what you need to do to send a report to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul.hunt Posted February 17, 2008 Author Share Posted February 17, 2008 You will need to expand on this a bit more... are you manually adding the blogspot address ... Manually. Like I said, I wouldn't have copied them if I didn't want to report to them. A TrackingURL would be helpful to explain why the address has been dev/nulled. 2849041977 is the report ID. The only reason that any address is dev/nulled is because the deputies have found that either the address is bouncing or that they are at best non-responsive to reports. They could also have specifically requested not to receive reports from SpamCop. If that is the case, a manual report is what you need to do to send a report to them. To be honest, I don't much care if they are non-responsive or have requested not to receive reports. I've requested not to receive spam, for all the good that does. If all I can do is stick a report in their mailbox, that's better than nothing. Just leaving these complicit folks alone because they don't want to be bothered is bs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Manually. Like I said, I wouldn't have copied them if I didn't want to report to them. 2849041977 is the report ID. To be honest, I don't much care if they are non-responsive or have requested not to receive reports. I've requested not to receive spam, for all the good that does. If all I can do is stick a report in their mailbox, that's better than nothing. Just leaving these complicit folks alone because they don't want to be bothered is bs. Report ID's are useless here... only you can see them that way. You may not care, but spamcop sends so many reports that if they are simply going to bounce, there is no reason to send them. You can try to place a report in their mailbox but only by sending a manual report (ie. using your email account, not using spamcop reporting). BTW, reporting to the source is a secondary function of reporting them. Even if the report is dev/nulled, the IP will get listed with enough reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul.hunt Posted February 17, 2008 Author Share Posted February 17, 2008 Report ID's are useless here... only you can see them that way. OK. I should probably know how to get the ID you want, but I don't. When I look at my reporting history, all I see are report ID's. You may not care, but spamcop sends so many reports that if they are simply going to bounce, there is no reason to send them. I agree. But I didn't say that. I specifically addressed the issues you raised about non-responsive ISP's/Hosts and those who have indicated they do not want SpamCop reports. If they find receiving too many SpamCop reports fills up their mailboxes, too bad. You can try to place a report in their mailbox but only by sending a manual report (ie. using your email account, not using spamcop reporting). Which is exactly what I am objecting to. BTW, reporting to the source is a secondary function of reporting them. Even if the report is dev/nulled, the IP will get listed with enough reports. Which is fine as a purely defensive measure. And being satisfied with defensive measures has gotten us to the point where, as I understand it, well over half of all email is spam. There is nothing wrong, and a lot to be desired in, taking the battle back to those responsible and complicit. Sending them complaints, whether they want to receive them or not, is a very small and reasonable step in that direction. I pay SpamCop to help me fight that battle. I expect no less than that they will assist me in complaining to those responsible for this crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 To be honest, I don't much care if they are non-responsive or have requested not to receive reports. I've requested not to receive spam, for all the good that does. If all I can do is stick a report in their mailbox, that's better than nothing. Just leaving these complicit folks alone because they don't want to be bothered is bs. The netiquette rule that means that unsolicited email is spam also means that if someone requests not to get reports, that request should be honored. Miss Manners says that rudeness should never be responded to with more rudeness. Miss Manners says that the appropriate response is the 'cut direct' to those who contravene etiquette rules. The internet equivalent of the 'cut direct' is to block email at the server level - which is what the spamcop blocklist is designed to do - or at least identify it so that it does not go to one's inbox. Only those reporters who utilize the scbl to block or identify spam complete the process. Of course, those reporters who contribute reports are welcome even if they don't use the scbl because it makes the scbl stronger. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul.hunt Posted February 17, 2008 Author Share Posted February 17, 2008 The netiquette rule that means that unsolicited email is spam also means that if someone requests not to get reports, that request should be honored. Miss Manners says that rudeness should never be responded to with more rudeness. Miss Manners says that the appropriate response is the 'cut direct' to those who contravene etiquette rules. I don't think Miss Manners sets the rules here. We're not talking social niceties. According to what I read, the vast majority of spam is criminal in nature, which puts it in a whole different arena. Where I come from, we don't allow Miss Manners to dictate our response to criminals and those who harbor them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I don't think Miss Manners sets the rules here. We're not talking social niceties. According to what I read, the vast majority of spam is criminal in nature, which puts it in a whole different arena. Where I come from, we don't allow Miss Manners to dictate our response to criminals and those who harbor them. Generally, with criminals we leave law enforcement to deal with them. Those who deal with criminals directly are called vigilantes. Spamcop has been accused of vigilantism, but it does no harm to those who are sending spam. The reports are for those server admins who may have a problem. If the abuse desk sees no problem, then spamcop doesn't insist. The internet is built on netiquette. Because of the internationality of the internet, law enforcement is not very effective in dealing with spam. However, the 'cut direct' or blocking at the server level is very effective. The practice has forced ISPs to deal with outgoing spam through normal email channels very effectively. So effectively, that much spam is now sent via trojanned computers. It is understandable that those who have to deal with spam should want to do awful things to spammers. When one prominent spammer was identified, he was inundated with snail mail subscriptions of all kinds. Others who have the knowledge will do things to technically harass spamsites. However, when all is said and done, one is just lowering oneself to the level of the spammer. And, if the spammers are criminals, exposing oneself to criminal retaliation. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I agree. But I didn't say that. I specifically addressed the issues you raised about non-responsive ISP's/Hosts and those who have indicated they do not want SpamCop reports. If they find receiving too many SpamCop reports fills up their mailboxes, too bad. Paul: You are not the first person to complain because SpamCop is not what they expect or want it to be. It is not something to be used to attack other entities, even if that is what you want it to be. If SpamCop kept sending emails to those that did not want it, how are they any better than the spammers themselves. That is the biggest draw for many of us... it is doing something worthwile (listing spammers and attempting to send reports to the sender) while not attacking the sender because there are many reasons spam can be sent, intentional or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul.hunt Posted February 18, 2008 Author Share Posted February 18, 2008 Generally, with criminals we leave law enforcement to deal with them. And we have all seen how effective that has been. The internet is built on netiquette. Sorry, Miss Betsy, but that's just wishful thinking. Because of the internationality of the internet, law enforcement is not very effective in dealing with spam. It's worse than that. SpamCop is not alone in not wanting to take effective action. I was personally involved in 2 cases. In one, a Nigerian scammer had been strung along for a number of months until he agreed to meet the "victim" in New York City. No law enforcement agency, from NYPD to the FBI, was willing to intercept him. The "victim" was simply given "advice" on how not to fall for scams and told to stay out of it. Despite credible evidence that a crime was about to be perpetrated on US soil, no one would act. In the second case, my personal email was used as the "FROM:" for a batch of spam out of Pennsylvania. I identified the ISP but they refused to release any information without a subpoena. I told them to preserve the information and I got the subpoena. After it was served, the ISP claimed that the date was past the archival period and the data was gone. I pointed out that the date they were referring to was not the date referenced in the subpoena. They promised to look into it and, after a suitable delay, promised to comply and forward the data. They waited until the real date was out of the archival period and then pleaded inability to comply. Bottom line? Law enforcement is useless, and we'll see another reason why below. And the legitimate businesses are only willing to address the problem when it affects their bottom line. Netiquette? That's not something they care about. Should we? In our personal actions on the net, yes, I believe that. And I practice it. But that concept shouldn't restrain our actions when legitimate protest is warranted. However, the 'cut direct' or blocking at the server level is very effective. The practice has forced ISPs to deal with outgoing spam through normal email channels very effectively. So effectively, that much spam is now sent via trojanned computers. Reputable ISPs. And not even all of them (see above). And, of course, it's not just trojanned computers. You don't have to try very hard to find ISP's and hosts operating out of China, Brazil, and other countries that brag about the fact that their service is "bullet proof" and that you can operate any activity, legal or otherwise, from their servers without fear of being shut down. No has made it unprofitable enough for them to do this. And law enforcement clearly isn't doing the job either. It is understandable that those who have to deal with spam should want to do awful things to spammers. When one prominent spammer was identified, he was inundated with snail mail subscriptions of all kinds. Others who have the knowledge will do things to technically harass spamsites. However, when all is said and done, one is just lowering oneself to the level of the spammer. And, if the spammers are criminals, exposing oneself to criminal retaliation. You haven't heard me proposing to do "awful things", just to make it less and less profitable and convenient for spammers to operate and to apply more pressure to places like Blogspot (Google) and Geocities (Yahoo) to be more proactive in not providing spamsites hosting room. "Cut direct" only addresses the source of spam, not the websites that spam supports. Insisting that the hosts of such sites hear our complaints is hardly "lowering oneself to the level of the spammer", just as picketing in front of a business that pollutes isn't lowering oneself to the level of the polluter. Steven says that SpamCop places itself above vigilanteism. But the net effect of blocking lists is vigilanteism even if SpamCop isn't engaging in it itself. SpamCop is providing the tools for others to engage in that vigilanteism, for what else is blocking the entire email output of a particular source? I don't propose "awful things" or vigilanteism, just higher pressure activism. And that is a time-honored tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agsteele Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 When Blogspot is used as a spam site, referenced in the spam, DO NOT device-null my copy to Blogspot. If I didn't want to complain to them, I wouldn't have copied to them! Hi Paul! I detect some 'tetchy-ness' in your post. That's absolutely fine but bear in mind that the folk with whom you're being tetchy here are only other SpamCop users We don't make the rules and if Blogspot has declined to receive reports from SpamCOp (which they are entitled to do) then the SpamCop folks will dev-null messages that would go to them. This is especially the case when the report relates to a spamvertised URL (which most Blogspot reports relate to). The only means you have of troubling the Blogspot admins is by means of a report you generate yourself or by using one of the other reporting services that may specialise in reporting spamvertised URLs. The SCBL does really well in identifying source URLs but isn't, in my opinion, a great tool for reporting URLs. Mind you I'm also of the view that reporting spamvertised URLs is pretty fruitless as an activity. I've seen little success in tackling these sites in this way. But I wish you well in your campaign. Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 You have to understand the concept of manners in order to see that it is not unmannerly to refuse to open your door to unwanted visitors. It is not vigilantism to screen your calls with an answering machine and neither is it vigilantism to refuse unwanted email. It is true that spamcop does not actively do anything about spamvertized websites. There are other services that do that much better than spamcop. For instance, Complainerator, info about it found in the Software forum, I believe. Many people swear by Knujon, info also found somewhere in this forum, but I have my doubts about how effective it is. I, personally, do not think it a good tactic to shut down spamvertized websites. It is too close to censorship. I am not surprised that one couldn't get law enforcement to intervene in a 419. For some reason - perhaps the way the law is written? - they won't act unless a certain sum of money has actually been lost. As for the ISP and the subpoena, precedent in legal matters is important. Since the spammers routinely forge the FROM, ISPs could be inundated with requests from users and it would cost them money to produce all that information. It probably wouldn't have done you any good anyway because it was probably a trojanned machine and the owner wasn't the one who was using your email address. Law enforcement is not effective on the internet because one can't force anyone to comply with laws on the internet. It is not wishful thinking on my part that the internet is built on netiquette - the willingness of participants to abide by the rules. I believe it is a fact. IMHO, the proactive way to deal with spam on the internet is to do as Ralph Nader did with automobiles - get the consumer involved and demand that ISPs use the effective means of blocking /all/ email from a spamming source. That would entail making sure that the 'innocent' senders of real email would understand that they were using an irresponsible provider who drops email and does not stop trojanned machines from operating. There was a server admin who bragged that he allowed a machine to send all the trojanned email, but since it didn't accept email, blocking it didn't interfere with his customers sending and getting real email. It is the *sending* end that can control spam and it will only be when the 'innocent' senders realize that it makes a difference which provider does its job, that there will be a change. Already, there are many people who simply block all email from China, Brazil, and Russia. If one utilizes blocklists, there is very little spam that one needs to see. If one blocks at the server level, then any email that is legitimate will get a return, and the sender will know to do something at his end - if, of course, there is a climate in which the consumer knows what to do and has an organization dedicated to his interests to back him up. It is a time-honored tradition to be activist. The problem is that you haven't educated and enlisted the help of others to stop ISPs from from ignoring sources of spam. ISPs rely on technical means to discover and eliminate spammers and they think that the average user is not going to be able to understand the best ways to stop spam. They also have a great respect for the freedom of the internet and the netiquette that makes it work. However, IMHO, a good public relations campaign would educate and arouse desire in consumers to make things happen that would allow both the freedom of the internet to continue, yet prevent an individual receiver from getting unwanted, unsolicited spam. The *sender* would have to take the responsibility to use responsible providers. All those yahoo and google users would make a big influence on what yahoo and google do to prevent spammers from using their services to spam. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cimmerian Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 You can stop this spammer paul.hunt but it's gonna take some effort on your part. Below is the reason why and some suggestions that worked for me. The spamvertized blogspot sites can be reported to > Blogger Help However, the spammer is using blogspot to redirect traffic to his real spamming site. So complaints to blogspot are just about the redirection sites. Still, it is helpful to blogspot to report them and the above link is their recommended method. To find the real spamming domain, you will have to go to the spamvertized blogspot sites that you find in these spams. Typically, they will take you to a handful of the same sites. These are your targets. It's never a good idea to click links you find in spam so copy the link instead and paste it in your browser. Always assume the site you are going to is dangerous and may try to compromise your browser so take security precautions. Personally, I would not do this with IE. Firefox with the addons NoScript and Adblocker would be better. In any case, turn off java and java scripts and do not accept cookies for this session. Lastly, don't click ANY LINKS on the spammers site, your just there to get the address. Don't click any "Report spam" or "Unsubscribe" links, it is a trick. Leave the site. You can now paste this address in the spamcop submittal window for processing. This will not generate a letter but it may give you abuse reporting addresses. You can take it from there. It's not good to send complaints from your main email address (as these are sometimes shown to the spammer!) so go get a free email account at gmail, or hotmail, etc. to use just for this purpose. Don't use your real name when registering because you wish to remain anonymous. Also, delete your email address in the "To" line (if it is there) and replace with "x", the way spamcops does. Here are some other domain lookup links should spamcop come up empty. > Samspade > DNSstuff > Who.is: Universal > Internic The Complaniterator (mentioned in the prior post) is an excellent tool to use once you have the real spamming domain. This will auto generate complaint letters for you targeting the Registrar requesting them to remove the site and its name servers. It will not include the email in the report, the way spamcop does, but you can add it, and I recommend that, because some Registrars will ask for it. This program is a bit buggy for some, but generally with a little practice, you should be up and complaining. Here is a link to a new modified version of this program. >Castlecops Forum Be careful who you complain to and always be courteous to these Registrars. After all, you are asking them to do something for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpamCopAdmin Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 2849041977 is the report ID.Report 2849041977 is a "User Notification" report that I assume was addressed to abuse[at]blogspot.com. That address bounces our mail so the report was sent to the trash. - Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 OK. I should probably know how to get the ID you want, but I don't. When I look at my reporting history, all I see are report ID's. SpamCop FAQ 'here' .. multiple links provided at the top of this very page Jump/scroll down to the 'Reporting' section Note the item with a title that describes this very situation; Parsing Problems / Issues How Do I Show Full / Technical Details in a Parse? "Header incomplete, aborting." and "No source IP address found, cannot proceed." Causes of "Would send" and "If reported today, reports would be sent to:" messages SpamCop said "No reports filed." What does it mean? Steps taken by the parser, general overview The Link Analysis Process SpamCop reporting of spamvertized sites - some philosophy Getting a Tracking URL from a Report ID ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Several items above that specific entry also go to the "Resolution of a Spamvertised URL" scenario, situation. parser design, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.