dbiel Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 ok, no more signatures but your policy is really strange for me. my sig had nothing about spam, it was what was actual for me. i think it's about paranoia. It is your defination of spam that is strange. You signature was basicly a personal ad. It was requesting people to contact you. This is fine for personal forums. SpamCop is not a personal forum or blog. Starting a signature Looking for a partner from surfers community (prOn) for innovative great project (see profile). is spam as defined by this forum. You are sending an invitation to everyone who see you post. It is no different that had you sent it via email to everyone who uses the SpamCop forum. If you want to fight spam, you had better get a better understanding of what spam is. see the Wiki entry: spam I am removing the signature I created for you which was: "Signature was deleted by a moderator as being unacceptable for this forum" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daizzzy Posted November 1, 2008 Author Share Posted November 1, 2008 hey, i was and i am looking for THE ONLY ONE person i would like to call a partner. i launch really innovative 100% white and legal sites based on perfect idea and perfectly realized (what is completely unusual for the industry i work). my team spent over 8 months. the only trouble i expect is language problem. for that i need a buddy who would help me literally everywhere. on my board and here on SC too. sorry for such long description about my needs, but the message i tried to represent was really personal for me. i hate spam, i never spammed and will never spam. there're even threads on my surfers and webmasters boards about fighting spam using SC. should i ban myself on my forums for advertising SC? i understand that SC board has its own rules and NOW i understand HOW SPECIFIC they are, not like most boards have. but don't make such humiliating comments (it concerns both of u). i simplified my sig after the first notification, the secound one in pm would be completely enough to understand that i can't have sig i like here. there's no need in public drama for things that could be resolved in 1 or 2 PMs i think the issue is resolved. u may delete all my and your posts regarding it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 I think the issue is that the signature is not related to spam and is 'advertising'. spam, in my definition, is unsolicited and unwanted. This is a forum about spam and we try to keep everything on topic. We do have a lounge area where anything can be discussed. However, since we are 'educational', we do not want to have anything that a child could not view or that some parents would not want a child to see. Besides the topic of your signature, we don't allow crude language. We would not allow racist comments either. SpamCop Admin, the only paid employee of spamcop to post here, is also very much against any post being 'rude.' His definition of rude is even more strict than most of the posters. The internet is a place of etiquette. Some forums may encourage their participants to contact each other and that's ok. However, our business here is to answer questions in a way that everyone can see the answers in case they have the same problem and we do not encourage posters to contact one another. And we definitely do not encourage 'advertising' - even personal ads. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daizzzy Posted November 2, 2008 Author Share Posted November 2, 2008 btw, that's the last thing i want to tell http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webm...cf55a50b40cae77 that's my post on official google webmaster groups where i leaved a link to my site and just warned that adult content is there. and u know, nobody didn't guess to point me on a spam LOL or u think that i spam google webmasters groups here? LOL i don't want to joke on u, but i'll be really happy once u change your point of view on some things. some ppl are more expressive and some are less. and i think that's the reason in our issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 ...i don't want to joke on u, but i'll be really happy once u change your point of view on some things. some ppl are more expressive and some are less. and i think that's the reason in our issue.C'mon John, let's have some honesty - you come here for help, you get it (and benefit a heap of other people too), that's great. That's what this site is all about. "We" are not about SEO points. If you didn't know that SC profiles aren't search engine indexed you would be perfectly happy just to have your website in your profile here too, wouldn't you? I don't think it is likely "we" are about to change our POV to suit you, (there are some resource/bandwidth issues in all of that too) but thanks for the invitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daizzzy Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 thanks for the invitation. glad u like it btw. that's my industry's leading board http://www.gofu**yourself.com/ i bet it'd be a hell for u )) just look at sigs there and your attitude to me is the way u'd like to see me here. now i hear it like: work only, no fu**ing joy ) that's np. work is work. updated holly sh** u even censure here it sucks that i can't write * * * * hey, guys, u definitely need some fun here. wanna some grass this evening? LOL Moderator edit: Removed another word inappropriate for mixed company and younger audience which we get here from time to time. IMHO, you are asking to be banned here if you do not cut it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 i bet it'd be a hell for u )) just look at sigs there We are not out to censor the internet but THIS board is not an appropriate venue for your language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 ...i bet it'd be a hell for u )) just look at sigs there ...Familiar with it already thanks. Topic there referenced by showthread.php?t=176038 is one of my alltime faves. Incidentally I think the 'shocked matron/mom' masthead for those boards says more about your industry than you could ever explain. But maybe that's just me. And this is getting well O/T. We're not an 'adult site'. Deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daizzzy Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 Familiar with it already thanks. Topic there referenced by showthread.php?t=176038 is one of my alltime faves. Incidentally I think the 'shocked matron/mom' masthead for those boards says more about your industry than you could ever explain. But maybe that's just me. And this is getting well O/T. We're not an 'adult site'. Deal with it. would u read it more closely u'd notice that TS was banned there. dont bring messages out of context. mainstream industry doesn't tolerate spam of any kind, and thx to guys like me most of adult involved webmasters like SpamCop. btw, have u seen the date over there? it's 2003 baby, it's 2003. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 ... would u read it more closely u'd notice that TS was banned there. dont bring messages out of context. mainstream industry doesn't tolerate spam of any kind, and thx to guys like me most of adult involved webmasters like SpamCop.I know - that's why it's one of my favorites... btw, have u seen the date over there? it's 2003 baby, it's 2003. I know - that's why/how come it's one of my all time favorites. Seems you are quick to judge in accordance with your preconceptions buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daizzzy Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z2387672703z1...f196e93b262bdfz Tracking message source: 76.13.13.80: Routing details for 76.13.13.80 [refresh/show] Cached whois for 76.13.13.80 : network-abuse[at]cc.yahoo-inc.com Using best contacts spamcop[at]mailservices.yahoo.com Reports regarding this spam have already been sent: Re: 76.13.13.80 (Administrator of network where email originates) Reportid: 3643480133 To: spamcop[at]mailservices.yahoo.com Moderator Note: This post and my reply have been merged from a new topic on the same (related) issue. Email sent to Don to notify of another instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Reports regarding this spam have already been sent: Re: 76.13.13.80 (Administrator of network where email originates) Reportid: 3643480133 To: spamcop[at]mailservices.yahoo.com You should not be sending reports that you know to be incorrect. Please be sure to confirm your reports before hitting the Send Reports button (unless you are using quick reporting, in which case you should stop for a while to be sure all your reports are working properly. As mentioned in the "favorite thread" pointed to earlier, that is how incorrect reporting happens, when the reporter is not paying attention to where their reports are going. As for your problem with this parse, you probably should have emailed the same person who helped earlier (service[at]admin.spamcop.net) since nobody here other than him can adjust the trusted addresses. Message from Don tells me this parse is not working correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 ... Message from Don tells me this parse is not working correctly.Looks like he may have fixed itIf reported today, reports would be sent to: Re: 193.219.213.60 (Administrator of network where email originates) aolupitan[at]consollimited.com Re: 76.13.13.80 (Administrator interested in intermediary handling of spam) spamcop[at]mailservices.yahoo.com - and the spamcop[at]mailservices.yahoo.com persists, but as an "interested intermediary" this time and that would apprear to be a new 'special' address (since the opening of this topic a few days ago) - maybe to help track down any more "new assets" that Yahoo might bring online and which might require flagging as trusted relays? Anyway, thanks to Don once more and thanks for presumed proactive moves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daizzzy Posted November 4, 2008 Author Share Posted November 4, 2008 that's this spam again: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z2388360140z0...126176b85c4c68z Report spam to: Re: 202.43.219.18 (Administrator interested in intermediary handling of spam) To: spamcop[at]mailservices.yahoo.com (Notes) Re: 41.219.210.179 (Administrator of network where email originates) To: abuse[at]starcomms.com (Notes) so SC recognizes not only Y already. btw i deselect it this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 ...so SC recognizes not only Y already. btw i deselect it this time.Great news, it is working - but I don't think you have to deselect Yahoo if they are shown as(Administrator interested in intermediary handling of spam)I think that indicates they have asked for the reports and it also indicates they are not going to have spam scores against their server. Only the originator gets a black mark, not the relay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daizzzy Posted November 4, 2008 Author Share Posted November 4, 2008 thx Farelf it seems like today is my day http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z2388654949z4...2ce52ca0bf1921z Resolving link obfuscation spam link removed Host mnybewpibetl.net (checking ip) IP not found ; mnybewpibetl.net discarded as fake. Tracking link: spamlink removed No recent reports, no history available Cannot resolve spamlink removed Please make sure this email IS spam: From: "Dan Lynn" <hyfqu[at]brains.com.pk> (Does 8 incches Enough 4 U) ------------9D3ECFFFF842CF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii View full message Report spam to: Re: 213.123.113.14 (Administrator of network where email originates) To: Internal spamcop handling: (bt) (Notes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 ...Re: 213.123.113.14 (Administrator of network where email originates) To: Internal spamcop handling: (bt) (Notes) That one looks good to go - report or cancel but don't leave it 'open'- unreported/uncancelled (anyone can hop in and make mischief with it once you post the tracker) - the spamvertized site doesn't resolve, the 'neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain' wording is normal with Gmail transit IIUC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daizzzy Posted November 4, 2008 Author Share Posted November 4, 2008 sorry, yesterday i got tougher braces and now i expect awful headache. i didn't cleared spamlinks from my previous post and now edit option is unavailable (( thx Farelf, i reported it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 ...i didn't cleared spamlinks from my previous post and now edit option is unavailable ((...Not sure what you mean. Not necessary to edit spam submissions, in fact you effectively agree not to do that (the (no) Material changes to spam rule). It is OK if SC doesn't resolve the spamlinks, that one didn't resolve anyway - checking with nslookup (Windows) or equivalent - whole new topic, covered elsewhere in many posts (you can search these pages). But generally, you can reload any parse - if, for instance the 'trusted relays' have been updated since first submission and you haven't submitted reports yet - just pulling it up from the "Unreported spam saved, report now" (whatever) link reloads/reparses too. You can also resubmit data from a cancelled report if you still have it or you can copy and paste the data from the cancelled report. Simply a matter of becoming aware of the facilities, takes time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daizzzy Posted November 4, 2008 Author Share Posted November 4, 2008 Hey, Farelf, do u have annoying braces too? i was about my post where i copied part of report and didn't cleared http:// in spam links ) anyway thx for informative reply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Hey, Farelf, do u have annoying braces too? ...Orthodontists Look in my mouth And weep. ... i was about my post where i copied part of report and didn't cleared http:// in spam links )...Ah, I see, thanks for taking care of that then....anyway thx for informative reply You're welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daizzzy Posted November 7, 2008 Author Share Posted November 7, 2008 it seems like these guys have found something new how to game SC: http://www.spamcop.net/mcgi?action=gettrac...rtid=3656038587 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 it seems like these guys have found something new how to game SC: http://www.spamcop.net/mcgi?action=gettrac...rtid=3656038587 Once again... we need a tracking URL to see what you are talking about. The link you provided only works when logged into your account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daizzzy Posted November 7, 2008 Author Share Posted November 7, 2008 http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z2396903140z6...48c82d5167fd4cz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbiel Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Not sure what you mean by "it seems like these guys have found something new how to game SC:" It looks like just one more Yahoo address that had not yet been updated in the SpamCop tables. The current parse reads: Reports regarding this spam have already been sent: Re: 119.160.244.200 (Administrator of network where email originates) Reportid: 3656038587 To: spamcop[at]mailservices.yahoo.com If reported today, reports would be sent to: Re: 119.160.244.200 (Administrator interested in intermediary handling of spam) spamcop[at]mailservices.yahoo.com Re: 83.229.103.18 (Administrator of network where email originates) ayodeleajisebutu[at]hotmail.com Looks like the table has been updated since you reported it. The bigger question is why did you send the report in the first place, instead of cancelling the report. If you were using Quick reporting, then you have no way to cancel a report, but the question still remains, that you knew SpamCop was having problems handing Yahoo intermediate servers. Based on that knowledge you should NOT be using QuickReporting at all, until you know that the basic problem has been fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.