Re: SpamCop doesn't parse routing info correctly

Greetings.

In article <[email protected]>, Mike Easter wrote:
>> When I forward to SpamCop an offending e-mail that I received at my
> personal account ([email protected]), SpamCop correctly
> identifies the source as an IP at the University of Arizona.
> 
> Using SC to determine the source of this kind of mail is appropriate,
> but you shouldn't be SC reporting these as spam -- I'm assuming that you
> are not.

Why shouldn't I be?  As far as I can tell from the FAQ on what is
appropriate to report as spam
<http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/125.html>, these messages qualify. 
They are both unsolicited and bulk.  The sender has been sending them
(sometimes several a day) to a large and growing mailing list of people
for years.  He refuses to stop sending mail despite repeated requests. 
AFAIK nobody has opted in to his list; in fact, people sometimes use
"Reply to all" to complain and ask how to get rid of him.  He tries to
circumvent filters and block lists by using public access terminals in
libraries and creating new Yahoo! Mail accounts every few weeks.  I think
this fits the definition of spam listed in the FAQ.

> Correct.  SC correctly parses yours at nothingisreal;  SC incorrectly
> parses the worldsocialism because there is a noncompliant MTA mailserver
> in the chain..

OK, perhaps I should report this to BT Connect, then.

Regards,
Tristan

-- 
   _
  _V.-o  Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)]  ><  Space is limited
 / |`-'  -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=  <>  In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\    http://www.nothingisreal.com/   ><  To finish what you