Re: SpamCop doesn't parse routing info correctly

Greetings.

In article <[email protected]>, Mike Easter wrote:
>>> 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?
> 
> My thoughts were not that it wasn't unsolicited and unwanted, but more
> that the 'butt' of a SC report, the arizona.edu spamsource, might be
> 'misdirected' [sorta] and if listed could potentially cause 'collateral'
> damage.  But, OTOH, maybe it isn't a library terminal at all.  And, on
> another hand, maybe a spamcop report might cause some interest on
> arizona.edu's part.

I sent a manual report to [email protected] a few days ago and got a
response back from an IT administrator.  They've confirmed that the source
is a public access library terminal.  This is in line with what the
spammer himself admits -- he makes no attempt to disguise his identity,
freely giving out his name, birthdate, photograph, and often mentions that
he's sending his mails from a public library terminal.  As I said, we're
pretty sure he's mentally ill.  His e-mails consist of nothing but
incoherent rants that go on for pages and pages about the World Socialist
Party of the United States, of which his late father was a member.  This
apparently explains his choice of spam recipients -- I recognize some of
the e-mail addresses as belonging to members and departments of the WSPUS
and affiliated parties overseas.

> In reality, the entity which should be taking action is yahoo against
> its webmailer account [email protected] so if I were manually
> reporting, I would be 'talking' to yahoo.

I've been manually reporting to Yahoo! for months and they never take any
action.  At worst the reports are ignored, and at best I get an automated
response.

>>> 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.
> 
> I'm still trying to figure out why that btconnect is in there.  I'm now
> thinking it is part of the apparatus for yahoo.  Server admins are often
> 'reluctant' to improve on their configuration -- because it isn't really
> bothering /them/ - it just doesn't parse right.  If your employer
> recipient were reporting spams which named the btconnect server, they
> might get SCbl listed and interested.

My employer is receiving the spam at [email protected].  The spammer
is sending to [email protected], an obsolete address which
forwards to [email protected].

I've since set up mailhosts for my employer's SpamCop account.  The
automatic configuration wouldn't work for [email protected],
but the administrators waived it.  SpamCop now correctly identifies the
University of Arizona IP for the spam.

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