Bingo.
It finally made sense.
Thank you for the verbose clarification.
(I had gotten lost with the "silent" stuff and your explanation cleared that
up.)
I guess that it is a - we hope not a losing - race with the spammers to get
a robot to find out who their service supplier is while they try harder to
hide the "who".
Thanks again for the help.
"michael lefevre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
9d67h4$5v5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:9d67h4$5v5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Anon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> 9d54l1$nof$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:9d54l1$nof$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Sorry, I got lost going around one of those quick turns in your
> explanation.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I seem to be very dense in comprehending what is
happening.
> >
> > A. What IS a silent report, and why are these sites not reported to (I
> know
> > that some like ripe ARE a no-no, but the others - why not.)
> >
> > B. You say that the reports "should not have been sent" clarify the
> criteria
> > used to not send the report.
> >
> > C. Any info re: the "IP block owner" (and what does this mean - is
there
> a
> > FAQ on this?)
>
> as i understand it (and i'm not certain here either)...
>
> spamcop currently has a method of working out addresses to report spam
to...
> addresses found by that method get the reports in just the same way they
> always have... these "silent" reports are a result of extra addresses
being
> looked up for test purposes, not a silencing of something that was already
> happening... everything is still being reported just as it was (although
> that wasn't the case for a while due to a bug, which is now fixed)...
>
> recently, spamcop has introduced an alternative method of finding
addresses
> (using IP block lookups)... currently this is just being tested, to see
what
> addresses the new method generates... i guess if the results look good,
then
> this alternative method might be used to generate real reports, replacing
> the existing method...
>
> the current method involves looking at who has control of the naming of an
> IP address (the rDNS authority), rather than who actually owns the address
> (the IP block owner)... this may sound less than logical, but it was found
> to be an effective guess at who the report should go to...
>
> no, there isn't a FAQ on this as far as i know...
>
> michael
>
>
_______________________________________________
SpamCop-Help mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.spamcop.net/mailman/listinfo/spamcop-help
