Hi there, Just wondering why was my e-mail thread (Hierarchical Credit-based Queuing (HCQ): QoS) dated 5/9/2004 9:36 PM reported as a spam? Just trying to understand so that I don't repeat it. Below is a cut and paste of the reported incident. Please advice. regards, /vicky ---- cut here ------ Return-Path: <988145978@bounces.spamcop.net> Received: from vamx01.mgw.rr.com ([24.28.193.148]) by acme-reston.va.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com for <abuse@rr.com>; Mon, 10 May 2004 10:42:14 -0400 Received: from vmx2.spamcop.net (vmx2.spamcop.net [206.14.107.117]) by vamx01.mgw.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4AEkwhn017175 for <abuse@rr.com>; Mon, 10 May 2004 10:47:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sc-app3.verio.ironport.com (HELO spamcop.net) (192.168.11.203) by vmx2.spamcop.net with SMTP; 10 May 2004 07:47:00 -0700 Received: from [68.13.211.63] by spamcop.net with HTTP; Mon, 10 May 2004 14:47:01 GMT From: 988145978@reports.spamcop.net To: abuse@rr.com Subject: [SpamCop (24.30.181.126) id:988145978]Hierarchical Credit-based Queuing (HCQ): QoS Precedence: list Message-ID: <rid_988145978@msgid.spamcop.net> Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 21:36:30 -0700 (PDT) X-SpamCop-sourceip: 24.30.181.126 X-Mailer: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705) via http://www.spamcop.net/ v1.3.4 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine [ SpamCop V1.3.4 ] This message is brief for your comfort. Please use links below for details. Email from 24.30.181.126 / Sun, 9 May 2004 21:36:30 -0700 (PDT) http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?i=z988145978zab5cec781dcfa15ae459c11bd03b7bef z [ Offending message ] Return-path: <owner-x> Envelope-to: x Delivery-date: Mon, 10 May 2004 00:39:15 -0400 Received: from [198.108.1.26] (helo=trapdoor.merit.edu) by wilma.widomaker.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1BN2ZP-000Jo6-00 for x; Mon, 10 May 2004 00:39:15 -0400 Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id B68EC91206; Mon, 10 May 2004 00:36:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: x Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 8645591243; Mon, 10 May 2004 00:36:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: x Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50AFD91206 for <x>; Mon, 10 May 2004 00:36:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3B3955914F; Mon, 10 May 2004 00:36:34 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: x Received: from ms-smtp-02-eri0.socal.rr.com (ms-smtp-02-qfe0.socal.rr.com [66.75.162.134]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB7358E5D for <x>; Mon, 10 May 2004 00:36:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.2.2] (cpe-24-30-181-126.socal.rr.com [24.30.181.126]) by ms-smtp-02-eri0.socal.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id i4A4aUce025659 for <x>; Sun, 9 May 2004 21:36:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <409F________0602@socal.rr.com> Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 21:36:41 -0700 From: Vicky Rode <vickyr@socal.rr.com> Reply-To: vickyr@socal.rr.com User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: x Subject: Hierarchical Credit-based Queuing (HCQ): QoS X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.6.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Sender: owner-x Precedence: bulk Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu X-Loop: nanog Hi there, Just wondering if anyone out there has either implemented or looked into this queuing method for quality of service implementation. This solution is offered (hardware solution) and patented by foursticks.com. According to foursticks, "HCQ achieves the efficiency and flexibility of first generation queuing systems, without the disadvantages." It compares HCQ (interesting reading) w/ Class-Based Queuing (CBQ), Random Early Discard (RED) and Weighted Random Early Discard (WRED),Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ),Priority Queuing (PQ) & Low Latency Queuing (LLQ). Also can anyone recommend a qos forum which I can ping as well. Any insight will be appreciated. regards, /vicky
On Tue, 11 May 2004 11:51:10 PDT, Vicky Rode said:
Just wondering why was my e-mail thread (Hierarchical Credit-based Queuing (HCQ): QoS) dated 5/9/2004 9:36 PM reported as a spam? Just
My guess is that somebody's automated tool saw "credit-based" and concluded that it was Yet Another Mortgage Spam...
Hello... On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 11:51, Vicky Rode wrote:
Hi there,
Just wondering why was my e-mail thread (Hierarchical Credit-based Queuing (HCQ): QoS) dated 5/9/2004 9:36 PM reported as a spam? Just trying to understand so that I don't repeat it. Below is a cut and paste of the reported incident.
Please advice.
I think this is a violation of the SpamCop TOS. Somewhere in there is says something like, Don't report stuff you asked for like mailing lists, newsletters, etc. I can't find the link now :(, but I remember seeing it in there somewhere.
regards, /vicky
<snip> -- Christopher McCrory "The guy that keeps the servers running" chrismcc@pricegrabber.com http://www.pricegrabber.com Let's face it, there's no Hollow Earth, no robots, and no 'mute rays.' And even if there were, waxed paper is no defense. I tried it. Only tinfoil works.
Christopher McCrory <chrismcc@pricegrabber.com> writes:
I think this is a violation of the SpamCop TOS. Somewhere in there is says something like, Don't report stuff you asked for like mailing lists, newsletters, etc.
I can't find the link now :(, but I remember seeing it in there somewhere.
Possible someone on the list didn't understand the content, didn't realize this was sent via a mailing lists and submitted this as a spam message to SPAMCOP. Less likely someone didn't know how to get off the mailing list and this was the result. In both cases the submitter exercised bad judgement. But the mailing list could be more helpful as well. There have been no reminders from the mailing list since I signed up which I think is a good policy for a mailing list. The mailing list only uses "Precedence: bulk" to mark it as a mailing list. That said, this is a case of misjudgment, albeit perhaps a premature and a hasty one. Rgds, -GSH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vicky Rode" <vickyr@socal.rr.com> To: <nanog@merit.edu>; <nanog@nanog.org>; <nanog-support@nanog.org> Cc: <rrsecurity@socal.rr.com>; <vickyr@socal.rr.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 6:51 PM Subject: Spamcop
Hi there,
Just wondering why was my e-mail thread (Hierarchical Credit-based Queuing (HCQ): QoS) dated 5/9/2004 9:36 PM reported as a spam? Just trying to understand so that I don't repeat it. Below is a cut and paste of the reported incident.
Please advice.
regards, /vicky
---- cut here ------
Return-Path: <988145978@bounces.spamcop.net> Received: from vamx01.mgw.rr.com ([24.28.193.148]) by acme-reston.va.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com for <abuse@rr.com>; Mon, 10 May 2004 10:42:14 -0400 Received: from vmx2.spamcop.net (vmx2.spamcop.net [206.14.107.117]) by vamx01.mgw.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4AEkwhn017175 for <abuse@rr.com>; Mon, 10 May 2004 10:47:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sc-app3.verio.ironport.com (HELO spamcop.net) (192.168.11.203) by vmx2.spamcop.net with SMTP; 10 May 2004 07:47:00 -0700 Received: from [68.13.211.63] by spamcop.net with HTTP; Mon, 10 May 2004 14:47:01 GMT From: 988145978@reports.spamcop.net To: abuse@rr.com Subject: [SpamCop (24.30.181.126) id:988145978]Hierarchical Credit-based Queuing (HCQ): QoS Precedence: list Message-ID: <rid_988145978@msgid.spamcop.net> Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 21:36:30 -0700 (PDT) X-SpamCop-sourceip: 24.30.181.126 X-Mailer: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705) via http://www.spamcop.net/ v1.3.4 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine
[ SpamCop V1.3.4 ] This message is brief for your comfort. Please use links below for details.
Email from 24.30.181.126 / Sun, 9 May 2004 21:36:30 -0700 (PDT) http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?i=z988145978zab5cec781dcfa15ae459c11bd03b7bef z
[ Offending message ] Return-path: <owner-x> Envelope-to: x Delivery-date: Mon, 10 May 2004 00:39:15 -0400 Received: from [198.108.1.26] (helo=trapdoor.merit.edu) by wilma.widomaker.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1BN2ZP-000Jo6-00 for x; Mon, 10 May 2004 00:39:15 -0400 Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id B68EC91206; Mon, 10 May 2004 00:36:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: x Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 8645591243; Mon, 10 May 2004 00:36:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: x Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50AFD91206 for <x>; Mon, 10 May 2004 00:36:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3B3955914F; Mon, 10 May 2004 00:36:34 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: x Received: from ms-smtp-02-eri0.socal.rr.com (ms-smtp-02-qfe0.socal.rr.com [66.75.162.134]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB7358E5D for <x>; Mon, 10 May 2004 00:36:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.2.2] (cpe-24-30-181-126.socal.rr.com [24.30.181.126]) by ms-smtp-02-eri0.socal.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id i4A4aUce025659 for <x>; Sun, 9 May 2004 21:36:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <409F________0602@socal.rr.com> Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 21:36:41 -0700 From: Vicky Rode <vickyr@socal.rr.com> Reply-To: vickyr@socal.rr.com User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: x Subject: Hierarchical Credit-based Queuing (HCQ): QoS X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.6.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Sender: owner-x Precedence: bulk Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu X-Loop: nanog
Hi there,
Just wondering if anyone out there has either implemented or looked into
this queuing method for quality of service implementation. This solution is offered (hardware solution) and patented by foursticks.com. According to foursticks, "HCQ achieves the efficiency and flexibility of first generation queuing systems, without the disadvantages."
It compares HCQ (interesting reading) w/ Class-Based Queuing (CBQ), Random Early Discard (RED) and Weighted Random Early Discard (WRED),Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ),Priority Queuing (PQ) & Low Latency Queuing (LLQ).
Also can anyone recommend a qos forum which I can ping as well.
Any insight will be appreciated.
regards, /vicky
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 16:35, Guðbjörn S. Hreinsson wrote:
Possible someone on the list didn't understand the content, didn't realize this was sent via a mailing lists and submitted this as a spam message to SPAMCOP. Less likely someone didn't know how to get off the mailing list and this was the result.
In both cases the submitter exercised bad judgement. But the mailing list could be more helpful as well.
Further, Spamcop should implement some form of check to verify that the e-mail is in fact spam before they go pointing the finger and/or blocking mail servers. The problem of end users leveraging Spamcop to get them off of mailing lists or a simple way of DoSsing a discussion forum would become mute if some form of sanity checking was in place. Cheers, Chris
Chris Brenton wrote:
Further, Spamcop should implement some form of check to verify that the e-mail is in fact spam before they go pointing the finger and/or blocking mail servers. The problem of end users leveraging Spamcop to get them off of mailing lists or a simple way of DoSsing a discussion forum would become mute if some form of sanity checking was in place.
As an ex-admin, I have some "serious issues" about the way Spamcop works, but this argument is similar to one that says a credit reporting company has to prove that you are a deadbeat before reporting that several companies you do business with report that you are late with payments a lot. And as an ex-admin that had some contact with mailing lists and their operation and managment I will say that the notion that people "forgot" that they subscribed to a list does not happen nearly as often as it is used to wriggle out from under a spam complaint. -- Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 18:15, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
As an ex-admin, I have some "serious issues" about the way Spamcop works, but this argument is similar to one that says a credit reporting company has to prove that you are a deadbeat before reporting that several companies you do business with report that you are late with payments a lot.
I would agree with your analogy if Spamcop limited automatic reporting to subset of the community. The problem is they do not. I can't call up a credit agency and get them to automatically red mark your credit report. I obviously can send pretty much anything to Spamcop, claim you are a spammer and get them to act on that. Cheers, Chris
Chris Brenton wrote:
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 18:15, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
As an ex-admin, I have some "serious issues" about the way Spamcop works, but this argument is similar to one that says a credit reporting company has to prove that you are a deadbeat before reporting that several companies you do business with report that you are late with payments a lot.
I would agree with your analogy if Spamcop limited automatic reporting to subset of the community. The problem is they do not. I can't call up a credit agency and get them to automatically red mark your credit report. I obviously can send pretty much anything to Spamcop, claim you are a spammer and get them to act on that.
Actually, apparently you can--we have to (actually, my dear wife has to) take the reporting houses to task every now and again because they report, on occasion, that we are somehow connected to people who have financial difficulty. Sometimes it is people we know, but have no responsibility for, sometimes it is people whose account numbers are related numerically to ours, sometimes we never find out how they got on our report. And the "act on that" means "report that you reported it--with your privacy protected" doesn't it? -- Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/
I would agree with your analogy if Spamcop limited automatic reporting to subset of the community. The problem is they do not.
In Spamcop's defence, it seems that their systems were never designed to handle the wide variety of 'attack vectors" that spam uses today. Spamcop also operates on the assumption that the user is exercising some judgement when *directly* reporting spam, which is universally the case with mailing list traffic. No matter how foolproof your system, the world creates a better fool. Thankfully, all my interactions - as a web host, network operator, and mailing list manager- with Spamcop and their staff have been professional, and productive. I for one appreciate the "just the facts" style of reporting, and useful mechanisms for interacting with the complainers. It is a refreshing change from the usual ALL-CAPS threats and exclamation point filled diatribes, usually mailed to the wrong abuse@* addresses. --chuck
Vicky Rode writes on 5/12/2004 12:21 AM:
Just wondering why was my e-mail thread (Hierarchical Credit-based Queuing (HCQ): QoS) dated 5/9/2004 9:36 PM reported as a spam? Just
That question is best asked of the admin of widowmaker.com, a user of which reported your nanog post to spamcop.
Received: from [198.108.1.26] (helo=trapdoor.merit.edu) by wilma.widomaker.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1BN2ZP-000Jo6-00 for x; Mon, 10 May 2004 00:39:15 -0400
srs -- suresh ramasubramanian suresh@outblaze.com gpg EDEDEFB9 manager, security and antispam operations, outblaze ltd
participants (9)
-
Chris Brenton -
Christopher McCrory -
chuck goolsbee -
Guðbjörn S. Hreinsson -
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. -
Robert E. Seastrom -
Suresh Ramasubramanian -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
Vicky Rode