Re: Spamcop

[Gregory Hicks <ghicks () cadence com>]

> Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 11:51:10 -0700
> 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
> 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.

Vicky:

I'm guessing here, but it was probably because the *.rr.com addresses
originate a LOT of spam and someone has a procmail filter that
automatically refers any mail from that domain to spamcop...

Or it could be that someone didn't like what you wrote and reported it
...

Dunno.

Remember, I said that I'm **guessing**.

Regards,
Gregory Hicks

> 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

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Hicks                        | Principal Systems Engineer
Cadence Design Systems               | Direct:   408.576.3609
555 River Oaks Pkwy M/S 6B1          | Fax:      408.894.3400
San Jose, CA 95134                   | Internet: ghicks () cadence com

I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes.  I will surely
learn a great deal today.

"A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for
lunch.  Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the
decision." - Benjamin Franklin

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton