John Dlugosz
2005-10-03 06:18:54 UTC
It's nice to have spamcop figure out the right address to report
"phishing" to, in hopes that the bank (or ebay or amazon) will hunt down
those fellows, or perhaps start using digital signatures (one can hope
anyway).
Anyway, I found spamcop did not resolve the "fake" links that the user
thinks he is clicking on. I'm sure they will always stay a step ahead,
or will use graphics only.
I noticed that there was no copy of the report sent to "***@..." to
the company being spoofed. I added it to the "user notification" blank
at the bottom, guessing that "abuse@" is the way to go.
But why guess? Why not let spamcop look up the reporting address based
on the link I supply.
My feature suggestion is to have blanks for telling you the cosmetic
name for a fake link that spamcop didn't figure out for itself. It can
then proceed to look up the fraud address for that site.
--John
"phishing" to, in hopes that the bank (or ebay or amazon) will hunt down
those fellows, or perhaps start using digital signatures (one can hope
anyway).
Anyway, I found spamcop did not resolve the "fake" links that the user
thinks he is clicking on. I'm sure they will always stay a step ahead,
or will use graphics only.
I noticed that there was no copy of the report sent to "***@..." to
the company being spoofed. I added it to the "user notification" blank
at the bottom, guessing that "abuse@" is the way to go.
But why guess? Why not let spamcop look up the reporting address based
on the link I supply.
My feature suggestion is to have blanks for telling you the cosmetic
name for a fake link that spamcop didn't figure out for itself. It can
then proceed to look up the fraud address for that site.
--John