|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Spamcop
> Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 11:51:10 -0700 > From: Vicky Rode <[email protected]> > To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] > Cc: [email protected], [email protected] > 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: <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]>; 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 <[email protected]>; 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: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: [SpamCop (24.30.181.126) id:988145978]Hierarchical Credit-based > Queuing (HCQ): QoS > Precedence: list > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > 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: <[email protected]> > Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 21:36:41 -0700 > From: Vicky Rode <[email protected]> > Reply-To: [email protected] > 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: [email protected] > 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: [email protected] 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
|