Comments on: Third fake Spamcop site http://spamhuntress.com/2006/08/26/third-fake-spamcop-site/ Just another WordPress weblog Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:38:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: ChillyCool Web Digger » Blog Archiv » Fake Spamcop sites http://spamhuntress.com/2006/08/26/third-fake-spamcop-site/#comment-97778 Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:12:40 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2006/08/26/third-fake-spamcop-site/#comment-97778 [...] Third fake Spamcop site [...] […] Third fake Spamcop site […]

]]> by: Vasily Pumpkin http://spamhuntress.com/2006/08/26/third-fake-spamcop-site/#comment-35175 Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:09:57 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2006/08/26/third-fake-spamcop-site/#comment-35175 John, I think it's related to their tolerance in regard to obviously falsified whois info :-). An even more interesting question however would be why ICANN still considers Estdomains as <a href="http://www.icann.org/registrars/accredited-list.html" rel="nofollow">acceptable registrar</a>, though they obviously couldn't care less about their (ICANN's) guidelines. John,
I think it’s related to their tolerance in regard to obviously falsified whois info :-) . An even more interesting question however would be why ICANN still considers Estdomains as acceptable registrar, though they obviously couldn’t care less about their (ICANN’s) guidelines.

]]> by: John D http://spamhuntress.com/2006/08/26/third-fake-spamcop-site/#comment-35113 Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:05:19 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2006/08/26/third-fake-spamcop-site/#comment-35113 Why doesn't it surprise me that b****y Estdomains gets a mention in this? Their advertising slogan should be "World's #1 Spamhost". Why doesn’t it surprise me that b****y Estdomains gets a mention in this? Their advertising slogan should be “World’s #1 Spamhost”.

]]> by: Vasily Pumpkin http://spamhuntress.com/2006/08/26/third-fake-spamcop-site/#comment-34677 Sun, 27 Aug 2006 00:36:04 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2006/08/26/third-fake-spamcop-site/#comment-34677 <b>emax</b>seo @ gmail.com is Interesting. Sounds like a fork of <b>U</b>max. Anyway I have no doubts that this operation is meant for data gathering. Contrary to the first site, however, this one has only name and email as mandatory fields (whilst the first had also the web address). Makes me wonder whether someone is preparing a Joe Job to teach Spamcops a lesson... emaxseo @ gmail.com is Interesting. Sounds like a fork of Umax. Anyway I have no doubts that this operation is meant for data gathering. Contrary to the first site, however, this one has only name and email as mandatory fields (whilst the first had also the web address).

Makes me wonder whether someone is preparing a Joe Job to teach Spamcops a lesson…

]]> by: Brian http://spamhuntress.com/2006/08/26/third-fake-spamcop-site/#comment-34595 Sat, 26 Aug 2006 17:42:46 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2006/08/26/third-fake-spamcop-site/#comment-34595 Interestingly in the last two sites, I see the tag: meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name="GENERATOR" Interestingly in the last two sites, I see the tag:
meta content=”MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873″ name=”GENERATOR”

]]>