I'm a subscriber to SpamCop too for several years now but unlikely I will
ever use up the account since the Spammers seem to know when I'm home and
likely to report while it's "in progress"...once the Spam gets a few minutes
old reporting is only self-gratification as they have already moved on to
the next zombie computer so I don't bother and JHD...all that said I've
never seen any hint that I can report Usenet abuse. I've tried a few times
but the header info is different and it always comes up with nada. Will try
again.

as for the use of third party news readers...times have changed I think (and
a pretty good explanation of why all this crap is showing up here lately).
So-called "re-mailers" are using the 3rd parties to route the posts. Below
comes from Curt at newsreader.com. He seems to be a decent person and I
think if stuff is routed through this maze he will take action. Forget
about nymalias routing through MIT...they don't care. Curt's explanations
follows:

Here's some details on how my service and usenet in general works in case
you are intereseted....

My service (like most pay usenet services) is configured to protect the
privacy of the poster. The headers make it clear it came from my service
(Path and X-Trace), but my users can add any other headers they want and put
whatever they want in the From: header. The X-Trace header tells me which
user account was used to post the message and to verify with encryption that
it came from my service. So I can always identify, and control, the source
of any Usenet post from my users. I also have logs to trace everything
orginated from my service.

The one user I have is simply running a special email gateway server which
can receive e-mail messages and then automatically forward them to my NNTP
server using his personal account. He his risking his own account (with my
service) by doing this. But it's something he seems willing to do for some
reason.

On the Path: header, I allow users to add one (but only one) extra entry to
the end of the path. That's why he is able to add the "anonymous" path
entry. Some Usenet servers allow any Path: entry on a new post, and some
don't allow them at all.

The Path: line is the only thing you can really trust on a Usenet article.
For a person who is running their own Usenet server (and it's possible to do
even from home on a dial-up internet account), you can forge everthying in
the article. The only thing that is real is the modifications to the Path:
header as the message moves through Usenet. This is the same as the
Receved: headers in email. Everything else in an email message might be
forged, including the oldest Received: headers.





"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 02:58:34 GMT, Tom Kohlman
wrote:
...spamcop will accept Usenet abuse??? News to me! Tell me more.

Has for years, mate, right there on the front page I seem to recall.
(I get a different interface, being a subscriber).

...editorial
comment here though...the third party news readers are the ones that
supply
the anonymous posting services...why would anybody desire that unless
they
were trying to be buttheads???

Third party newsreaders are software. Anonymous posting services are
servers. There is no correlation between "not using the most frequent
target of viruses, worms, and security exploits", and using an anonymous
posting server.

Dave Hinz