I'm happy to say the last three LARTs out of five I've sent to Yahoo about
group spam here have resulted in action; guess they're paying attention
after all.
The other two of course just got the boilerplate "not my job" responses.
Point is, it DOES work to complain about spams on the groups!

Here's their response:

Hello,

Thank you for writing to Yahoo! Mail.

In this particular case, we have taken appropriate action against the
Yahoo! account in question, as per our Terms of Service (TOS). For
further details about the Yahoo! TOS, you can visit:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Please know that Yahoo! is unable to disclose the action taken on
another user's account with a third party. We are not able to make
exceptions to this rule.

Please let us know if you still need assistance so I may assist you
further.

Your patience during this process is greatly appreciated.

Thank you again for contacting Yahoo! Mail.

Regards,

Samuel Cyprian

Yahoo! Customer Care
35782656



Original Message Follows:
-------------------------

Path:
nwrddc02.gnilink.net!cyclone2.gnilink.net!cyclone1 .gnilink.net!gnilink.n
et!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!w5g2000hsg.g ooglegroups.com!not-fo
r-mail
From: Useful Info
Newsgroups:
misc.consumers.frugal-living,misc.consumers,rec.woodworking,alt.woodwork
ing,misc.survivalism
Subject: Useful things you can easily make for yourself at home.
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:11:20 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 2
Message-ID: om
NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.197.126.254
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1182017480 2499 127.0.0.1 (16 Jun 2007
18:11:20 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:11:20 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US;
rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070515 Firefox/2.0.0.4,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=151.197.126.254;
posting-account=DO7ZZA0AAAD0viuClBcjShb4nxhabjDR
misc.consumers:223934 rec.woodworking:787370 misc.survivalism:714508
X-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:11:20 EDT (nwrddc02.gnilink.net)
Read all about it, he http://Muvy.org

On Jun 19, 3:53 pm, "Pop`" wrote:
I'm happy to say the last three LARTs out of five I've sent to Yahoo about group spam here have resulted in action; guess they're paying attention after all. The other two of course just got the boilerplate "not my job" responses.

Point is, it DOES work to complain about spams on the groups!


Thanks for taking the time to do something about it. It is much
easier to bitch than to work for solution, and I appreciate the fact
that you took the time and made the effort to help keep this place a
little cleaner.

Would you mind telling us how you did it, what you had to provide, and
to whom you reported this in order to get results?

Robert

wrote:
On Jun 19, 3:53 pm, "Pop`" wrote:
I'm happy to say the last three LARTs out of five I've sent to
Yahoo about group spam here have resulted in action; guess
they're paying attention after all. The other two of course
just got the boilerplate "not my job" responses.

Point is, it DOES work to complain about spams on the groups!


Thanks for taking the time to do something about it. It is much
easier to bitch than to work for solution, and I appreciate the fact
that you took the time and made the effort to help keep this place a
little cleaner.

Would you mind telling us how you did it, what you had to provide, and
to whom you reported this in order to get results?

Robert

If you go back to my original post, you'll see what I sent to them under
their "Original Message Follows:" heading. In that case the complaint went
to the address in the Header line:
--------------
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:11:20 +0000 (UTC)
-------------

That line is very hard to forge and 99.9% always correct in posts. They cut
it, but I also pointed out the non-google spamsite in the post, and the fact
that it appeared to be using a Google address for a drop box IIRC.

I see you're using OE6, so to get a look at that same data, simply put your
cursor in the message and press CTRL-F3. You'll see the headers from my
post, which are unforged of course, with the exception of my e-mail address.

In this case the spammer apparently didn't do much forging but in most
cases there will be forgeries, especially in the From line and all the
Header lines after the second Received line. Most of the Google spams and
even a lot of the shaw.ca spams are like this. Never, ever trust the From
or Return Path lines: They are very easy to forge and almost always are
forged.

HTH
Pop`

On Jun 20, 10:49 am, "Pop`" wrote:

SNIP of good info

In this case the spammer apparently didn't do much forging but in most cases there will be forgeries, especially in the From line and all the
Header lines after the second Received line. Most of the Google spams and even a lot of the shaw.ca spams are like this. Never, ever trust the From
or Return Path lines: They are very easy to forge and almost always are forged.

HTH
Pop

Thanks Pop. I think I will join you when I can on turning these
assbites in. I hope others will, too.

Robert