SPAMCOP HOME · SPAMCOP FAQ · NEWSGROUPS · FORUM FAQ · WEBMAIL · SSL WEBMAIL · SPAMCOPWIKI


 Other words, data, places -->  SpamCop Pages V  FAQs & Words V  Newsgroups V  WebMail V  News-Recent Stuff V   Poll on menu

------>------> Latest and Current Announcements <------<------

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> This is a User to User Support Forum

The primary mode of support here is peer-to-peer, meaning users helping other users. (please remember this at all times!)
Another try:
This forum is composed of people who have used spamcop and those who are learning about anti-spam efforts.

> Difference between "no body" and "body", Who is spamcop (at) imaphost.com?
qjvgpuryy
post Sep 15 2004, 02:21 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Membera
Posts: 150
Joined: 27-May 04
From: Michigan, United States of America
Member No.: 1679



One of my spams (almost) reports this way without a body (which is the way I received it):

Tracking URL without body
http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z661108266z7b...c0fbddcf1446ebz

If reported today, reports would be sent to:
Re: 61.248.69.8 (Administrator of network where email originates)

abuse (at) shinbiro.com
postmaster (at) shinbiro.com

Re: 61.248.69.8 (Third party interested in email source)

spamcop (at) imaphost.com


(Note: color added for emphasis, munging for safety.)

and this way with the sentence "No body in spam." added as the body.

Tracking URL with body
http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z663171256zbc...9dd34808bf4645z

Re: 61.248.69.8 (Administrator of network where email originates)
To: abuse (at) shinbiro.com (Notes)
To: postmaster (at) shinbiro.com (Notes)


Re: 61.248.69.8 (Third party interested in email source)
To: Cyveillance spam collection (Notes)


(Note: same as above note.)

My question is, who is spamcop (at) imaphost.com, and why don't they get a report when the spam parses?


--------------------
qjvgpuryy (not my real name - call me David)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Replies
dbiel
post Sep 15 2004, 02:44 PM
Post #2


Been There
Group Icon

Group: Membersph
Posts: 2557
Joined: 20-February 04
From: San Gabriel Valley CA USA (Los Angeles)
Member No.: 447



The reason no reports are sent is simply the policy that blank emails are NOT to be reported as spam.
Well, I tried to find the documentation on this but could not. What I did find was just the opposite posted by SpamCop admin Jeff stating that he is now reporting them (note: date feb 2004) Blank email So I guess I must add this to my list of bad advise. At least this time I found it before posting.
It seems that the parser will not send out any reports if there is not body, but I have no way of making sense of Jeff's reply unless there has be an change in policy since that time which was not undated in the newly updated "What not to report" list.

This post has been edited by dbiel: Sep 15 2004, 02:48 PM


--------------------
This forum is a user support forum. The Moderators and Forum Admin are volunteers (not paid) and have no special direct relationship with SpamCop.net.
If you have been unable to receive the assistance you need here please see How To Contact SpamCop Staff
Thank you for your participation in our peer to peer, user based forums.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wazoo
post Sep 15 2004, 03:35 PM
Post #3


What Life?
Group Icon

Group: Forum Admin
Posts: 13194
Joined: 22-January 04
From: Iowa
Member No.: 18



QUOTE(dbiel @ Sep 15 2004, 02:44 PM)
The reason no reports are sent is simply the policy that blank emails are NOT to be reported as spam.

Sorry, I can't back you up on that one.

QUOTE
Well, I tried to find the documentation on this but could not. What I did find was just the opposite posted by SpamCop admin Jeff stating that he is now reporting them (note: date feb 2004) Blank email

Written from the perspectoive that once there a few every now and then, but for whatever reason, these "boken" spams became much too common.

QUOTE
It seems that the parser will not send out any reports if there is not body, but I have no way of making sense of Jeff's reply unless there has be an change in policy since that time which was not undated in the newly updated "What not to report" list.

I'd rather go with that the parser is taking a step back with the decision that the user made a mistake in the spam submittal, thus refuses to go any further with the reporting action. The ages old suggestion to add in a body line of omething like "No body in this spam" gives enough substance that it looks like a "complete" spam submittal. Noting that the assumption is that the user has NOT made any errors in the handling of said spam for submittal and it really is one of these "blank" spams <g>
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dbiel
post Sep 15 2004, 08:30 PM
Post #4


Been There
Group Icon

Group: Membersph
Posts: 2557
Joined: 20-February 04
From: San Gabriel Valley CA USA (Los Angeles)
Member No.: 447



QUOTE(Wazoo @ Sep 15 2004, 01:35 PM)
Sorry, I can't back you up on that one.
Written from the perspectoive that once there a few every now and then, but for whatever reason, these "boken" spams became much too common.
I'd rather go with that the parser is taking a step back with the decision that the user made a mistake in the spam submittal, thus refuses to go any further with the reporting action.  The ages old suggestion to add in a body line of omething like "No body in this spam" gives enough substance that it looks like a "complete" spam submittal.  Noting that the assumption is that the user has NOT made any errors in the handling of said spam for submittal and it really is one of these "blank" spams <g>
*

Does that approach violate the "Material Changes to Spam" rule http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/283.html
Or is the Base 64 style disclaimer all that is needed?


--------------------
This forum is a user support forum. The Moderators and Forum Admin are volunteers (not paid) and have no special direct relationship with SpamCop.net.
If you have been unable to receive the assistance you need here please see How To Contact SpamCop Staff
Thank you for your participation in our peer to peer, user based forums.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wazoo
post Sep 15 2004, 11:21 PM
Post #5


What Life?
Group Icon

Group: Forum Admin
Posts: 13194
Joined: 22-January 04
From: Iowa
Member No.: 18



QUOTE(dbiel @ Sep 15 2004, 08:30 PM)
Does that approach violate the "Material Changes to Spam" rule http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/283.html
Or is the Base 64 style disclaimer all that is needed?

Not an official voice here, and Ellen can stomp on me at any moment ... but this is what I see .... The "material changes" specifies "causing the parser to find links where it would not have found them before the modification" ....

The scenario is a blank spam - "no body" - therefore no links were there to be found or ignored. Adding in the "no body in spam" text still does not cause any "additional links" to be found., ergo, no rule broken.

And again, not an official stance, and repeating that the parser stop mode was (essentially) halting based on a decision that the user screwed up in the submittal .. inserting this extra text should only be done if it truely is one of the broken/blank spams .... if there is any question, one should pass on trying to report it. That will keep us all out of trouble <g>
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post



Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

- Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd July 2014 - 10:53 PM