john1000 Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 The second time ive got one now... spam but no body provided,so the report system says by by ...nothing to do. I received...... Return-Path: <c_c.salinasud[at]stange-privat.de> Received: from modonline.de ([213.8.122.13]) by amsfep18-int.chello.nl (InterMail vM.6.00.05.02 201-2115-109-103-20031105) with SMTP id <20040323114701.BWYA8742.amsfep18-int.chello.nl[at]modonline.de>; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:47:01 +0100 Message-ID: <3d6901c4115a$106db0ef$7afa4b5f[at]modonline.de> From: "Caitlin C. Salinas" <c_c.salinasud[at]stange-privat.de> To: xxxxxx[at]xxxx, xxxxxx[at]xxxx, xxxxxx[at]xxxx, xxxxxx[at]xxxx Subject: need medication? ; zsondjdvtfgquw Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:45:37 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit So they now do it by subject... How to work around this so i can still report it ? John (p.s...email addresses are taken out to protect the innocent...thats us) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 It is allowed to place one line in the body explaining that there was no message body. Make sure you leave a blank line after the headers. Also, I do not send these to sites that do not want munged messages, but that is a personal choice. The usual complaint was that the munged headers left the reported anonymous. I use: <no message body> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john1000 Posted March 23, 2004 Author Share Posted March 23, 2004 ok thanks, see if that goes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 ...Attn: Moderator: FAQ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 ...Attn: Moderator: FAQ? It's included in cause 3 of Larry's FAQ Entry: Known causes of the "Would send" behavior. Does anyone else see a need to make a separate FAQ Entry for "No body provided, check format of submission" (just added to that existing FAQ Entry)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 ...Attn: Moderator: FAQ? It's included in cause 3 of Larry's FAQ Entry: Known causes of the "Would send" behavior. Does anyone else see a need to make a separate FAQ Entry for "No body provided, check format of submission" (just added to that existing FAQ Entry)? ...Unlikely, IMHO, that anyone with this problem would think to look in a FAQ called "Known causes of the 'Would send' behavior." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Also, please see http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...rch/013798.html for a reference to more instances of the same problem, with attribution. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.