I have MailWasher running and it checks the mail on each server. I'm not sure what kind of headers are added when it forwards to SpamCop -- it's an integral part of the program; I just click the box next to each spam and then click "Process."

I decided to just delete the first confirmation and start over as if I'd never started before. I've gotten confirmations, sent them back and gotten acknowledgements, and everything appears to be okay.

Now when I report spam, sometimes I get the technical details (which I don't normally) that explains how it is dealing with the headers, and sometimes I just get the brief summary of where reports will go. Is it normal to have a mix of different outputs?

Two items:

1) Since about the time I configured mailhosts, my spam details often return verbose "technical data", even though preference is set to "Simple output". I had changed the setting to "Show technical data" for a while, but later put it back to "simple". I occasionally get "simple" reports but most of the time it seems to be "technical". (If the system has been tweeked to force technical detail for the purpose of the beta test, it would be helpful if this were noted in preferences.)


2) Starting probably today, my (technical detail) parsing report mis-identifies several hosts in the chain (including the last spamcop host) as one of my other mailhosts (ARRL). Piece of sample below, not sure if this should go to deputies or what. Pretty sure that at no point did this go through an ARRL. Doesn't seem to foul up the actual spam reporting, looks like they're going to the usual places.

Thanks,
Larry

Spam Header
This page may be saved for future reference:
http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z414023499z08...ff61ec42337884z
0: Received: from unknown (HELO c60.cesmail.net) (192.168.1.105) by blade4.cesmail.net with SMTP; 14 Apr 2004 19:23:16 -0000
Internal handoff at ARRL

I am seeing the same thing as Larry. Here is an example where the parsing determined the source correctly; the only thing out of the ordinary is that where it shows "SBC" it should say "SpamCop" instead. This email was received directly by my spamcop email address, it did not have anything to do with SBC, however SBC is the name of one of my mailhosts that I have setup.

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z414008752za9...cfd9d25ebd8743z

FYI This seems to have stopped. Looking at the parsing now, it no longer shows ARRL which it had previously tagged two or three hosts with.

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z414023499z08...ff61ec42337884z

Oh well...
Larry

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z414008752za9...cfd9d25ebd8743z

looks OK to me -- it identified an open proxy as the source of the spam. If this is not correct or not what you are seeing or if you have some other tracking url that you want me to look at; send the problem description, your registered SpamCop email address and any tracking urls to

deputies <at> spamcop.net

I would rather not discuss people's mailhosts listings in a public forum and also I need to be able to keep archives on mailhosts issues so I need you (and anyone else with a similar type problem) to write to me/us. I am trying to skim thru these threads and catch things that I can fix but I may have missed some posts -- so if the "regulars" will pass along this info I'd appreciate it. I would prefer if the person with the problem wrote directly rather than someone just sending me a link to a forum message.

I will tell you upfront that we are real backlogged on email and it may be 24 hours or even longer before you get an answer -- I apologize but we are handling things as fast as we can. Thanks for your patience.

Ellen:

Yesterday (possibly still some today) this link showed:

Internal handoff at SBC
SBC received mail from X.X.X.X

instead of

Internal handoff at SpamCop
SpamCop received mail from X.X.X.X

Several people were reporting the same thing and I confirmed that the links were replacing the name of the mailhost with another mailhost (as reported by the messages). The parses seemed to be working and I did not see anybody complain about hosts being accepted that should not be, just the labeling in the parser.

Understood, but .... are "you" at a point where there have been sufficient "similar" problems that a FAQ can be started yet?


Asked before, but are you suggesting that just about any question here be answered with the "e-mail Deputies" line and be done with it?


There's not a lot of "regular" traffic in here, and noting that there's not a lot that the "regulars" can offer short of the "this works for me" and "try deleting and starting again" ... and as noted in my last e-mail to Deputies, this cramming everything into one Topic has caused a bit of confusion for all ... what has been answered, what hasn't, how many of these posts were resolved "elsewhere" .....


and yet, Julian started this with "all comments/questions/feedback go "here" ..???


Have been trying to help out here, but as stated above, this jamming of everything into one Topic/thread hasn't turned out the way I believe Julian had intended. And that the real / specific answers aren't available to the rest of "us" kind of puts a crimp on the lowly volunteers in trying to ease your burden.

See that most of this is now answered via Ellen's postings at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1081 and http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1096 and the splitting up of the one BIG Topic into some recognizable categories .... though this has exposed a number of items that haven't been explicitly answered (hard to guess whether they've been resolved or if each needs the "e-mail Deputies" response to close them ..????)