test

additional test

edit, it is suprising how may views this little test topic has had.

The views on fairly well all the test topics are way out of proportion to the contents - grounds for endless conjecture.

Test post ignore

I think its because we're all interested to see what you are testing...

Oh, and by the way, don't think of an elephant.

To explain: just looking at what happens to links when a post is moved. This was where it was moved "to". The link to the previous location then went to the top of the old topic. But then I am, as often confessed, a consistent liar.

"But there was ...
"no explosion.
"What?
"He lied.
"Everything [Farelf] tells you is a lie.
"Everything [Farelf] tells you is a lie.
Farelf: "Listen to this carefully, Norman.
Farelf: "I am lying.
Norman:"You say you are lying,
Norman:"but if everything you say is a lie,
Norman:"then you are telling the truth, but ...
Norman:"you cannot tell the truth
Norman:"because everything you say is a lie.
Norman:"You lie -- You tell the truth --
Norman:"But you cannot --
Norman:"Illogical!
Norman:"Illogical!
Norman:"Please explain."

I am forced to look, just to see "what" is being tested .... for all I know, someone may be checking to see if the the web page is flammable <g>

I'm just nosy and read every unread message

...Ditto.

I must admit that so am I.

Just testing some quoting, since someone else is having some problems with it this morning.

Looks as if it's working OK...

I believe that the problem is the number of quotes used.
There seems to be a limit on how many quotes can be contained in a single post.

Copy of problem post with much of the text deleted to shorten post for testing - see following post that will delete some quotes to isolate problem

[quote]It is not possible to see others reports unless you receive them via email.[/quote]
Bum. As you'll appreciate, I'm a bit stuck here, because our hosts won't let me in to see my e-mail at all

[quote]"Double OPt-in" in a spammers term. Confirmed opt-in is the preferred term, if that is what you are doing.[/quote]
How embarrassing. I've always called it "verifying" but a rapid glance about the place suggested the accepted term was "double-opt-in." Anyway, yes, that's the idea: there's a Mailing List page where you lob

[quote]As a paying reporter, I can see some information on that IP as follows:[/quote]
I'm not a paying reporter, but that's exactly the info I see -- I wasn't sure if it was okay to post the

[quote]I see Mill's list, some misdirected bounces, and some phishing attempts, all spam, but maybe not from you if it is indeed a shared server.[/quote]
No, we're the List bits only. Maybe the bounces, come to think of it -- theweekly.co.uk's recently been vics,

[quote]The 2 Mil's lists were both mole reports, so no full report is sent. You will need to contact the anything that would allow you to whitelist (remove) the reporter.[/quote]
Exc, I'll try that. As I say, if the reporting address has to concealed, that's fine. Obviously it'd be nice to

[quote]In most cases, if there are 2 reports, it means many others received the message who also don't want it but simply delete it.[/quote]
That would be a big surprise, because of the verification bit. We simply don't know your address until you

[quote]You may want to sign up for a free ISP account - see How can I get SpamCop reports about my network?[/quote]
It says I'm already registered, so I'm guessing the ISP account has the same functionality as the e-mail .

[quote]As a mole, I would have to add (2d) that mole reports do not contribute to the blocklist. They may to be listed in isolation of more "accountable" reports nor can they even do as much as prolong the period of listing (not for many months past).[/quote]
Spook. The mystery thickens. As I say, from my shallow understanding of Spamcop the fact any block that

[quote]Mil's Mailing List has had nothing to do with the IP's listing on the basis of the evidence seen. The OP's ISP has shot the (sitting ducks come to mind).[/quote]

[quote]Sounds like you've got a fairly accurate understanding of what happened, but most of us here can't give you any more specifics because we're fellow users, not SpamCop admins. I'd recommend that you try to reach the Deputies at: deputies at admin dot spamcop dot net.[/quote]

[quote]They might be willing to give you a better picture of what caused that IP to get listed, because it *might* involve spamtrap hits from "after the fact" bounce activity, and they'd be able to see that.[/quote]
That'd be interesting because, as you'd expect from a slightly popular, wildly irregular newsletter, we have
[quote]As for those moles, you should report them to the Deputies as well, in that they seem to be reporting things that they signed up to receive and that diminishes the efforts of the rest of the SpamCop users.[/quote]
My instinctive grasp of quoting, there.

Glad someone has an answer, I looked over that post (and re-edited it) several times before giving up.

Deleted first 4 quotes for testing



Exc, I'll try that. As I say, if the reporting address has to concealed, that's fine. Obviously it'd be nice to


That would be a big surprise, because of the verification bit. We simply don't know your address until you


It says I'm already registered, so I'm guessing the ISP account has the same functionality as the e-mail .


Spook. The mystery thickens. As I say, from my shallow understanding of Spamcop the fact any block that






That'd be interesting because, as you'd expect from a slightly popular, wildly irregular newsletter, we have

My instinctive grasp of quoting, there.

Yes, 10 is the limit - add one more and kapow

Good catch, dbiel.

dt

10 quotes per post is the curent setting.
I 'fixed' the original problem post by converting a couple 'quote' tags to 'code' statements.

Background: FireFox (1.0.x) tended to blow up at around 12 to 14 embedded quotes. Opera tended to blow up at something around 9 to 12 embedded quotes. The limit setting at 10 embedded quotes per post has been the Default and recommended setting since version 2.0.1 or so .... making that a couple of years now ....

Test topics appear to be treated pretty much like "How to use" pages. Just taking the "top" pages of various forums currently (by linear correlation) -

TEST Views 1272 + 151 per reply
HOW TO USE - Forum, Reporting Views 1735 + 374 per reply

Contrast with

HELP - Reporting, BL, Mail, Mailhosts Views 72 + 33 per reply
LOUNGE Views 25 per reply

Fairly obviously the length of time any given topic spends on the forum's "front page" has a lot to do with it.

(Some correlations are "weak" - they do not account for much of the variance - but all are assured by high confidence levels - the least of which indicates 1/34,543 probability of chance attribution).

[It's a test to see if various characters are altered in quick edit `~ @ #$%^&*-_=+"<>?/\|]

Test of APEWS multi-moderation option

There is no connection between SpamCop.net and APEWS. However, because the APEWS FAQ was apparently misunderstood, the following data is provided;
______________________________________________________________________________
Considering the current behavior and management of the APEWS blacklist, we can only agree with the advice given at Al Iverson's DNS RESOURCE - - read it at: What to do if you are listed on APEWS
________________________________________________________________________________


[APEWS] removed from topic title - it works fine

He all there!

Who/what is Stukachkov and what did he, she, it or they do to you?

Interesting how we end up with a post that shows total posts by the user = 0

this forum section does not 'count' posts .. so it doesn't increment the user's post count either ...

test

Test

1. 
2. 

i. img fetched (only) when not logged in. When logged, opens link in new page

Not forgotten, it's just that I recall when I looked at this before my aunt died, there were some other issues beyond what you'd asked about. I will get back to it, sorry for the delay.

You are expecting far more from yourself than anyone here is expecting. In fact you have been here much more than expected considering the current state of affairs.

Exactly right, I didn't anticipate a response - just seemed to have some interesting possibilities if left. Or it might be desirable to change the behavior. Nothing worth any sort of priority of itself. But raised partly because such things sometimes lead elsewhere, to more worthy things.

[Sorry myself for not jumping in more quickly with assurances - a server or two seems to have briefly gone offline here with a local thunder storm. Send her down Hughie! Rain, that is, you can hold off on the St Barbara's dear old dad stuff.]

spam (all caps)

spam (mixed case)

SPAMCOP (all caps)

SpamCop (mixed case)

ЅРАМ ^TM
ЅPAM ^TM
SРAM ^TM
SPАM ^TM
SPAМ ^TM

Takes uncommon effort, not a risk (and will fall apart on quick edit, etc.).
0405, 0420, etc.

lɯ�‡ɥ�™dıl�Ÿ/ɯo�”�™pɐ�Ÿ�Œǝɹ�™ʍʍʍ//:d�‡�‡ɥ - dıl�Ÿ �ƒuı�‡sǝ�‡

Well, sort of cool. But of course it doesn't stand up to the quick edits.

lɯʇɥ˙dılɟ/ɯoɔ˙pɐɟʌǝɹ˙ʍʍʍ//:dʇʇɥ - dılɟ ƃuıʇsǝʇ

Curiosity killed the cat?

sort of rethorical..

˙˙lɐɔıɹoɥʇǝɹ ɟo ʇɹos

¿ʇɐɔ ǝɥʇ pǝllıʞ ʎʇısoıɹnɔ

www.revfad.com/flip.html