SpamCop Discussion > Spamcop account configuration: error

Full Version: Spamcop account configuration: error

SpamCop Discussion > Discussions & Observations > Mailhost Configuration of your Reporting Account

StevenUnderwood

Nov 18 2006, 09:06 PM

This is more of a documenting a problem trying to forward email "as attachment" from OUtlook when trying to register mailhosts than anything else, but it would also apply to any reporting. It definitely affects trying to configure mailhosts by forwarding the probe back to spamcop. Pasting the headers into the web page did work to complete the configuration.

The text of the error received back is:

QUOTE

It appears you did not provide all email headers. Please consult this FAQ for more information on getting full headers from your software, then try again.

It appears that at least the version/configuration of Exchange (v6.5)/Outlook (2003) I am using at work is stripping all of the x-* headers when forwarding. It provides the Received: headers and parsing works properly, but I just realized it is not forwarding the entire headers as I though it was (my early tests did not have any x-* headers, so I did not notice this issue).

I offer for comparison, a spam I received at my work account and reported: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1139794004z8...;action=display and the headers as pulled from the Options menu choice used to see the headers while it is on the server:

CODE

Microsoft Mail Internet Headers Version 2.0
Received: from psmtp.com ([64.18.1.114]) by owa.kopin.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
	 Sat, 18 Nov 2006 15:29:00 -0500
Received: from source ([66.232.97.65]) by exprod6mx122.postini.com ([64.18.5.13]) with SMTP;
	Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:28:45 GMT
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple;
	s=s512; d=clicreward.com;
	b=O0rMebrLXR/A4hhnbbzc1Czo8ak8b3xrBzuLgz7kHzKORxn9FMYXu0QrJyLRfXj4U/+eFVl7LqTky0HZKaV1bw==;
Received: from xtrje.clicreward.com [66.232.97.65] by clicreward.com [66.232.97.65];
  Sat, 18 Nov 2006 12:26:23 PST
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Alert <john.roberts[at]clicreward.com>
To: sunderwood[at]kopin.com
Subject: WalMart Voucher: Pending
Content-Type: multipart/related; 
  boundary="-=d29af9869355f320122e217a3df07ef4";
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 12:26:23 PST
Message-ID: <2-2445231-9Kn5sjoNbbsYhbZw57.bM[at]xtrje.clicreward.com>
X-Mailer: 3.2.12-21 [Nov  7 2006, 14:33:01]
X-pstn-levels:     (S:27.34996/99.90000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:94.5022 C:98.6951 )
X-pstn-settings: 3 (1.0000:1.0000) s gt3 gt2 gt1 r p m c 
X-pstn-addresses: from <john.roberts[at]clicreward.com> [444/24] 
Return-Path: 2-2445231-kopin.com?sunderwood[at]xtrje.clicreward.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Nov 2006 20:29:00.0583 (UTC) FILETIME=[2E530370:01C70B50]

---=d29af9869355f320122e217a3df07ef4
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

---=d29af9869355f320122e217a3df07ef4
Content-Type: image/jpeg
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="excited_to_stop.jpg"
Content-ID: <94feb720cf9cc701ef33401c98ae32f3>

---=d29af9869355f320122e217a3df07ef4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


---=d29af9869355f320122e217a3df07ef4--

Because of the current configuration, I'm not sure if I will continue to report spam from work. I only get a few a week. and I do not currently use the BL so it is not a big loss for me. Thoughts on this part?

Farelf

Nov 18 2006, 11:00 PM

QUOTE(StevenUnderwood @ Nov 19 2006, 10:06 AM)

... Because of the current configuration, I'm not sure if I will continue to report spam from work. I only get a few a week. and I do not currently use the BL so it is not a big loss for me. Thoughts on this part?

Don't see any reason to quit on account of configuration. You have your mailhosts set up (the process could do with an entry in the FAQ/Wiki) and "you" are not altering the spam, you are using standard tools and processes. I'm sure there are workarounds for the X-headers but, as has been said time and again, SpamCop doesn't use them anyway. Doesn't sound like a big deal either way in your situation.

Incidentally - some sort of workaround IIUC at .http://gsexdev.blogspot.com/2004/08/using-x-headers-with-exchange.html. I thought at first *that* might constitute "material change". But then, it can only put in [something] that is [based on what was] already there, in the "original", so I guess it's not [if you put back exactly what "was" there]. But it is a fine line. Life is a process of continual elaboration - until you die (feelin' cheerful today, having to work on a Sunday an' all).

[added on edit]

Wazoo

Nov 18 2006, 11:57 PM

Rough one to answer, especially when I look back and generally note that it seems like I'm the only one that mentions the configuration of the Exchange server involved when trying to talk about Outlook issues ...

Referencing back to Don's last, it's not "you" that's making the changes.
Reaching way back to Julian adding the Outlook/Eudora work-around. this is just another example of the strange characteristics of using a tool basically designed for in-house Intranet stuff on the 'net' ....

All in all, there should be no way for you to be chastised for these 'differences' .... but, boy howdy ... making this match up to the "no material alterations" sure does come hard (to me)

StevenUnderwood

Nov 19 2006, 08:35 PM

QUOTE(Wazoo @ Nov 18 2006, 11:57 PM)

Wazoo, That was why I mentioned the Exchange part and looking at the settings we used, I don't think there are any more switches to enable not dropping the x-* headers on a forward as attachment action. I would be glad to be proved wrong on that, however.

I am testing out OLSpamCop (used to be SpamGrabber, apparently) and it seems good in the small amount of testing I've done to this point.

It is purrely a personal thing, but I just don't like sending anything, especially to those that refuse munged headers, that I know has been modified. I think it comes from me working for a public company and needing to completely document every change on the network that I can understand needing full headers for evidence. I am so tired of dealing with auditors and lawyers

Farelf

Nov 19 2006, 08:46 PM

QUOTE(StevenUnderwood @ Nov 20 2006, 09:35 AM)

... That was why I mentioned the Exchange part and looking at the settings we used, I don't think there are any more switches to enable not dropping the x-* headers on a forward as attachment action. I would be glad to be proved wrong on that, however....

Yeah, well, I pointed you to a URL that seemed to confirm that supposition - maybe I misunderstood?

StevenUnderwood

Nov 19 2006, 08:58 PM

QUOTE(Farelf @ Nov 19 2006, 08:46 PM)

Yeah, well, I pointed you to a URL that seemed to confirm that supposition - maybe I misunderstood?

I did look at that, but I have enough to do without writing and maintaining scripts to extract the headers then forward the spam. Others have already done what I was trying to accomplish. I was just thinking if there was a hidden setting within the existing Exchange settings.

Farelf

Nov 19 2006, 09:07 PM

QUOTE(StevenUnderwood @ Nov 20 2006, 09:58 AM)

...I have enough to do without writing and maintaining scripts to extract the headers then forward the spam. Others have already done what I was trying to accomplish. I was just thinking if there was a hidden setting within the existing Exchange settings.

Understood, my thinking being people wouldn't likely be writing [and publishing] sripts if there were such settings to make their work meaningless.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.