While I was successfully able to clear VqME.com, I'm still receiving checkboxes for their upstream host on every spam I report (e-xpedient.com). Can this be manually cleared by someone?

http://cosmonet.com/images/002.jpg

Moderator edit: changed link 'type'

I really have no idea what you seem to be talking about. What exactly do you believe you "cleared"???

If this 'wrong' target address for a report shows up "in every parse" .. the easiest thing to guess at is that you have "MailHost configured your Reporting Account" but haven't yet finished that process. The next probable issue is a problem in the stamping done by the ISPs/servers involved in the e-mail headers ... assumedly 'your' ISP in this case????

The request / suggestion is made in numerous places to provide a Tracking URL such that all this guessing would not have to be involved.

Cleared = configured = approved.

VqME is a spam filter which includes a header in every mail it forwards to me. In that header are a number of links to vqME with various handling options: remove from list, approve, block, etc. They are not an ISP, but instead a relay point/filter.

these header links are being parsed as spam links, even though vqME itself has been configured correctly. So, in my mail config, VqME is displaying, but in spite of numerous attempts at configuration, e-xpedient will not display.

And, in spite of repeatedly R'ing The F'ing M , I don't see instructions for providing a tracking URL.

Ah, more diligence paid off. Found the tracking URL and emailed appropriately. Would be nice if those URL's were persistent, or rather if there were a way to retrieve those after leaving the reporting screen.

...In that case, you must have missed the entry on this Forum's main page labeled "Announcement: [How-to] Post a Question (and prevent stupid/rude answers)" (specifically, the part of that announcement that appears in the third-to-last paragraph, under the heading "The Details") and the entry in the big red link "Latest and Current Announcements" labeled "[How-to] Post a Question (and prevent stupid/rude answers)."
...If you have any suggestions for how we can make either or both of these a more obvious part of "the F'ing M," please let us know. Thanks!

...Check out the tab on the SpamCop web page (http://www.spamcop.net/) labeled "Past Reports."

none of that makes any actual sense here. one could guess that you might mean "added to your MailHost Configuration" .. but ...????

??? relay point? Are you trying to say that this is a 'local' filter, i.e., installed and running on 'your' computer?

Seems to suggest that this isn't running on 'your' computer, and that the header lines are probably not 'valid' ... but withut seeing them, hard to guess at what the issue is.

SpamCop FAQ at the top of this very page
Dictionary, Glossary, Wiki also include definitions of "Tracking URL"
As noted in all these definitions, the words "Here is your Tracking URL" are seen on every parse results page. (and it is noted that the Tracking URL seen at that time is simply a 'recreation' of the actual web-page you are actually seeing at that time)


See the SpamCop FAQ 'here' or check out the Wiki .... your desire to 'retrieve' Tracking URLs is addressed by the use of using your Report-IDs .....

These are "Spamvertized link" reports. I would guess you could contact the deputies and talk to them about this issue. The other thing woulf be for vqme.com to set the flag that they do not want spamcop reports for these links. The deputies could help them with that.

...Or better, IMHO, would be to continue to receive these notices but use them not as automatic evidence of spam but rather to

• initiate research as to whether the customer is in cahoots with the spammer and complicit in allowing the spammer to use their web site in the spam.
• alert the customer that their web site is being used without their permission in spam so that the customer can take action, if they so wish.

That's what I'd want if I were the customer.

I am totally confused. I thought I read that the OP had found the tracking URL, but I don't see it in this topic. He did say he emailed it, but not to whom.

If this relay is being reported every time, then should the OP re-do his mailhosts so that the mailhosts recognizes it? Or did he, because he says he 'successfully cleared' them?

If their upstream is being chosen for the spamvertized links, then it does seem peculiar. That would mean that his spam filter is being hosted on the same network that spamvertized sites are hosted. Or is it that the parser is identifying the sites 'in the headers' as spamvertized sites? That doesn't seem right. And if they are putting them in the body of the spam, then the only thing to do is to uncheck them, until the OP can convince them that is a bad idea. Surely, they don't have to put instructions in every spam they forward? Why would anyone open a spam to find them?

The OP can convince them to visit spamcop and set the flag for no reports, as innocent bystanders. Didn't the same thing happen with some other virus filters that added a line at the bottom saying this email had been checked by NoNameVirusChecker?

And that brings up the question of whether their upstream is being chosen for other sites than this spam filter which comes back to being peculiar.

I hope the OP sorts it out.

Miss Betsy

My belief is this is something added by software on the OP's system to the body of the message (like some AV programs do). As such, the only thing they would be tracking is how many of their customers also report through SpamCop.


What I think I saw in the information provided was that it was webvertized sites being reported, not sources. Mailhosts will not help there.

Keep in mind I have been in bed with a fever since Friday evening, however

I feel like I am getting a fever when I try to sort this out!

Still not absolutely positive that what he 'cleared' was the relay in the header by using mailhosts

Is he saying that he has tried re-doing mailhosts to 'clear' the spamvertized links? Which must be in the body of the spam, not in the headers the way he says they are. So, I tend to agree with you that the 'link' is like the AV links. I think only the spamfilter company can get spamcop to declare them 'innocent'. However, just in case it wasn't that, but actual spam sites, I thought I would hint that possibly there was a reason that they were being checked. It wouldn't be the first time a spammer used anti-spam or virus programs to lure victims, would it? Maybe he emailed you the Tracking URL so you know what he's talking about.

Now my explanation of my confusion should really 'clear' your fever! <g>

Miss Betsy