Jump to content


Photo

Difference between "no body" and "body"


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 qjvgpuryy

qjvgpuryy

    Advanced Member

  • Membera
  • PipPipPip
  • 150 posts

Posted 15 September 2004 - 02:21 PM

One of my spams (almost) reports this way without a body (which is the way I received it):

Tracking URL without body
http://www.spamcop.n...c0fbddcf1446ebz

If reported today, reports would be sent to:
Re: 61.248.69.8 (Administrator of network where email originates)

abuse (at) shinbiro.com
postmaster (at) shinbiro.com

Re: 61.248.69.8 (Third party interested in email source)

spamcop (at) imaphost.com


(Note: color added for emphasis, munging for safety.)

and this way with the sentence "No body in spam." added as the body.

Tracking URL with body
http://www.spamcop.n...9dd34808bf4645z

Re: 61.248.69.8 (Administrator of network where email originates)
To: abuse (at) shinbiro.com (Notes)
To: postmaster (at) shinbiro.com (Notes)


Re: 61.248.69.8 (Third party interested in email source)
To: Cyveillance spam collection (Notes)


(Note: same as above note.)

My question is, who is spamcop (at) imaphost.com, and why don't they get a report when the spam parses?
qjvgpuryy (not my real name - call me David)

#2 turetzsr

turetzsr

    What Life?

  • Membersph
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,291 posts

Posted 15 September 2004 - 02:32 PM

[quote name='qjvgpuryy' date='Sep 15 2004, 03:21 PM']<snip>
My question is, who is spamcop (at) imaphost.com, and why don't they get a report when the spam parses?

View Post

[/quote]...IIUC, imaphost is the address of Cyveillance, so there's really no difference between the two parses in this respect.

..Regards,
...Steve T

...A Happy SpamCop.net reporting user (not an employee)
...Please avoid replying via e-mail, as it is not secure


#3 dbiel

dbiel

    Been There

  • Membersph
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,558 posts

Posted 15 September 2004 - 02:44 PM

The reason no reports are sent is simply the policy that blank emails are NOT to be reported as spam.
Well, I tried to find the documentation on this but could not. What I did find was just the opposite posted by SpamCop admin Jeff stating that he is now reporting them (note: date feb 2004) Blank email So I guess I must add this to my list of bad advise. At least this time I found it before posting.
It seems that the parser will not send out any reports if there is not body, but I have no way of making sense of Jeff's reply unless there has be an change in policy since that time which was not undated in the newly updated "What not to report" list.

Edited by dbiel, 15 September 2004 - 02:48 PM.

This forum is a user support forum. The Moderators and Forum Admin are volunteers (not paid) and have no special direct relationship with SpamCop.net.
If you have been unable to receive the assistance you need here please see How To Contact SpamCop Staff
Thank you for your participation in our peer to peer, user based forums.

#4 Wazoo

Wazoo

    What Life?

  • Forum Admin
  • 13,198 posts

Posted 15 September 2004 - 03:35 PM

The reason no reports are sent is simply the policy that blank emails are NOT to be reported as spam.

Sorry, I can't back you up on that one.

Well, I tried to find the documentation on this but could not. What I did find was just the opposite posted by SpamCop admin Jeff stating that he is now reporting them (note: date feb 2004) Blank email

Written from the perspectoive that once there a few every now and then, but for whatever reason, these "boken" spams became much too common.

It seems that the parser will not send out any reports if there is not body, but I have no way of making sense of Jeff's reply unless there has be an change in policy since that time which was not undated in the newly updated "What not to report" list.

I'd rather go with that the parser is taking a step back with the decision that the user made a mistake in the spam submittal, thus refuses to go any further with the reporting action. The ages old suggestion to add in a body line of omething like "No body in this spam" gives enough substance that it looks like a "complete" spam submittal. Noting that the assumption is that the user has NOT made any errors in the handling of said spam for submittal and it really is one of these "blank" spams <g>

#5 dbiel

dbiel

    Been There

  • Membersph
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,558 posts

Posted 15 September 2004 - 08:30 PM

Sorry, I can't back you up on that one.
Written from the perspectoive that once there a few every now and then, but for whatever reason, these "boken" spams became much too common.
I'd rather go with that the parser is taking a step back with the decision that the user made a mistake in the spam submittal, thus refuses to go any further with the reporting action.  The ages old suggestion to add in a body line of omething like "No body in this spam" gives enough substance that it looks like a "complete" spam submittal.  Noting that the assumption is that the user has NOT made any errors in the handling of said spam for submittal and it really is one of these "blank" spams <g>

View Post

Does that approach violate the "Material Changes to spam" rule http://www.spamcop.n.../cache/283.html
Or is the Base 64 style disclaimer all that is needed?
This forum is a user support forum. The Moderators and Forum Admin are volunteers (not paid) and have no special direct relationship with SpamCop.net.
If you have been unable to receive the assistance you need here please see How To Contact SpamCop Staff
Thank you for your participation in our peer to peer, user based forums.

#6 dra007

dra007

    Been There

  • Memberp
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,561 posts

Posted 15 September 2004 - 09:42 PM

This came up on numerous occasions and the advice to type blank line/no body provided bellow the header suggests that this would no be in violation of any SpamCop policy!

Edited by dra007, 15 September 2004 - 09:43 PM.


#7 Wazoo

Wazoo

    What Life?

  • Forum Admin
  • 13,198 posts

Posted 15 September 2004 - 11:21 PM

Does that approach violate the "Material Changes to spam" rule http://www.spamcop.n.../cache/283.html
Or is the Base 64 style disclaimer all that is needed?

Not an official voice here, and Ellen can stomp on me at any moment ... but this is what I see .... The "material changes" specifies "causing the parser to find links where it would not have found them before the modification" ....

The scenario is a blank spam - "no body" - therefore no links were there to be found or ignored. Adding in the "no body in spam" text still does not cause any "additional links" to be found., ergo, no rule broken.

And again, not an official stance, and repeating that the parser stop mode was (essentially) halting based on a decision that the user screwed up in the submittal .. inserting this extra text should only be done if it truely is one of the broken/blank spams .... if there is any question, one should pass on trying to report it. That will keep us all out of trouble <g>

#8 A.J.Mechelynck

A.J.Mechelynck

    Advanced Member

  • Membera
  • PipPipPip
  • 209 posts

Posted 30 September 2004 - 01:38 AM

Not an official voice here, and Ellen can stomp on me at any moment ... but this is what I see .... The "material changes" specifies "causing the parser to find links where it would not have found them before the modification" ....

The scenario is a blank spam - "no body" - therefore no links were there to be found or ignored.  Adding in the "no body in spam" text still does not cause any "additional links" to be found., ergo, no rule broken.

And again, not an official stance, and repeating that the parser stop mode was (essentially) halting based on a decision that the user screwed up in the submittal .. inserting this extra text should only be done if it truely is one of the broken/blank spams ....  if there is any question, one should pass on trying to report it.  That will keep us all out of trouble <g>

View Post

There used to be something somewhere, but where? Deep in the FAQ? Some boilerplate by one of the newsgroup regulars? I don't remember, but it said adding two linebreaks and [spam received with headers but no body], or anything similar, after a bodyless spam, was not a crime in SC's book. Thus what I remember jibes with what can be inferred from that post by JeffT.
Best regards,
Tony




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users