Jump to content

Tim P

Members
  • Content Count

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Tim P

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Tim P

    EMail problem?

    Emails popped between then and now. Hope it stays fixed.
  2. Tim P

    EMail problem?

    Well, now the mail is left on server at Yahoo! again, with all those downloading errors. What gives?
  3. Tim P

    EMail problem?

    Moderator Edit: this post was also split out from where the user posted it .. then merged into "this" discussion about "today's" events ... Problem cleared this end. Just wanted to update the group that my Yahoo! accounts were popped just now.
  4. Tim P

    EMail problem?

    Moderator Edit: This and another post were split out from the 2-year-old Pinned item that it was posted into .. then merged into this Discussion about events happening "today".... PM sent to advise of the move/merge .... Yahoo! is not being popped from my account either. I figured it had something to do with changes at Yahoo! since a reported exploit was being propagated through their webmail server on Wednesday. Anyone know anything more about this and some changes that may have happened at Yahoo! as a result? That could have something to do with this *pop* issue. Actually wanted to add also that there was a message that did get through which was grabbed by my antivirus scanner and the culprit could have been from that same Yahoo! vulnerability exploit. But it's too late to check that as the message was already deleted. Tim P. Thanks
  5. To further clarify, if one has set up a pop from another server, i.e. Yahoo! to spamcop.net, those emails have not been popped from their server, i.e. Yahoo!. Those emails should still be on their servers and get popped into spamcop as the backlog is worked through. One may find their "unpopped" email either way. If you didn't remember your other account, now is the time to take notes or dig out that old password...
  6. In the past, such problems tend to resolve in a little time. It only takes a little patience. The login page still appears blank so I surmise that the mail backlog is being handled at the moment. When the server catches up, it will become available. Usually it's the reporting side servers that are borked. This webmail problem is unusual.
  7. This is a 419 spam, which is being misparsed as "too-old". It is not the first one that I have had. why is the parser accepting garbage lines with old dates?? http://mailsc.spamcop.net/sc?id=z802345019...9624e628007644z particularly see this: . Received: from smtp.mailix.net ([216.148.213.132]) by ibm36aec.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20050902200831.GXEJ12677.ibm36aec.bellsouth.net[at]smtp.mailix.net>; Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:08:31 -0400 . next hop: . Received: from [192.168.8.8] (helo=localhost) by smtp.mailix.net with asmtp (Exim 4.24-H) id 1E3txK-0005MC-C7; Sat, 13 Aug 2005 04:13:38 -0700 . "Sat, 13 Aug 2005 04:13:38 -0700" <- WRONG My hosts file is configured properly and has been since its inception. Pay particular attention to the Bellsouth header. That is my mailhost's server which has the proper time stamp. The next received header is not giving the proper date, time and it should be at least be ignored. It looks like either a forged line or a config problem at that mailserver. The parser accepted the date from that last header above as a valid date. That is wrong, since my mailserver didnt get any email until today, the date should be trusted *only* at my mailserver. But even so, why is that last line being trusted? "Received: from [192.168.8.8] (helo=localhost)" being reported by a supposed trusted server (if "smtp.mailix.net" is trusted, that is). That should automatically throw it out as garbage since there is no valid source ip being recorded. In other words - a mailserver will record the source IP correctly at the SMTP transaction but nobody would expect a "local net ip". Indeed, that connection should have been rejected outright. Since there has been some recent conversation on forged dates, too old to report spam, I am inclined to believe that a spammer has found an exploit. Do the deputies confer? Tim P
  8. Parsed at this time, thanks.
  9. http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z754553313z3f...4ec2f8a6241859z spam from this outfit has always parsed correctly, until this one. error (relevant parsing lines shown): . 4: Received: from 216.171.217.252 (EHLO ns1.eprosender.com) (216.171.217.252) by mta168.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 06:00:33 -0700 Hostname verified: ns1.eprosender.com Trusted site mailgate.cesmail.net received mail from 216.171.217.252 5: Received: from ns1.eprosender.com (localhost.eprosender.com [127.0.0.1]) by ns1.eprosender.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id j3KCurqJ082519 for <x>; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 05:56:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nate[at]ns1.eprosender.com) Internal handoff or trivial forgery No source IP address found, cannot proceed. Add/edit your mailhost configuration Finding full email headers Submitting spam via email (may work better) Example: What spam headers should look like Nothing to do. Wrong....216.171.217.252 has ALWAYS parsed as the source of this spam. What changed? Upon further review: http://mailsc.spamcop.net/mcgi?action=show...id;val=44082974 shows all successful reports, some of which were mine.
  10. IMAP is so much easier to sort the mail and report via website. I did not have any problems with it and have done this for about two years. That changed today when I noticed that the mail client program would move the items around, but it would not show that they were being moved to a folder. It appeared like the spam was being moved - but "it just disappeared" When I looked in the folder that I directed it to go, the mail was *gone*. But, in light of todays discussion of a sluggish server-something was up. I verified that the mail was actually moved from the webmail side, and that the reporting side was working (held mail report checks). Is this a related symptom of the recent server trouble? Just have to verify that the problem is not on my end, thats all. It does show in the client program - but after a very long delay (something never seen here before). I use the IMAP (secure) connection at imap.cesmail.net. Should I reset that to imap.spamcop.net? as that cesmail domain may be phased out soon., so I've seen in the FAQ. Didn't get a round-tuit.
  11. Tim P

    Reporting Errors

    "Failed to load spam header:735795885 / 0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx putRow Table 'thrash.unreported' doesn't exist (1146)/sc?id=zxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxz" Reload from last tab....back in again. Whats going on?
  12. Tim P

    Slow Reporting

    No rashes, per se. But the reporting side just got slammed from my perspective. Worked fine throughout the day and then..... Gateway timeout.... Site not responding from other parts of the net. Something choking the system? The graphics of todays volumes shows a hole for a brief period. Oh, one more thing I wasn't expecting. I've had to re'log in to submit a report on several occasions. That is unusual.
  13. Tim P

    Blacklist redundancy

    Although it is rare, there have been times that a new listing hasn't propagated through all the lists yet. I had a spam that was blocked by cbl, but not by xbl.
  14. A workaround would be to change your filtering blacklists by checking on the Spamassassin and increase it's threshold to the highest setting (whatever that may be). That should pass all but the highest scoring stuff, but it will also include the URIBL lists in the header added by spamassassin. An example of a header line added by spamassassin: X-spam-Status: hits=6.1 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO,RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO,URIBL_OB_SURBL,URIBL_SBL,URIBL_WS_SURBL version=3.0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "URIBL_OB_SURBL" "URIBL_SBL" "URIBL_WS_SURBL" There are some other URIBL's too. ".... _SURBL"
  15. Tim P

    Does it ever end ?

    Yes, quite right. I meant Bcc: Just didn't re-edit the post.
×