Jump to content

Ashocka

Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Ashocka

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 06/16/1955

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://accessiblesolutions.com.au/
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Australia
  • Interests
    Web Development<br />HCI<br />Tibetan Buddhism
  1. Wazoo: Do you understand plain English... I don't want your input AT ALL. Can't you understand I don't want you posting. If no one else is going to help me fine... but I find your manner most unhelpful... you seem to be deliberatly antagonistic... there's not other rational, either that or you do not understand a simple request. Please butt out. Here's a fresh email Return-path: &lt;cognitiv(atmung)mungme-host.mungme-accessiblehosting.com&gt; Envelope-to: hostacce(atmung)mungme-accessiblehosting.com Delivery-date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:14:16 +1100 Received: from cognitiv by host.mungme-accessiblehosting.com with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from &lt;cognitiv(atmung)mungme-host.accessiblehosting.com&gt;) id 1HJoUg-0005Jt-BC for hostacce(atmung)mungme-accessiblehosting.com; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:14:16 +1100 To: hostacce(atmung)mungme-accessiblehosting.com Subject: WordPress installation on http://mungme-cognitivity.org From: fantastico(atmung)mungme-cognitivity.org X-Sender: &lt;fantastico(atmung)mungme-cognitivity.org&gt; X-Mailer: PHP X-Priority: 1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Message-Id: &lt;E1HJoUg-0005Jt-BC(atmung)mungme-host.mungme-accessiblehosting.com&gt; Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:14:16 +1100
  2. Okay, thanks Steve Okay, I can try another one and I'll get the headers without downloading it, I'll just get it raw off the server. Would that help? Can you tell me what is the problem there? Is the format not compliant to the specification? Thanks. ............... Geoff
  3. Wazoo I have kindly asked you not to reply or provide any further feedback to my post. Can't you be gracious enough to accommodate such a request. Please do not respond to my post anymore. ...... Geoff
  4. Well I have asked you not to bother replying to me because I don't find your manner helpful at all. So please understand, your responses and tone are not welcome, if others don't want to help, that's fine also, but I'd prefer not to deal with Wazoo. Everyone else I find help in an acceptable manner and appreciate their help. Please respect this Wazoo. I'm sorry I did not make this clear enough to everyone, I thought I had. SC rejects this email completely, so it is discarded by the system. The only way I could get an email with an example header was to send one from Fantastico to an email address that would bypass SC. So naturally there is nothing in this email header that deals with SC as it has not gone through the SC system. Because if this email is sent to SC it rejects it and never gets to me. The question remains, why does SC reject this email? I'm willing to coordinate with JT (or anyone (but Wazoo)) to send an email to my SC account so that he can monitor the logs to see what is happening. This mail is not being generated by Thunderbird. It is being generated by Fantastico. What has Thunderbird got to do with this (excuss my ignorance). I'm soooo sorry that this wasn't clear enough. I'll go through it again; When Fantastico installs a package on my server it offers to send an email of all the configuration details of the install to a given email address. If I enter any email address that is forwarded to SC, SC rejects this email, Exim logs; 2007-02-11 11:14:28 1HG2Mk-0006M9-Nq ashocka[at]spamcop.net R=lookuphost T=remot e_smtp H=mx.spamcop.net [216.154.195.36] 2007-02-11 11:14:29 1HG2Mk-0006M9-Nq Completed 2007-02-11 11:14:29 1HG2Ml-0006MI-QP H=(c60.cesmail.net.invalid) [216.154.195.49] F= rejected after DATA: there is no valid sender in any header line 2007-02-11 11:14:30 1HG2Mm-0006MN-7e cognitiv R=localuser T=local_delivery 2007-02-11 11:14:30 1HG2Mm-0006MN-7e Completed So I understand Exim is telling me that this email has been rejected by the server at c60.cesmail.net.invalid because there is no valid sender in any header line. So I am asking if anyone (except Wazoo) can tell me why it is analysing these headers and coming to that conclusion. There must be some parsing logic or something on the server side at this server at SC that causes it to take this action, because this is the only mail I know of directed to me that is rejected. Is there a syntax or failed compliance to specification in the header? Thanks in advance. Geoff
  5. Wazoo Your help is appreciated, but the manner in which you deliver it is not. I would therefore request you do not bother addressing any of my posts in future, please let others do that. If they don't wish to, fine. Here's the complete header again (munged) From - Wed Feb 14 08:13:16 2007 X-Account-Key: account2 X-UIDL: 207b0cd81924ef82292e121567d51efc X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Return-path: &lt;cognitiv(at)host.spamungaccessiblehosting.com&gt; Envelope-to: hostacce(at)spamungaccessiblehosting.com Delivery-date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 08:03:37 +1100 Received: from cognitiv by host.spamungaccessiblehosting.com with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from &lt;cognitiv(at)host.spamungaccessiblehosting.com&gt;) id 1HH4oh-00011u-Qt for hostacce(at)spamungaccessiblehosting.com; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 08:03:37 +1100 To: hostacce(at)spamungaccessiblehosting.com Subject: WordPress installation on http://cognitivity.org From: fantastico(at)spamungcognitivity.org X-Sender: &lt;fantastico(at)spamungcognitivity.org&gt; X-Mailer: PHP X-Priority: 1 Message-Id: &lt;E1HH4oh-00011u-Qt(at)host.spamungaccessiblehosting.com&gt; Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 08:03:37 +1100 X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 7.5.441 [268.17.37/682] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 I hope this is more helpful. Geoff
  6. Farelf: I'm confused too, because their example header template shows little or no resemblance to what their system actually generated, given the email that I did provide later. Regarding Wazoo: That glass half empty/half full was a reference to users looking for support (not Wazoo). I think you misunderstood who the quote was applying too. It was applying to users like myself and the perception of those assisting those looking for help. What I was saying is that if you regard users as such a bunch of moroons that they are catagoried as glass half empty sydrome, that's negative, whereas, if the user is not quite there and needs a bit of gentle assistance then they are percieved as glass half full. It's good that most of you support Wazoo, but you should also look at his posts here. He completely misunderstood my initial post and DavidT had to correct him, shooting off without correctly asssessing the request. There's little softness or gentleness in his manner. This is a sign to me of someone who needs help, or at least assistance. I do hope there are people here who do have real day to day contact with him and can assist him, because I certainly won't be coming back here if that's the type of responses I get, and the type of manner that is accepted on these forums... maybe that is the intention, to drive moroons away. Also, I'm sorry to say this, but even if someone like myself wants to try and help themselves the Wiki doesn't provide much beyond basic information. You have to come here to solve problems. And even then no one has been able to tell me what it is that is in this email header that is causing SC to reject it. I'm sorry to be critical, I'm trying to be constructive and help out, I'm certainly not trying to slag off. I really do appreciate the work and contribution that is being made. Thanks (and sorry) Regards Geoff
  7. To turetzer; Thanks for the post. I think everyone one of us that helps out anywhere on any forum or list often get frustrated because we think we are helping someone out and it seems they don't have the basic intelligence to follow even the simplest advice. We've all had this. And we all have the feeling to want to grab the person by the scruff of their collar and give them a shake to wake them up. It doesn't help at all being condesending or making people feel they have wasted your time. We don't need a study on this, it is pretty obvious when you trawl through discussion lists that those who really take the time and have the patience are mostly very much appreciated. I get the feeling this is part of Wazoos job and that can become taxing. I'm not into the glass half full/ half empty analogy, but in this case it is relevant, it really does help to see if the user is at least half there. The other thing is some of us are so busy, multitasking on so many issues, that we only have a little brain space to address these side issues, that's why we come here for help, and not go reading reams of documents to become experts on the issue, just gain enough understanding to be able to learn enough to handle the situation with knowledge and competence. It's really amazing what happens sometimes, I had a ticket openned on this issue with Netenburg and they decided to close it on Sunday. I think that is a statement in itself that IT personal are given no life, it's expected they have a borg like interface to the net. I was at a friends place on Sunday and they asked if I need to check my mail, and I said, no, day off... I guess that's very unprofessional of me:-( And back to the main issue, I did provide an exact email of what Netenburg was generating and what SC was rejecting, and given whatever Wazoo had a problem with, there has been no answer why SC rejects this email (at least none that I have understood). petzl Thanks for that, for some reason this whole issue of popping into SC direct hasn't occured to me, but from what I see people saying I'll change this (far more practical). FYI - I'm still not receiving email notifications of replies even though the system says I am. Regards and thanks Geoff
  8. I did change my preferences to get immediate emails, and that did happen for a while, I made no other changes, and they stopped for no reason. As far as I'm concerned I did provide a real email. God Wazoo, you really have some personal issues because you seem to be such a grump you can't realise when people are trying to work with the situation and they are grateful for the help. As you say in your sidebar (what life). I feel sorry for you. But I'll help you out and not bother posting here again or bothering you. I'm sorry you can't perceive others gratitude. DavidT, thanks for your help. Thanks to all. Geoff
  9. This time I didn't get any email notifications that there were any replies (I haven't changed my preferences). Sorry if I have been wasting your time Wazoo. I have been as polite and appreciative as possible, I'm sorry it is perceived as wasting your time. I'll avoid doing this in the future. I was only trying to work out why SC was rejecting mail. Thanks DavidT for your time and help. That email was sent from one domain to another on the same machine, so the IPs would have been the same (if they had have been included in the headers). Thanks for clarifying the issue of directly fetching mail from SC. I will take your advice and reconfig it that way... it makes more sense. Thanks Geoff
  10. Hi David, Thanks, So there is no clear reason why SC is rejecting this mail, from what I can gather, even though they aren't putting in the IP data? I didn't edit anything other than domain information. I could configure to pop into SC, but I would rather have an inbox that does not have the downtime and accessibility problems associated with SC. I can understand the load on the servers, but I think I prefer to not be caught with such frustrations. If I am away from my mail for a few hours, and I come back, sometimes I just have 10 minutes to address mail. If SC just happens to shut down for one of it's many maintainance cycles during that 10 minutes, I'm render unproductive, whereas, if it had been forwarding the mail for those few hours, I still have access to it. Also, I'm in AU, in a rural area, still on dialup (BB coming soon... or what is called BB in Oz). Thanks Geoff
  11. Here's the header From - Wed Feb 14 08:13:16 2007 X-Account-Key: account2 X-UIDL: 207b0cd81924ef82292e121567d51efc X-Mozilla-Status: 0000 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Return-path: &lt;xxx[at]xxx.com&gt; Envelope-to: xxx[at]xxx.com Delivery-date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 08:03:37 +1100 Received: from cognitiv by xxx.com with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from &lt;xxx[at]xxx.com&gt;) id 1HH4oh-00011u-Qt for xxx[at]xxx.com; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 08:03:37 +1100 To: xxx[at]xxx.com Subject: WordPress installation on http://xxx.org From: xxx[at]xxx.org X-Sender: &lt;xxx[at]xxx.org&gt; X-Mailer: PHP X-Priority: 1 Message-Id: &lt;E1HH4oh-00011u-Qt[at]xxx.com&gt; Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 08:03:37 +1100 X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 7.5.441 [268.17.37/682] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Thanks for all the help ............... Geoff Both. I have sent them to both my spamcop address directly and also to my other email addresses which are then forwarded to the spamcop address. After going into my SC account my messages are then forwarded to another address which I never declare or use (but which I just did now to avoid having to go through SC) .............. Geoff
  12. Thanks for your reply. The email header was what Netenburg sent me when I asked for a copy of an email header their software would generate. So all I got was a template. I don't know enough to know if that is enough information to decipher the problem or not. And I'm sorry I don't know how much I am exposing myself or not when I post information here. I didn't think I was exposing anything that could be exploited. If you can point out what I have overlooked I'd appreciate it. I can post a real email header here if you want as I can get fantastico to send to an email address that bypasses SC. Would that help? Would it expost my system if I posted it here? Is there anything I can do to modify the information in the header so that I don't expose my system and still convery the essential information? Thanks for your help Interestingly I have turned on but am not receiving anything from SC forums. ................. Geoff
  13. Hi, In trying to work out why I was not getting Fantastico reports on my installs (http://netenberg.com/fantastico.php), with the help of their support I took a look at the Exim logs and found out that Spamcop is rejecting their mail because 2007-02-11 11:14:28 1HG2Mk-0006M9-Nq ashocka[at]spamcop.net R=lookuphost T=remot e_smtp H=mx.spamcop.net [216.154.195.36] 2007-02-11 11:14:29 1HG2Mk-0006M9-Nq Completed 2007-02-11 11:14:29 1HG2Ml-0006MI-QP H=(c60.cesmail.net) [216.154.195.49] F= rejected after DATA: there is no valid sender in any header line 2007-02-11 11:14:30 1HG2Mm-0006MN-7e cognitiv R=localuser T=local_delivery 2007-02-11 11:14:30 1HG2Mm-0006MN-7e Completed Netenberg support says they do write valid headers, but I don't think SC would reject their mail if this was the case. Here's there sample header. Anyone enlighten me on this? Delivered-To: ********** Received: by ***.***.***.*** with SMTP id **********; ***, ** *** **** **:**:** -**** (***) Received: by ***.***.***.*** with SMTP id **********; ***, ** *** **** **:**:** -**** (***) Return-Path: ********** Received: from ********** ([***.***.***.***]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id **********; ***, ** *** **** **:**:** -**** (***) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: ********** is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of **********) Received: from code by ********** with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from &lt;**********&gt;) id ********** for **********; ***, ** *** **** **:**:** -**** To: ********** Subject: ********** installation on http://********** From: ********** X-Sender: &lt;**********&gt; X-Mailer: PHP X-Priority: 1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Message-Id: &lt;**********&gt; Date: ***, ** *** **** **:**:** -**** X-Alpha-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-Alpha-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Alpha-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-Alpha-MailScanner-From: ********** X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ********** X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - gmail.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [***** *****] / [** **] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ********** X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: An instance of ********** was installed on http://********** Full installation path: ********** Public URL: ********** Admin URL: ********** Username: ********** Password: ********** MySQL database: ********** MySQL user: ********** Time of installation: *******, **** ********, **** [at] **:**:** **
  14. Hi, It would be great if SC could make a notification utility to notify you of spam in your inbox (like Google/Yahoo/Etc). It would help those of us who want to make timely reports. Regards Geoff
  15. I have tried an number of times to try and filter email lists I subscribe too so that they are not held, but all are forwarded. When this comes through SC, the email is identified by the sender. If I was to take the approach of whitelisting each sender, it would be endless with an unmanagable whitelist. I go into "Webmail" (I can never work out why the preferences are located there as part of the information architecture design), then "Options", then "Filters" then "Filter Settings". "Filter Rule" is "For an incoming message that matches: Any of the following". "Subject" "contains" "[Exact Name of List]" "Deliver into my INBOX" "Mark message as: " (everything unchecked). Why isn't this working? How/Where/What should I do to set up these filters? - Geoff
×