Jump to content

Ashocka

Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ashocka


  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: <cognitiv(atmung)mungme-host.mungme-accessiblehosting.com>
    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 <cognitiv(atmung)mungme-host.accessiblehosting.com>)
    	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: <fantastico(atmung)mungme-cognitivity.org>
    X-Mailer: PHP
    X-Priority: 1
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
    Message-Id: <E1HJoUg-0005Jt-BC(atmung)mungme-host.mungme-accessiblehosting.com>
    Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:14:16 +1100
    


  2. You can not get ANY definitive answers in this forum as we are all simply other users here as has been pointed out, including at the top of every page. You need to co-ordiate a test with your sending server and JT, the administrator of the spamcop email server to see what both sides are seeing.

    Okay, thanks Steve

    Also, I don't believe you have provided enough evidence for anyone to make a solid gues as to what is happening. You have provided 2 completely different sets of headers and a very limited set of server logs.

    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?

    IF the second set of headers is what is causing the error message in the server logs from the first post, my best guess is the line: "From - Wed Feb 14 08:13:16 2007" causing the problem.

    Can you tell me what is the problem there? Is the format not compliant to the specification?

    Thanks.

    ...............

    Geoff


  3. Whatever ... you ask a question, sometimes answer just appear .. that's the way it works around here ...

    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.

    The first glance once again left one with the immediate response that there's nothing in there that deals with a SpamCop.net e-mail account ....

    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.

    On the other hand, the last time this specific factoid was brought up, it was in fact a Reporting issue, as the parser failed on that bad line. The 'source' of the bad line boiled down to an issue with Thunderbird, as I recall .... then again, guess maybe that Topic/Discussion is gong to have to be located, as now I have this strange thought about FireFox and a web-mail application ....

    search later, perhaps .. time involved ....??? The 'problem' with this is that it boiled down to how an e-mail was snagged, then handled ... whereas your initial query allegedly dealt with an e-mail server sending another server's e-mail directly, thus Thunderbird/FireFox wouldn't be in the mix .... so I'm still back to the 'lack of data' issue, actually .... having the added confusion of a non-related sample offered up as 'evidence' ...????

    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).

    Yet, on the other hand, can't help but note that this data/construct is not present in your first offered sample, that was (assumedly) supposed to be an actual SpamCop.net e-mail server hand-off .... so we're back to the issue of just what you are trying to present as an example of a specific prooblem ... samples of 'something else' help no one ...

    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


  4. 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: <cognitiv(at)host.spamungaccessiblehosting.com>
    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 <cognitiv(at)host.spamungaccessiblehosting.com>)
    	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: <fantastico(at)spamungcognitivity.org>
    X-Mailer: PHP
    X-Priority: 1
    Message-Id: <E1HH4oh-00011u-Qt(at)host.spamungaccessiblehosting.com>
    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


  5. 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


  6. 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


  7. If this is an answer to one of the secondary issues, then "not changing abything" seems kind of self-defeating ....

    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.

    The "waste of time" comment was based on that a lack of a 'real' e-mail with sufficient data has not been provided, and that no response had been made towards the Forum notification issue.

    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


  8. 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


  9. 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


  10. 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: <xxx[at]xxx.com>
    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 <xxx[at]xxx.com>)
    	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: <xxx[at]xxx.org>
    X-Mailer: PHP
    X-Priority: 1
    Message-Id: <E1HH4oh-00011u-Qt[at]xxx.com>
    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

    However, you didn't clarify the other issues I raised. Specifically, were the messages being sent directly to your actual spamcop.net address, or forwarded there through another intermediate address? Also, do you access the messages in your SpamCop mailbox (via "pop" or IMAP perhaps) or do you have them forwarded on to yet another system/address?

    DT

    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


  11. 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

    You are currently receiving email notification of replies
    turned on but am not receiving anything from SC forums.

    .................

    Geoff


  12. 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

    there is no valid sender in any header line

    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 <**********>)
    	id **********
    	for **********; ***, ** *** **** **:**:** -****
    To: **********
    Subject: ********** installation on http://**********
    From: **********
    X-Sender: <**********>
    X-Mailer: PHP
    X-Priority: 1
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
    Message-Id: <**********>
    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] **:**:** **
    


  13. 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


  14. There are all sorts of things wrong with the simple assumption this ISP came too. They did not even notify us that our account was shut down, no course of reproach. We didn't find out until we went to post.

    This is just one of the reasons I now am setting up my own hosting server, that I find so many hosts update stuff and don't even send out a broadcast to inform clients of changes. Often this has happened and things have broken. It's just sloppy on their part . They do not double check such things and jump to the first assumption.

    Geoff


  15. A domain I look after (jazzalburywodonga.com) has been shut down after I reported spam coming through it. Here's what the host says;

    Hello Geoff,

    The account has been suspended for spamming..

    Please see attached as this nearly got the whole

    server blacklisted...

    Thank you,

    Andrew

    Admin

    www.ozehosts.com

    Here is the attached email

    From: "Geoff Deering" <1081953545[at]reports.spamcop.net>

    To: <abuse[at]gnax.net>

    Subject: [spamCop (216.180.225.138) id:1081953545]Search engine traffic

    Date: Friday, June 25, 2004 3:37 PM

    [ SpamCop V1.350  ]

    This message is brief for your comfort.  Please use links below for details.

    Email from 216.180.225.138 / Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:10:02 +1000

    http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?i=z1081953545zc...1d9973b74284b8z

    [ Offending message ]

    Return-Path: <melville[at]t-online.de>

    Delivered-To: x

    Received: (qmail 32175 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2004 14:15:53 -0000

    Received: from unknown (192.168.1.101)

      by blade2.cesmail.net with QMQP; 25 Jun 2004 14:15:53 -0000

    Received: from mail.acslink.net.au (203.11.105.126)

      by mailgate.cesmail.net with SMTP; 25 Jun 2004 14:15:52 -0000

    Received: from amavis by mail.acslink.net.au with scanned-ok (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))

    id 1Be0lf-0006hS-00

    for <x>; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:10:03 +1000

    Received: from tahoe.dnsrouter.com ([216.180.225.138])

    by mail.acslink.net.au with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))

    id 1Be0le-0006gz-00

    for <x>; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:10:02 +1000

    Received: from [217.129.240.127] (helo=217.129.240.127)

    by tahoe.dnsrouter.com with smtp (Exim 4.34)

    id 1BdrUW-0002eZ-Ki

    for x; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:15:51 -0400

    From: Andrea Davis <melville[at]t-online.de>

    To: x

    Subject: Search engine traffic

    Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:04:47 +0000

    MIME-Version: 1.0

    Content-Type: multipart/related;

        type="multipart/alternative";

        boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_28DCC10D.9B8EC6C9"

    X-Priority: 3

    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000

    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

    X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report

    X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - tahoe.dnsrouter.com

    X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - jazzalburywodonga.com

    X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]

    X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - t-online.de

    X-Source:

    X-Source-Args:

    X-Source-Dir:

    Message-Id: <E1Be_________z-00[at]mail.acslink.net.au>

    X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11

    X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on blade2.cesmail.net

    X-spam-Level: ***

    X-spam-Status: hits=3.6 tests=FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK,FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS,

    HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TAG_EXISTS_TBODY,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO

    version=2.63

    X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.101 203.11.105.126 216.180.225.138 217.129.240.127

    X-SpamCop-Disposition: Blocked bl.spamcop.net

    This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

    ------=_NextPart_000_0000_28DCC10D.9B8EC6C9

    Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

        boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0001_04DC6531.8CCC6409"

    ------=_NextPart_001_0001_04DC6531.8CCC6409

    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

    Good Day

    Thirty-three percent of users think that if a company has a top ranking on a search

    engine, it is a leader in its field.

    Are you a leader? You can be, and we want to help. We have a CD duplication site with

    over 1391 number 1 positions and over 6232 top 10 positions.

    We have a book resource site with more than 1000 number 1 positions and over 5225 top

    10 positions. (44,000 search engine visitors in a few short months)

    We even have a very niche pen site that has over 86 number 1 positions and over 556

    top 10 positions.

    We want to partner with you to help insure the success of your business. When you open

    an account today, your first 5,000 targeted search engine visits on the keyword terms

    that you've approved will be just 10c each. Your 99-dollar keyword analysis is also free

    as well as a free 30-minute Internet marketing consultation.

    For more information please complete the form at:

    http://WWW.SEO-PROFITS.COM

    Due to the highly effective techniques we use, we can only take a limited number of accounts per

    targeted industry. Offer only valid for x customers. Please act now to receive 10,000 targeted

    search engine visitors from major search engines at just 10c each as well as the free keyword

    analysis and the free 30-minute consultation.

    I hope that you will let us help you make 2004 your best year yet. Feel free to contact us at

    support[at]seo-profits.com if you need us to make any changes to your email preferences.

    ------=_NextPart_001_0001_04DC6531.8CCC6409

    Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1

    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

    <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Expert Search Engine Optimization for x and Yahoo</TITLE>

    </HEAD>

    <BODY>

    <CENTER>

    <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=600 align=center border=0>

      <TBODY>

      <TR>

        <TD>

          <P><SPAN class=newsletter>Good Day

          <P>Thirty-three percent of users think that if a company has a top ranking

          on a search engine, it is a leader in its field.

          <P>Are you a leader? You can be, and we want to help. We have a CD

          duplication site with over 1391 number 1 positions and over 6232 top 10

          positions.

          <P>We have a book resource site with more than 1000 number 1 positions and

          over 5225 top 10 positions. (44,000 search engine visitors in a few short

          months)

          <P>We even have a very niche pen site that has over 86 number 1 positions

          and over 556 top 10 positions.

          <P>We want to partner with you to help insure the success of your

          business. When you open an account today, your first 5,000 targeted search

          engine visits on the keyword terms that you've approved will be just 10c

          each. Your 99-dollar keyword analysis is also free as well as a free

          30-minute Internet marketing consultation.

          <P></SPAN>

          <P>Complete this form to find out more.

          <P>

          <FORM action=http://www.seo-profits.com/submit.php method=post>

          <TABLE cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0>

            <TBODY>

            <TR>

              <TD><B>Name</B><BR><INPUT maxLength=35 size=25 name=name></TD>

              <TD><B>Email Address</B><BR><INPUT maxLength=50 size=25

              name=email></TD></TR>

            <TR>

              <TD><B>Phone </B>(Area Code + Number)<BR><INPUT maxLength=20 size=25

                name=phone></TD>

              <TD><B>Country</B><BR><SELECT name=country> <OPTION

                  value="Please Choose" selected>Please Choose</OPTION> <OPTION

                  value="USA EAST">USA East</OPTION> <OPTION value="USA CENTRAL">USA

                  Central</OPTION> <OPTION value="USA WEST">USA West</OPTION>

                  <OPTION value=Canada>Canada</OPTION> <OPTION

                  value="United Kingdom">United Kingdom</OPTION> <OPTION

                  value=Other>Other</OPTION></SELECT> </TD></TR>

            <TR>

              <TD><B>Web Site Address</B><BR><SPAN

                class=tinytype>http://www.</SPAN><INPUT maxLength=35 size=16

                name=website></TD>

              <TD><B>Please call me in the</B><BR><SELECT name=timetocall>

                  <OPTION value=morning selected>Morning</OPTION> <OPTION

                  value=afternoon>Afternoon</OPTION> <OPTION

                  value=evening>Evening</OPTION></SELECT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><INPUT type=submit value=submit>

          </FORM>

          <P>Due to the highly effective techniques we use, we can only take a

          limited number of accounts per targeted industry. Offer only valid for x

          customers. Please <B><A href="http://www.seo-profits.com/">act now</A></B>

          to receive 5,000 targeted search engine visitors from major search engines

          at just 10c each as well as the free keyword analysis and the free

          30-minute consultation.

          <P><BR>

          <P><SPAN class=tinytype>I hope that you will let us help you make 2004

          your best year yet. Feel free to contact us at support[at]seo-profits.com if

          you need us to make any changes to your email preferences.<BR>

          <P></SPAN></P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER></BODY></HTML>

    ------=_NextPart_001_0001_04DC6531.8CCC6409--

    ------=_NextPart_000_0000_28DCC10D.9B8EC6C9--

    Can someone please explain to me how this has been intrepreted as me sending the spam? Haven't the hosts (ozehosts.com) read the email incorrectly? Why was it sent to them in the first place? Or have I been unconsciously spamming people?

    Geoff

×