julian

SpamCop Staff
  • Content count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About julian

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0
  1. Sorry, wrong. SpamCop (AFAIK - and I oughta know) is not refusing any mail to it's domains from anywhere, anytime, anyhow. If there's a problem, we'll fix it. It sounds like you *might* be getting blocked by a port-25 or other direct-to-mx blockade internal to your ISP. That would have a similar effect. -=Julian=-
  2. Quick reports are the regular registered reports. -=Julian=-
  3. Hi Carlos. Here are the different reporting methods in the order of their weighting in the bl system: Spamtraps: In order to submit spamtraps to spamcop, you must set up permanent forwarding and work with me to configure an account for you. I'm adding a FAQ for this here: http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/402.html We currently get about 85% of spam from traps. Registered submissions: These are the normal confirmation-required submissions. Whether you use spam Assasin or another method to submit spam. These reports account for about 10% of the spam. "Unsolicited" submissions: Submissions from default spam Assasin and some other sources are used to "bolster" other types of reports about a source of spam. They cannot cause a new source of spam to be blocked. These submissions are not shared with ISPs. They account for about 5% of the submissions. The trap system has existed for a long time, though I have not publicly asked for submissions before now. It will probably remain a pretty low-profile choice. The unsolicited method is very new, and I'm still evaluateing it's cost/benefit. I may tie it into cooperative ISP's spam-feedback mechanisms (like AOL's "this is spam" or similar). ISPs who wish to discuss this possibility are welcome to contact me to set up some sort of trial. -=Julian=-
  4. I think this falls under the category of "Older browsers may cause some cosmetic problems, but the site should still work OK. " Get the new version of opera. It works fine. If you see a way to fix the site so that it works with that version, share. I don't have that old version here, and don't think there are many people using it, so am not going to spend time on it. But if you volunteer the fix (if any), I'm happy to incorporate it. -=Julian=-
  5. That's 'cause the validator needs to log into your account if you use that authen-required link. Some pages are accessible without a password, and there the links are helpful (really just for me trying to jump through all the hoops). If you use them from the www.spamcop.net site, they work OK on many pages, but still they don't work for the pages where login is required (no error, but they check only the "login required" page, not the actual logged-in version). -=Julian=-
  6. OK, you were a bit too quick. I *just* published the code and I am now telling akamai to refresh the .css page from it's cache. Check this URL: http://www.spamcop.net/images/05look.css You should see "/* 05look.css $Revision: 1.3 $ */" as the 2nd line if you are actually fetching the new code. If you see that, *then* let me know how it looks/if it's fixed. -=Julian=-
  7. I'll be gradually migrateing all the "live" content like that to CSS use rather than "font" tags. As you say, it should be fine this way for now, but you can expect that it'll get converted to "div" with an appropriate style entry down the road some day. -=Julian=-
  8. That certianly would be annoying. I've standardized on "em" as the font-size specifier rather than percent. Let me know if the problem is fixed - I never saw such behavior in my testing - definitely not intentional. -=Julian=-
  9. I'd be interested to see a screen-shot of how it look for you as well as some details on what browser and operating system you're using. Although we specify Verdana first, we provide 3 different fall-back options, which should each look OK. Browsers should exhaust the options given by the stylesheet before they deteriorate to other fonts. I'd like to stick with verdana if I can, but I can roll back to helvetica or arial without too much pain if it is really an unavoidable problem. -=Julian=-
  10. Just added some more stuff which detects & dumbs down for anything detecting as netscape 4. Maybee IE5 is in that category. Just curious why you don't use safari instead of IE5 if you have OSX? I'll go poke around the NNTP groups too. I don't think a new forum is in order, I hope/expect this to be a short-lived situation. OTOH, I don't know why the thread was moved over to the lounge from the main spamcop group. ? -=Julian=-
  11. This is the error reported by another mac user, and I have attempted to address it. But not seeing the error myself, I don't know if my fix worked or not. If you still get this error, make sure you aren't seeing the old cached version of the scri_pt file: The url (old or new) is: http://www.spamcop.net/images/scri_pt.js And this is the function in it's hopefully-fixed state (toward the bottom): function getPreferredStyleSheet() { var i, a; for(i=0; (a = document.getElementsByTagName("link")); i++) { if ((a.getAttribute("rel")) && (a.getAttribute("rel").indexOf("style") != -1) && (a.getAttribute("rel").indexOf("alt") == -1) && (a.getAttribute("title")) ) { return a.getAttribute("title"); } } return null; } Note above the line: if ((a.getAttribute("rel")) That shoulf fix the problem - I hope. Can anyone confirm or deny that? -=Julian=-
  12. Not sure what the ettiquette is here, but I thought I'd start a fresh thread so I can start ignoring the off-topic stuff attached to the previous ones. I've done some more cleaning up and fixing on the new look. Here are some notes on my progress: I tried to do some fixes to the underlying java scri_pt for mac users using IE. I'm not sure how effective that will be, but I look forward to detailed reports about the problem from mac users (exact error message, detailed description of symtoms, screenshots, etc are appreciated). I'm not expecting the appearance to ever approach perfect with such an old IE version, but I do at least want to make sure the site is accessible. Since I don't have a mac, I don't know how well I'm going to be able to debug this, but based on some earlier feedback, I made some hopefully-helpful changes to the java scri_pt. I have a theory about the "blank page" issue too, and hopefully some of the more recent changes to style-sheet names and link tags should help with that. Please let me know if there are still problems. I made the cookie-setting code more conservative. If you don't actually fiddle with the style menu, you shouldn't be asked to take a cookie. Various tweaks for standards-compliance. All the .css files should be strict CSS2 now, but I'm sure I'll be chaseing HTML4 compatibility for years, there are so many different pages. I want to get rid of all tables too, but that's going to be a more long-term evolution. We have been pretty concerned about the type of ads being displayed by google, you may have seen a disclaimer I added, but we've decided to just get rid of them altogether for the time being - at least until we figure out what direction to go with them. Maybee we will just forgoe that revenue altogether on the "penny wise, pount stupid" theory. Even the previous webmasters.com ad was misleading some people. Free users should have mailhosts capability back. In related news, we are working on getting away from the bookmark-as-secure-login system for free users. In the future, everyone will be asked to set and provide a username & password. This may upset some people who like the existing method, but it's really pretty dumb. Thanks for all the kind words and feedback so far. Our aim is your happyness! -=Julian=-
  13. I'll run them through the CSS validator here to correct any problems. But that isn't going to change the fact the IE is broken. The small syntax problems in the style sheets isn't what's causing the problems with IE. IE just does not support CSS2. If you could in the future, be more specific about the problems, that would help alot. Please point out the bits of code which are note HTML4 comlpliant, and I'll do my best to make them right. -=Julian=-
  14. CSS 2.0 from 1998: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/ http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visudet.html#propdef-max-width I will try to tone down the IE message, but I don't want the point to be lost - people should *upgrade* away from IE. Good for them, good for us (website designers in general). I would welcome a new version of IE from microsoft which really fixed some of the issues, but that seems a long way off at this point. The evidence available seems to indicate nobody is even working on IE at this point. I wouldn't be surprised if microsoft switched to gecko too. Their embrace and extend strategy seems to have failed WRT HTML and so I don't know if they have the same incentive to produce a free browser any more - they might as well just join the gecko crowd and give their users a decent product, at little cost to them. -=Julian=-
  15. Any delay over 7 seconds is a bug. I'm looking into this problem & should have a fix online shortly. The delay for non-paid members should never be longer than that, and I appologize if it has been. The nag screen delay does not depend on system load at all - other "inherent" delays in processing are dependant on load, but not the nag screen. -=Julian=-