Jump to content

ANGEL

Members
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About ANGEL

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hello Lking, Thank you for your comprehensive response & I'm sorry for the late reply. Yes. I was trying to circumvent anyone getting confused, given there's 2 "User Notification" fields, ended up confusing you, big fail me! Re [SpamCop.net screen layout and options is a legacy from "before time"], I like [SC.net/parser format]: it works & is very functional without a lot of unnecessary bells & whistles. Re [In the beginning [analysis][Bcc copy of report was added], I'm glad, I like this and combined with all the SCF information/help & tips & tricks, I've finally been able to get on top of endless spam floods. Re [many SpamCop users do analysis of the source of the spam they receive and want to send report to destinations other than/ in addition to those identified by the parser] Their analysis methodology/work/results has been hugely beneficial for me. Re [user can un-check where spam Reports are sent] I'm not clear why a user would choose to un-check a check-box that SC has defined, speaking for myself, I trust SC to know better than me... Re [forwarding original spam to ALL other parties] you & other SCF members have guided me on this before, I do get it, I just get cranky with scum. Re [Only once in this time have I identifiably been the target of retaliation] The irony for me was, after 20 yrs of endless spam I stumbled onto SC, after a mth I hit a week with NO spam, initially, I thought they're may have been something wrong with my mail, then miffed, there's a certain satisfaction seeing the parser pump out its results & hitting "Send spam Report/s Now" Thanks again.
  2. Hey Lking, Thank you for answering. Sometimes I find it difficult to write posts in a way that clearly define the issue/s... Not wishing/suggesting or desiring to link to adding another address to [personal preferences][Personal copies of outgoing reports] page, just put that in there so possible convo participants were clear about which [User_Notification (User defined recipient)] field I was referring to. ❌ Pre-defined in preferences (User defined recipient)= Bcc to reporter of spam = (me)❌ Online Parser, more of these fields: ✔️z_User_Notification (User defined recipient)✔️ = field I can add another email address or more to before I hit "send".... Re [Sending all reports to a third party could open SpamCop to charges of abuse clogging the email system] I hear you; I certainly do not wish to be counterproductive to SC in any way, it is by far & away the most effect tool I've used to reduce spam. The reason I'd like to do "reporting to other interested parties" is, the parser mungs my email address; I learnt some brill info from Robibue & you to I think, to perform a little pre-SC-Parser-submission-surgery: find & manually mung every instance of my email address the spammer has used, being fairly new to "fighting back" I initially though the parser would automatically do this... I'm not so comfortable forwarding original spam to ALL other parties I think would like to know/should know the spammer is using ; always concerned I'll give my email address to a spammer or source for spammers... Re [I also address my email to several US gov actives and a group in Australia} I do this to, as in "forward" original spam to ACMA & FTC... If there are additional "gov agencies" I'd be keen to add them to my tool kit: would you mind kindly sharing the addresses/info of the authorities you report to please? Cheers.
  3. Does anyone know why there's only one "z_User_Notification (User defined recipient)" field? (Not the pre-defined Bcc [ https://www.spamcop.net/mcgi?action=showadvanced, Personal copies of outgoing reports] field). 🤔Curious🤔 Cheers.
  4. ANGEL

    SCv5 parsing

    What's new in v5? The important stuff, a full suite of emojis,😀 yeah!!!
  5. ANGEL

    USB email client

    rick1221 💩
  6. RobiBue, Thank you so much for taking super care and investing time and energy to provide comprehensive explanation. As I'm still on my SCLplates logical/comprehensive responses aid my learning & understanding. I'm really grateful! I do understand why MS is in such a state, SCAdmin have previously advised MS made some "errors" when trying to fix other MS errors, SCA also advised the time frame for MS fix is likely to be years; so I'm cool with still modifying any source data I submit to SC. Rome wasn't built in a day, MS architects don't seem to often refer to their building sketches so, fix years away, may happen after I'm dead in which case I don't expect to be worrying about scum🤥🦹‍♂️🦹‍♀🤥s. Back to your excellent information, dunno what your day job is but you could easily/successfully be writing tech training doco. Don't answer this by telling me you make a quid by being a 🤥🦹‍♂️🦹‍♀🤥r! Thanks a bunch
  7. Thank you Lisati There's a bunch of us asking this ❔. As a SC🔰🚗🔰, info from experienced SCF members & other SC posters is invaluable; has helped me understand some of the 🦹logic/motivation & how to effectively☠️🦹☠️as many as possible The (v4/v5) difference (I observe) is v5 is now providing: Message source: 2603:10c6:1:0:0:0:0:25:; Routing details for 2603:10c6:1:0:0:0:0:25 whois for 2603:10c6:1:0:0:0:0:25 : abuse@microsoft.com; abuse@hotmail.com redirects to report_spam@hotmail.com That's a good thing, as, previously, when I forwarded ANY [source data spam] to MS, they'd always refuse to accept. I'm waiting to hear from MS now that I provided msg source/routing details (from a spam today)... Additionally, it'll be good if SC let us know what the v5 changes are (unless of course those changes are not for publication) Thanks again & cheers!
  8. Hello Borgholio, I think I've found/struck same issue/s [http://forum.spamcop.net/topic/30224-something-wrong-with-outlook-reporting/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-129011], hoping the SCF experts/experienced team members will clarify.... It's certainly interesting having [SC distribution] choices, I'd just like to know which parsing method to choose for the most accurate report... Tracking your post in case the answers appearand hoping, SCAdmin will publish a V5 "features" guide when they recover from the update-long-haul
  9. RobiBue, you may be able to answer my question please (specific to SCv5)(IPv6 624) With V5, do we no longer have to "cut" 1st [Received: from PU1APC01HT007.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com(2603:10a6:800:92::20) blah, blah, blah, Mon, 14 Jan 2019 06:08:02 +0000] ? instead post to parser ENTIRE source data? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And, anyone who's game may be able to answer: if the answer's "yes"; why parsing the entire source data would result in different [Reports sent to] distributions? https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6513483714z596b7c076a2121c3ce82e632cf6e31a3z as opposed to parsing modified source data [Reports sent to] distributions https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6513484404zf0c78fe42b97237ee395ad8a37facc9cz Thanks in advance!
  10. Once again Gnarleymarley, thank you, clarification and logical explanation is very helpful. I thought I was providing "a" tracking url. Did not understand the distinction. Many thanks & cheers.
  11. Thank you Gnarleymarly, however, I'm a tad confused: a) you responded to my original post (& I took from your reply) you interrogated the url I posted - no? b) when I go to [ https://www.spamcop.net/w3m?i=z6898801339z8c25e92a12dc86c774a950d737412c13z ] & select [Show how SpamCop traced this message] redirects to https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6512755812z8ee73d74322c131f8ca885cc287a03fcz, imo, gets to the same result, therefore, not much difference. But, I'm happy to take on the learning, thank you😊
  12. Am I missing something? This is what I posted: "Not sure if an example is needed, posting just in case:" https://www.spamcop.net/w3m?i=z6898801339z8c25e92a12dc86c774a950d737412c13z
  13. Thanks Lking, that adds to the helpful info posted by Gnarleymarley. Not that it's welcome info. (imo) It means they are: rich, dumb, business owners🤢
  14. Like the url I referenced when I submitted the issue Petzl? Please refer to attached image - ✔️ URL ✔️
  15. Re [There have been a number of spammers that appear to purchase a whole entire network range just so they can be the abuse contact listed in the whois] Are they really: - that rich? - that dumb? -
×