lcusdtech

Members
  • Content count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About lcusdtech

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    La Cañada, CA
  1. Can you even click on the URL when it's displayed as the To: address? I guess that might depend on how/with what you are viewing the e-mail with. And I would add that you would have to be really dumb to click on a link in a To: field, right.
  2. Sure, there are different ways of looking at it, no need to hash it out again. But alas, nothing is being done. I'd like to hear an official SpamCop position on it, because the parser is still only finding Google: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z929960465zce...001edd2052b140z
  3. I parsed it a few times to see if it would pick up the correct URL. Most of the time it found Google, at least once it didn't parse, spits the url back at you with no host resolve or any info about the url. I agree, but that falls outside of what SpamCop does. Getting Google to change their policies or the way their sites function is not what this service is about. For the purposes of the parser, it needs to be able to find the correct url for it to be effective. Pursuing Google to get them to change should be a separate campaign outside of reporting spam and spamertized websites.
  4. Here's a new one that the parser does not pick up the correct url. http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z927653881z47...3ed4e28ee5a36az [[Moderator note: this and the three replies, immediately below, have been moved here from another post. PM sent to all involved to let them know.]]
  5. Just a quick follow up on this. I had an ebay phishing scam e-mail mis-parse today. The first time it parsed it did not find the correct website, only came up with ebay urls. I hit reload on my browser and it parsed correctly the second time. Maybe the deputies should take a closer look at the parser. Tracking url: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z910438195zf6...aba42e48dfd9dfz
  6. Even with the dashes in red it still took me a few times over to see it.
  7. Looks to me like it is parsing corectly today. I took the header from a phishing scam I just got and pasted the body from one of your examples above and got the following parse: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z909108980z80...181ab628eae9c4z I didn't submit it of course.
  8. English translation by way of Bable Fish: We received your message, and we thank you. We are victims of the spammeurs and we employ the means necessary to fight against those. We present our excuses for the undergone nuisances to you and let us ensure you that we put all works about it to solve this incident as soon as possible and to improve quality of our services. We remain at your disposal for any additional information, heading "to write to Us": http://www.laposte.net/cgi-bin/ecrire/ecrire.pl Cordially. The Customer service laposte.net
  9. Ok, just wanted to make sure it wasn't some new trick or something. Thanks.
  10. Just to add my 2 cents, the failure on the parsers part to resolve urls is of concern to me too, as I have said before in other posts about this subject. So there are others here that feel getting the websites reported is important.
  11. Parser says: error: couldn't parse head Message body parser requires full, accurate copy of message I know I've copied the full headers, can someone take a look at it, I don't read mime headers very well. Tracking url My guess is that the spammer intentionally mis-formatted it, but I can't tell.
  12. edit: I think this is another example of the parser missing the url google is redirecting even though it is in plain sight. Tracking url Moderator edit: Merged this new post into an existing Topic/Discussion. PM sent.
  13. I would offer help if I had any experience in using SpamCop webmail. Since I don't, someone that does will have to chime in here. I'm just posting so you don't think you are being ignored. Any of you experts have any advise?
  14. Maybe you would be interested in quick reporting. See this thread Quick Reporting
  15. That is quite interesting. If I was to venture a guess, it looks to me like a spammer has harvested Larry's personal information and used it for domain registration. Quite ingenious. Makes the registration info apear "more" correct. Doesn't fool us though.