Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by carpedie

  1. carpedie


    Thank you, I've build it into a website, for easy access... http://www.molensky.com/cancelSC.php The surrounding text is Dutch, but it basically allows a user to either enter just the id-part out of the url in the field SC-id (and have javasc_ipt split it) or split it yourself by using both the other fields.
  2. carpedie


    I found a solution to just cancel the one breaking message. I build a little HTML-page with the next few lines: <form action='http://www.spamcop.net/sc' method='POST'> <input name=spamid value='1100535983'> <input name=crc value='1f98b8cff30ee0aeafcfb2e6a0cb3f9c'> <input name=action value=flexsend> <input type=submit name=cancel> The two numbers correspond with the values in the id-part of the url: www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1100535983z1f98b8cff30ee0aeafcfb2e6a0cb3f9cz Moderator Edit: parser hack parser hacking
  3. carpedie


    Thought I did. Better C&P next-time. Mea Culpa. If I read above and understand correctly, the only current solution is to 'Remove all unreported spam' and then re-submit the spam which is lost by this method. And if I still want to report the 'offending' message, use quick-reporting or possibly manual reporting (and truncate the body). Again my apologies.
  4. carpedie


    Hello, When I try to submit one report, I got the following message on the bottom of the page: got sigalarm, taking too long to process, aborted. Perhaps you can wait a few minutes and reload? The message in question can be found at: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1100535983z1...cfb2e6a0cb3f9cz I tried to report some other messages using the links from the spamcop e-mails ([spamCop] has accepted x emails for processing), which all seem to be reported fine. Using the 'Show technical data'-preference, I noticed the message contains more than one (understatement) unresolvable link. Is there a way to extend the time, or cancel this one message? I hope it's not necesarry to have it canceled, otherwise sp*mmers [hormel trademark ] have a new way to make it impossible to have messages reported. Thanks in advance.
  5. carpedie

    Problem loggin in with HTTP Auth

    I have no experience with users of the spamcop-mail-system, so I don't think I can help you very much from here. Only two things I want to suggest. Do you try to login using a 'spamcop.net'-address? Do you know of any other address you signed up with originally? Second, have you tried to do the same on an other machine/platform, so you can rule out any local security-settings.
  6. carpedie

    Problem loggin in with HTTP Auth

    Do you enter http://members.spamcop.net/ and wait for the login-screen or do you enter your creditials like this: http://<your_e-mailaddress>:<password>[at]members.spamcop.net/ ? If so, did you replace the at-sign in your address with %40 ? Edit: Do you realise the mail-system and reporting-system are separate entities? See also http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1001
  7. I posted the following message also on news.spamcop.net: Hello, I don't know if it's just me, or something else. And how long this is happening. This morning is was wondering what a ISP saw if he (or she) followed the urls in his message from SC. Some ISP's include the complete message in their auto-ACK. So I followed 1 of the urls to the 'ISP Response Center'. And from there to 'Show SpamCop Logic'. Here and on 'View full message' all data like addresses and message-ID where NOT munged. The message include in the auto-ACK from the ISP is munged and I checked my preferences and it says 'Obscure identifying information'. Is it a personal setting or is something else wrong? Thanks in advance
  8. carpedie

    data not munged in 'ISP Response Center'

    ah you found the group. Its spamcop.help. Short summary of what is written there and my response (for those we do not read newsgroups). == Quote from John McLusky (nobody[at]spamcop.net)'s article > Don Wannit <nobody[at]spamcop.net> wrote: > > > > There are two links of interest here, and they do behave differently > > (OK, one is a button): > > > > View full message - shows the original message intact, so you can > > look at it and double-check things before reporting it. There > > is no munging. This is the raw spam message, not a report. > > > > Preview Reports (button) - shows the report(s) to be sent. This > > will show munging, if appropriate. > That's not what the OP was talking about - they received an autoack which > basically quoted the report sent to the ISP, rather than the OP checking > 'view full message' or 'preview reports' Correct. I can send 1 or more examples to a deputy if needed. I also see the same from the 'Past Report' option. If I check the submissions from today or yesterday, I see the same result if I follow the reportID and then the link at the bottom: 'Track source'. If I do the same with older messages, I see <x> where my emailaddress used to be. 1 Difference strikes me: in recent reports the page starts-off with the parsing mechanism and the link: 'View full message' In 'older' (19 february and earlier) the page starts-off with the munged headers of the offending message before the parsing mechanism is shown. Am I the only one, of can anyone reproduce the same thing?