Farelf
-
Posts
7,012 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Farelf
-
-
Deputy Richard respondedSubject: Outlook attached email parsing problem ( SpamCop Discussion )Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 08:43:16 -0400
Hi. I just happened to trip over the announcement, because I don't come to the forums that often.
This strikes me as something that should be posted on the SpamCop reporting page as a news item, and probably on the webmail login page, too. A lot of us would not find out for a long time, if ever, if the only notice is in the discussion forums.
Richard goes on to say work is underway, as an immediate response to the forwarded Outlook problem, to recognize future submissions and cut them from the stream (with explanation to reporters).That's not a bad idea, but we decided against it when this first came up. One of the problems is email submission users seldom come to the front page (they use the link in the reply). The return page after sending reports doesn't include the news section. -
From http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10241 (O/P brantgurga) Added emphasis.
Based on the above data, results, and additional explanations, this does not appear to be a MailHost Configuration issue. Moving this to the Reporting Help Forum section .... awaiting a reply from some of those folks using the same e-mail client and/for e-mail submittals ....As a result of a fairly lengthy and intense investigation of Outlook 2003 and 2007: Outlook does *not* include full and accurate headers when you forward spams as attachments. It reorders the Received headers, which makes them untrustworthy, as well as deleting/not forwarding other headers including X-headers, which is of less importance but which may loose some valuable information needed by ISPs/hosting companies.
The result of the 'scrambled" or reordered Received headers means that SpamCop does not reliably know where the injection point of the spam is.
Outlook is reordering the headers, not SpamCop.
Thusly, if you are running Outlook you *may not* forward your spams as an attachment for processing. You can copy/paste or look into running mailwasher or some other 3rd party add-in/add-on but you must stop forwarding as an attachment.
I want to thank the SC users who cheerfully gave of their time ito help in tracking this down.
Ellen
SpamCop
wazoo/mods -- if you would propagate this info to the wiki or other areas as necessary it would be appreciated.
-
˙˙lÉɔıɹoɥʇÇɹ ÉŸo ʇɹosCuriosity killed the cat?sort of rethorical..
¿ʇÉÉ” Çɥʇ pÇllıʞ ʎʇısoıɹnÉ”
www.revfad.com/flip.html
-
lɯ�‡ɥ�™dıl�Ÿ/ɯo�â€ï¿½â„¢pÉ�Ÿ�ŒÇɹ�™ÊÊÊ//:d�‡�‡ɥ - dıl�Ÿ �ƒuı�‡sÇ�‡
Well, sort of cool. But of course it doesn't stand up to the quick edits.
lɯʇɥ˙dılÉŸ/ɯoɔ˙pÉÉŸÊŒÇɹ˙ÊÊÊ//:dʇʇɥ - dılÉŸ ƃuıʇsÇʇ
-
Hi Brad, your query has drawn no response so far so to get something happening ......just wondering what the "# Blocked" column is denotiong?...Merged with this lengthy topic - have you skimmed through it already?
Have you looked at http://www.greylisting.org/forums/index.php ?
As far as I can see your query is not specifically covered here or in the greylisting forum (I've not looked that closely) - though I would be surprised if the general discussion of the way it all works doesn't answer you. Hopefully an actual user can step in and point you in the right direction if it continues to elude you. Let's know how you're getting on, either way.
-
Ð…Ð ÐÐœ TM
Ð…PAM TM
SÐ AM TM
SPÐM TM
SPAМ TM
Takes uncommon effort, not a risk (and will fall apart on quick edit, etc.).
0405, 0420, etc.
-
Exactly right, I didn't anticipate a response - just seemed to have some interesting possibilities if left. Or it might be desirable to change the behavior. Nothing worth any sort of priority of itself. But raised partly because such things sometimes lead elsewhere, to more worthy things.You are expecting far more from yourself than anyone here is expecting.[sorry myself for not jumping in more quickly with assurances - a server or two seems to have briefly gone offline here with a local thunder storm. Send her down Hughie! Rain, that is, you can hold off on the St Barbara's dear old dad stuff.]
-
-
I would be inclined to the charitable view. Total volumes are trending up, it is true - http://www.spamcop.net/spamgraph.shtml?spamyear but at the same time it is my impression that the "lacking dns" proportion is steadily increasing thus for RRs and other assignments of this world to drop through the rankings either requires some serious effort (in the way Comcast has seemingly applied itself) or a shifting of the blame - but http://www.senderbase.org/senderbase_queries/main shows both RR and Comcast are 'way up there in the rankings of total mail. So to drop off the radar in spam rankings has to be a valid achievement, I would think. Am I missing something?...Either Road Runner guys have got a nice handle on spam emanating from their network or other ISPs have gotten much worse. ... -
Well, thank you. If only there were more ... but even one is a bonus!I...opened a ticket with the mail guys when my own submissions started failing to go through.Since it was the central mail sysops that made the change, hopefully this will apply to ALL roadrunner divisions across the USA.
Glad I could help!
-
That's fantastic Don. Well done! This could be the thin edge of the wedge to convince others too ...The RoadRunner postmaster advises me that he has punched a hole in their outbound filters that will allow spam submissions to be delivered when they're addressed to our "submit" and "quick" addresses. -
As Will (Telarin) said, it seems like your friend has changed his address. sbcglobal.net is one which rejects unknown users (many don't). The "other side" of testing by sending to another sbcglobal address is to test sending to the same address from another location. This actually seems pointless as the reason for rejection seems clear but, if you want to do it, you could use http://hexillion.com/asp/samples/ValidateEmail.asp which connects to the network under query from the/a hexillion server (instead of from yours). Unless your friend's address is accepted on that test, you have your independent confirmation of the cause... does anyone here have a sbcglobal.net email to whom I could send an email as a try? ANY help whatsoever would be great!... -
Who/what is Stukachkov and what did he, she, it or they do to you?
-
Test of APEWS multi-moderation option
There is no connection between SpamCop.net and APEWS. However, because the APEWS FAQ was apparently misunderstood, the following data is provided;
______________________________________________________________________________
Considering the current behavior and management of the APEWS blacklist, we can only agree with the advice given at Al Iverson's DNS RESOURCE -
- read it at: What to do if you are listed on APEWSIf you are listed on the APEWS blacklist, as confirmed by checking their website, here's how I would recommend that you handle the situation. (Who the heck am I?)Note: This isn't guidance on how to avoid a blacklisting or sidestep anti-spam groups. If you have a spam issue, fix it. Don't spam, ever, for any reason. This is information is regarding how to address an issue with a blacklist that is very aggressive at listing non-abusing IP addresses and networks, with no published, attainable path to resolution.
________________________________________________________________________________
[APEWS] removed from topic title - it works fine
-
Hi Chris (we have to stop meeting this way). Theoretically ACMA is the controlling body - I can't see anything there offhand - try the good folk at AMTA-Code to protect consumers from SMS spam who seem to think it is covered - it will take a 'phone call (quel surprise) I would guess.Does anyone have any idea how and/or where to report SMS spams?...Any suggestions appreciated. I've never seen an SMS spam before. I sincerely hope it's not the start of a new trend.Could be worse - remember when consumers had to pay to receive unsolicited SMS?
Anyway, if you find anything you might like to update here for the benefit of other Aussies bedeviled by the demon tellingbone.
-
-
-
Test topics appear to be treated pretty much like "How to use" pages. Just taking the "top" pages of various forums currently (by linear correlation) -...edit, it is suprising how may views this little test topic has had.TEST Views 1272 + 151 per reply
HOW TO USE - Forum, Reporting Views 1735 + 374 per reply
Contrast with
HELP - Reporting, BL, Mail, Mailhosts Views 72 + 33 per reply
LOUNGE Views 25 per reply
Fairly obviously the length of time any given topic spends on the forum's "front page" has a lot to do with it.
(Some correlations are "weak" - they do not account for much of the variance - but all are assured by high confidence levels - the least of which indicates 1/34,543 probability of chance attribution).
[it's a test to see if various characters are altered in quick edit `~ [at] #$%^&*-_=+"<>?/\|]
-
Well, 400 ain't 1,000 but as Will says, a largish chunk thereof - suggest you contact JT to clear the way JIC. If you haven't his mail address, use the contact form - http://mail.spamcop.net/contact.php Q1 draws nigh ...Unfortunately they all have to go out in one night. ...
-
"Semper edam," snorted Good Queen Bess, "why must one always have this Dutch cheese?""Semper edam," snorted Good Queen Bess, "why must one always have this Dutch cheese?""Semper edam," snorted Good Queen Bess, "why must one always have this Dutch cheese?""Semper edam," snorted Good Queen Bess, "why must one always have this Dutch cheese?""Semper edam," snorted Good Queen Bess, "why must one always have this Dutch cheese?""Semper edam," snorted Good Queen Bess, "why must one always have this Dutch cheese?""Semper edam," snorted Good Queen Bess, "why must one always have this Dutch cheese?""Semper edam," snorted Good Queen Bess, "why must one always have this Dutch cheese?""Semper edam," snorted Good Queen Bess, "why must one always have this Dutch cheese?""Semper edam," snorted Good Queen Bess, "why must one always have this Dutch cheese?"
Yes, 10 is the limit - add one more and kapow
-
I believe it was StevenUnderwood who once alerted me to this being 90 days, rather than a specific number of reports/pages. Which certainly holds true for the date of posting your result initially, in comparison to the earliest date found. What a relief, all of us in the office can put our shoes and socks back on now.... etc up tohttp://mailsc.spamcop.net/mcgi?action=show...amp;offset=1540 (for page 154)
anything beyond offset=1540 results in "Nothing Found"
At least that is my experince. ...
-
I think its because we're all interested to see what you are testing...
To explain: just looking at what happens to links when a post is moved. This was where it was moved "to". The link to the previous location then went to the top of the old topic. But then I am, as often confessed, a consistent liar.Oh, and by the way, don't think of an elephant.
-
Test post ignore
-
The views on fairly well all the test topics are way out of proportion to the contents - grounds for endless conjecture.... it is suprising how may views this little test topic has had.
Outlook received header problem
in SpamCop Reporting Help
Posted
I can certainly confirm that the headers - as seen in the two reports you gave links for - are, character-by-character from the text of the "View entire message" pages pasted into Excel, precisely the same except the Outlook case has two extra (non-critical) lines:
Deputies address is deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net If SpamSource 4 is confirmed as an 'authorised' add-on to Outlook 2007 for mailed submissions, it would be appreciated if you could pass the word on with a further post 'here'
. Or if it's not 
.