Jump to content

turetzsr

Forum Admin
  • Content Count

    5,460
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by turetzsr

  1. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Thanks, Slickone, I didn't know that there were such settings! I assume that you are referring to Yahoo!Mail's Settings | "Mail Version" choices " Full featured (recommended) - View photo slideshows, drag and drop attachments, personalize your theme, and more." and " Basic." It turns out that I have the "Full featured" setting but neither Ctrl Forward nor Ctrl-Alt-F work for me. The former results in the spam appearing inline and the latter results in no action at all. <frown>
  2. Hi, TC, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp If by "this type of spam" you mean spam that you confirm never went out over the internet, that is correct. I raise this point only to emphasize, mostly for those not experienced in SpamCop reporting, that not all error messages are due to spam that never went out over the internet or that is received at an "anonymous joke Facebook accounts" or involve gmail or personal attacks. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Thank you for your patience and persistence and returning here to let us know that you're now on track. <g>
  3. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Um, no, that's not what we're saying (although it may turn out to be the case). What we're saying is that we need to see the Tracking URL for your spam parse to try to determine why the message happened. Another frequent reason for such a message is that the spam came from within the same e-mail network you use. But, again, we need the Tracking URL to have any chance of knowing.
  4. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp That could be the case sometimes but not here (I don't think); I tried Google and only saw two hits and the other was a newsgroup article (no longer available).
  5. Hi, TC, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Yes, as petzl suggested, please post the Tracking URL so that we can see what the SpamCop parser saw; this should help us immensely to answer your question. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp It was a great surprise to me that when I searched for the error message you provided in the title of this Topic, I found only this Topic! That suggests that no one has ever reported this error message before you; I could have sworn I'd seen it earlier.
  6. turetzsr

    SpamCop groups on Giganews

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp YW. And I, myself, failed to notice my own earlier post in in this thread! <g>
  7. turetzsr

    SpamCop groups on Giganews

  8. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Exactly: so keep reporting! <g>
  9. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Eonix: http://www.goodsearch.com/search-web?keywords=%2B%22eonix.net%22+%2Bspam &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp But your note that your Colocrossing contact was able to bring up the SpamCop complaint suggests that a Colocrossing IP address is the spam source. http://www.goodsearch.com/search-web?utf8=%E2%9C%93&keywords=%2B%22ColoCrossing.com%22+%2Bspam.
  10. turetzsr

    No Confirmation Requests Lately

    Hi, Lodewijk, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Yes and, if you are so inclined, also to reportphishing[at]antiphishing.org. I also report all my spam to spam[at]uce.gov. If you reside outside of the US, that last would be relevant only for spam that has some connection with the USA.
  11. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Thanks, Goofy, that is most interesting; I had assumed that the differences were due to the different "flavors" of Yahoo!Mail (I had noticed a different web mail "look & feel" between my yahoo.com e-mail account and my att.net e-mail account [att.net web mail is delivered by Yahoo]).
  12. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Ah, ok, thanks for the clarification. <g>
  13. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp From what little you've mentioned here so far, doesn't "Failure Point #1 (before Action E in TECHNICAL DETAILS below)" apply to your case? If not, certainly "PROBLEM RESOLUTIONS for Reporters" item #4 applies to you, as it applies to everyone to which nothing else seems to apply! <g>
  14. Hi, mschmitt, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Sorry to hear of your problem! Have you had a look at the SpamCop FAQ article labeled "Emailed spam Submissions Disappearing? No Confirmation e-mails?" to see if anything there might be relevant to your situation?
  15. turetzsr

    Just checking

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Oh, no, as an econ major I had to know a lot more than that! <g> But, yes, for most of us it is pretty much all that is needed; too bad so few know of it or, if they know, accept it. <frown>!
  16. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp That it is your experience does not necessarily make it different than presumptuous. <g> &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Exactly! Many of us have had the experience. Patience, persistence and politeness usually results in an eventual reply. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Exactly ... right now. They had a huge project dumped on them very recently -- inheriting the forwarding of e-mails and the Forums and turning off what remained of the news service, at least. Plus they may have "day" jobs in addition to supporting these free services (at least, I don't pay for them!) that they are expected to perform. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp If the silence lasts for a very long time in the face of patience and polite persistence, yes.
  17. turetzsr

    Just checking

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp If I remember correctly (and it's been a very long time, so there's a very good chance that I don't! <g>), TANSTAAFL is what Heinlein used; too bad it doesn't work! <frown>
  18. Hi, msato3, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Please see lisati's post, above 89713[/snapback].
  19. turetzsr

    Just checking

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Well, that's PFK (yes, I just invented that one -- I think! <g>)!
  20. turetzsr

    Keep getting hacked please read

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Thanks for that tip; it looks like a nice solution for such things. Perhaps I'll use it to block all media except NewsCorp! <g>
  21. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Thanks! Hopefully one of the SpamCop staff will see this and find a way to address it.
  22. turetzsr

    Keep getting hacked please read

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp That isn't what I said -- I said that I just don't believe that his power in the US is as great as you portray it to be in Australia. His employees certainly have attacked (and still attack) Obama; that hasn't prevented the US President from having won both Presidential elections he has run.
  23. turetzsr

    What is the point of spam?

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Only because I've been here reading the thoughts and experiences of the truly knowledgeable (one of which I am far from being! ).
  24. turetzsr

    Keep getting hacked please read

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp As to what happens in Australia, you would know far better than I but I can tell you that there are no US politicians of whom I am aware who are "afraid" of Murdoch nor over whom Murdoch holds much influence, other than the degree to which his media outlets, a tiny few relative to the huge number with whom his compete, can affect politicians' constituents or the "special interests" who they allow to affect their behavior. And he certainly determines the outcome of absolutely no decision as to who will hold what US political office. And his influence on voters is almost always right-of-center on every issue (one of the few exceptions being his views on immigration and even that would be considered left-of-center only because the US right tends to prefer more restrictive immigration policies and enforcement of our laws which [iMHO] are silly and overly restrictive).
  25. turetzsr

    Keep getting hacked please read

    &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Not yet. But is't only a matter of time, I expect. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Ah, sorry, yes, I see that, now that I read that paragraph more carefully! &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp If you read that remark in full context, you will see that former PM Blair was not using the epithet to describe Murdoch's morals but, rather, his negotiating behavior. It's also a quote of a quote, so it's hard to know whether that's really what Blair actually said, although I have no reason to doubt it. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp By UK lawmakers who disagree with Murdoch's well-known political views: "But it split along party lines, with members from Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservative Party voting against the report, saying they did not agree with its view that the Australian-born Murdoch was not fit to run a major company." Since those that voted against the report have many views in common with Murdoch's, their dissent can not be taken as authoritative (although I personally tend to agree with it and, besides, I think that in a world of televised media dominated principally by those of the opposite political views but who less often make that clear than do Murdoch's employees, I think he provides a very useful service and I am therefore a loyal consumer <g>).
×