Jump to content

turetzsr

Forum Admin
  • Posts

    5,460
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by turetzsr

  1. I'd like to see an import/export function added to the whitelist.

    <snip>

    Importing my address book into my whitelist would help in this regard.

    Thanks,

    Steve

    Hi, Steve!

    ...Your idea seems to be very popular! There are

    I'd like to see an import/export function added to the whitelist.

    <snip>

    Importing my address book into my whitelist would help in this regard.

    Thanks,

    Steve

    Hi, Steve!

    ...Your idea seems to be [b'>very[/b] popular! There are many hits in the results of a search on key words '"address book" whitelist'.

  2. <snip>

    To explain: .... But then I am, as often confessed, a consistent liar.

    "But there was ...

    "no explosion.

    "What?

    "He lied.

    "Everything [Farelf] tells you is a lie.

    "Everything [Farelf] tells you is a lie.

    Farelf: "Listen to this carefully, Norman.

    Farelf: "I am lying.

    Norman:"You say you are lying,

    Norman:"but if everything you say is a lie,

    Norman:"then you are telling the truth, but ...

    Norman:"you cannot tell the truth

    Norman:"because everything you say is a lie.

    Norman:"You lie -- You tell the truth --

    Norman:"But you cannot --

    Norman:"Illogical!

    Norman:"Illogical!

    Norman:"Please explain."

  3. I know you can untick specific addresses, but surely anything [at]gmail.com or [at]hotmail.com or [at]geocities.com that isn't abuse[at] or postmaster[at] is fake, the parser should be smart enough to discard anything that is obviously fake.
    <snip>Searching for specific strings (daffyduck) would be a terible procedure to start doing just for the overall speed of the parsing.
    ...In all fairness to oldskoolflash (although I disagree with his suggestion), that would not be necessary -- just ignore anything that isn't of the form "abuse[at]<host>" for selected hosts, such as hotmail.com and yahoo.com.
  4. I know the parser is using the info provided for that IP, my point was, why does the parser not filter out donaldduck[at]hotmail.com and discard it as fake.

    Whenever I question the reliability of the parser at locating referenced websites, people are very quick to pipe up that this is not what the parser is for, and all the efforts are put in to detecting the source of the spam. My point is that quite often it does not do that very efficiently. Who wants to send spammers confirmation that their email address is live, and actively reports spam and yet the parser allows this with surprising ease. I know you can untick specific addresses, but surely anything [at]gmail.com or [at]hotmail.com or [at]geocities.com that isn't abuse[at] or postmaster[at] is fake, the parser should be smart enough to discard anything that is obviously fake.

    ...The parser is just a tool. It's our job, as users, to use the tool appropriately. Not all of us (necessarily) want the parser to make decisions such as you propose for us .... :) <g>
  5. I think the parser often gets the source wrong! Often it or gives the spammers email address as a reporting address - how and why does the parser give the address royir143[at]hotmail.com as a valid spam reporting email adddress

    <snip>

    ...*shrug* To what e-mail address would you suggest reporting spam from this IP address, given the following?
    APNIC whois for 124.106.177.207[/url]]inetnum: 124.104.0.0 - 124.107.255.255

    netname: IPG

    descr: IPG

    descr: Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company

    country: PH

    tech-c: RD18-AP

    tech-c: JG149-AP

    tech-c: NT80-AP

    tech-c: VO2-AP

    tech-c: SM140-AP

    admin-c: RR5-AP

    mnt-by: APNIC-HM

    mnt-lower: PHIX-NOC-AP

    status: ALLOCATED PORTABLE

    remarks: -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    remarks: This object can only be updated by APNIC hostmasters.

    remarks: To update this object, please contact APNIC

    remarks: hostmasters and include your organisation's account

    remarks: name in the subject line.

    remarks: -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    changed: hm-changed[at]apnic.net 20060213

    changed: hm-changed[at]apnic.net 20060220

    source: APNIC

    person: Roy I Resurreccion

    address: Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company

    address: 14/F Ramon Cojuangco Building

    address: Makati Avenue, Makati City 1200, Philippines

    country: PH

    phone: +63-2-810-4070

    fax-no: +63-2-894-5332

    e-mail: riresurreccion[at]pldt.com.ph

    e-mail: royir143[at]hotmail.com

    nic-hdl: RR5-AP

    mnt-by: MAINT-PH-PLDT-ENGG

    changed: riresurreccion[at]pldt.com.ph 20011016

    source: APNIC

    person: Jaime Gonzales

    nic-hdl: JG149-AP

    e-mail: jcgonzales[at]pldt.com.ph

    address: PLDT Co., 3/F MGO Bldg., Legaspi cor Dela Rosa Sts., Makati City

    phone: +63-2-864-5752

    fax-no: +63-2-813-5794

    country: PH

    changed: jcgonzales[at]pldt.com.ph 20040719

    mnt-by: PHIX-NOC-AP

    source: APNIC

    person: Rowell Dela Vega

    nic-hdl: RD18-AP

    e-mail: rrdelavega[at]pldt.com.ph

    address: PLDT Co., 3/F MGO Bldg., Legaspi cor. Dela Rosa Sts., Makati City

    phone: +632-864-5752

    fax-no: +632-813-5794

    country: PH

    changed: jcgonzales[at]pldt.com.ph 20040719

    mnt-by: PHIX-NOC-AP

    source: APNIC

    person: Noel Tabernilla

    nic-hdl: NT80-AP

    e-mail: nctabernilla[at]pldt.com.ph

    address: PLDT Co., 3/F MGO Bldg., Legaspi cor Dela Rosa Sts., Makati City

    phone: +632-864-5752

    fax-no: +63-2-813-5794

    country: PH

    changed: jcgonzales[at]pldt.com.ph 20040719

    mnt-by: PHIX-NOC-AP

    source: APNIC

    person: Sonny Miguel

    nic-hdl: SM140-AP

    e-mail: ssmiguel[at]pldt.com.ph

    address: PLDT Co.

    address: 3/F MGO Bldg., Legaspi cor Dela Rosa Sts., Makati City 1229

    phone: +632-864-5752

    fax-no: +63-2-813-5794

    country: PH

    changed: jcgonzales[at]pldt.com.ph 20040927

    mnt-by: PHIX-NOC-AP

    source: APNIC

    person: Victor Ortiz

    nic-hdl: VO2-AP

    e-mail: vrortiz[at]pldt.com.ph

    address: PLDT Co.

    address: 3/F MGO Bldg., Legaspi cor Dela Rosa Sts., Makati City 1229

    phone: +632-864-5752

    fax-no: +63-2-813-5794

    country: PH

    changed: jcgonzales[at]pldt.com.ph 20050321

    mnt-by: PHIX-NOC-AP

    source: APNIC

    ...Seems to me that the SpamCop parser's decision was consistent with the available information for this IP address ....
  6. <snip>

    Could you please tell me how this message board software stores passwords and such? Does it store them in plain text? Encrypted? If so, how is the password secured? Hashed? Hashed with a salt? What kind of hash?

    [edit: I found the answers to these questions in the "lounge" section.]

    I don't much care about my email address being leaked, but I need to know if I should change my password here.

    <snip>

    ...The answer to that question, I believe, is also in the Wazoo's first reply in the aforementioned post in the "lounge" section.
  7. 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.

    41455[/snapback]

    ...And I hope they will band together to commission a tool that will report spamvertized websites and do it well. SpamCop is not that tool and it appears that (unless a miracle happens and the things that have been keeping Julian and the Deputies busy ensuring that the parser works well in finding the source of the spam e-mails) it never will.
  8. How are you getting checkboxes to so many different reporting addresses? I can only fit four agencies' addresses in the box on the preferences page because of the limitation of characters.

    <snip>

    40740[/snapback]

    ...As long as your space-separated list of reporting addresses is less than 100 characters, you can have as many reporting addresses as you wish. :) <g>
  9. This still hasn't been fixed. Can't we at least be told why not?  :angry:

    39789[/snapback]

    <snip>

    How about giving Miss Betsy's last attempt at explaining / offering some data that was posted as and into the Announcements section a read ... Welcome to the SpamCop Forum. Please then follow the links provided.

    39792[/snapback]

    ...That's a perfectly good answer for matters affecting relatively few users or are not acknowledged by a SpamCop employee as bugs, but this doesn't fall into those categories -- it affects everyone who uses user-defined report recipients and has been acknowledged to be a bug by a SpamCop employee 35300[/snapback] way back on October 31. Three months seems even to me, as a non-paying member, to be too long to have been allowed to elapse with nary one official public word on the matter ("sorry, the one SpamCop programmer has not yet had an opportunity to address this bug but hopes to be able to do so before the end of the second quarter of 2006" or "we have decided that the effort required to fix this bug is not worth the benefit, so it will not be fixed" or "we have decided that the current behavior is actually the behavior we prefer to impose on our users, so it will not be changed" would all be acceptable, at least to me).
  10. <snip>

    dbiel lost a lot of quality family time while bringing the words and definitions over to this new tool.  And just so folks know, this wasn't a simple task ...

    <snip>

    Once again, thanks to all involved

    39345[/snapback]

    ...Indeed: thanks, especially to dbiel! :) <g>
  11. Added link to glossary file, but it does not seem to work correctly.

    If the URL is pasted into a blank browser window to goes directly to the referenced item, but clicking on the link (which inserts the exact same URL only brings up the glossary topic, it fails to continue to the specific link.

    Maybe Wazoo can fix it.

    37535[/snapback]

    ...Works fine for me. Did someone fix it or is it a problem unique to dbiel?
  12. Maybe you're missing my point.

    I'm not whining about Spamcop's service.

    I encountered a problem with the reporting service, and came over here to see if there was any info about it.  I found this thread.  Since two weeks had elapsed since the problem was first reported, and the problem is still present, I posted an update.

    36170[/snapback]

    ...No, I understood that point. But you also wrote:
    <snip>  I just accidentally sent report copies to several inapplicable addresses, because I forgot to uncheck them.
    and then you objected to my reminder that it was the responsibility of us users to avoid that mistake as condescending. Then you wrote
    This concerns a known bug in the reporting interface.  The people who maintain that interface also have a responsibility, to ensure that it works properly.
    to which I replied
    Since I am not paying for this service, I have absolutely no legitimate claim on their time or any particular feature of the service.
    to which you replied
    I also pay for the service, and have been doing so for several years.
    which is what prompted my most recent reply.
  13. Since I am not paying for this service, I have absolutely no legitimate claim on their time or any particular feature of the service.
    Well, I am paying for the service, and I think it's only common courtesy to let us know whether this is going to be fixed, and if not, why not.

    36165[/snapback]

    ...IMHO, paying customers like you, Nisse, and Dave_L have the right to expect whatever level of service you feel appropriate for the money you are spending and if you don't get it, you should find a provider who will provide that level of service. We say that about ISPs and MSPs and it seems to me the same should apply to SpamCop. Please just weigh the advantages you do receive against the (IMHO, exceedingly minor) expectation that is not being met.
  14. ...Please remember that now, as has always been the case, it is your responsibility to ensure that the addresses to which SpamCop offers to send reports on your behalf are reasonable. Thanks!

    36153[/snapback]

    turetzsr,

    36158[/snapback]

    Hi, Dave_L,

    ..."turetzsr" is simply my login ID. Please address me as "Steve T." :) <g> [ <-- not a serious complaint ] Thank you!

    that was a little condescending.

    36158[/snapback]

    ...I'm sorry (I think) that you found my reminder, which was a simple factual statement, condescending. It was not intended to be.
    This concerns a known bug in the reporting interface.  The people who maintain that interface also have a responsibility, to ensure that it works properly.

    36158[/snapback]

    ...Not really, IMHO. I have seen no such obligation stated anywhere. Since I am not paying for this service, I have absolutely no legitimate claim on their time or any particular feature of the service. Whether it is a bug has not been fully discussed and despite an earlier post by a SpamCop representative that he believes it to be, I would be willing to accept a claim that the way it used to work was a bug and that bug has been fixed. In any event, be this bug or feature, it is the responsibility of us users to ensure that reports sent by SpamCop on our behalf are sent to e-mail addresses that seem reasonable.
  15. So two weeks have passed, and the bug is still present.  I just accidentally sent report copies to several inapplicable addresses, because I forgot to uncheck them.

    36127[/snapback]

    ...Please remember that now, as has always been the case, it is your responsibility to ensure that the addresses to which SpamCop offers to send reports on your behalf are reasonable. Thanks!
  16. Nooo, not really. :D I mean a real "Oops. We see the problem, we know where the problem is, should be fixed in a bit." That was just a "Oops. I can verify the problem. Bug Report filed." I do that all the time with MY users, so I know exactly what that means... it means "I've informed someone who can actually DO something about the problem and it'll get fixed when they get around to fixing it."

    What I would recommend doing is backing out the changes until you can fix it so that there are no unintended consequences, such as those that we are seeing. That's just my 2¢ though.  <_<

    35478[/snapback]

    ...Okay, you're entitled to that view. For my part, since I am not a paying customer, I have no complaints. :) <g>
  17. <snip>... Then again, it would be "nice" to have someone (say Julian or Don D'Minion) poke their head in here to say "Oops. Sorry. Should be fixed shortly" or something.

    35444[/snapback]

    ...You mean something like Richard's post, above?
    <snip>

    Changes to the user-defined report handling went live today after about a week of testing on the beta system.  Obviously the changes (which I think Don posted about earlier) did change the default behaviour. 

    I'll put through a bug report on that.

    Richard

    35300[/snapback]

  18. And has anyone heard back about a possible ETA on when it'll be fixed or at least a user-preference set up in the SpamCop configs?

    <snip>

    35436[/snapback]

    ...Historically, we discover that things have been fixed when they start behaving "properly." We almost never get progress reports. Personally, I prefer having something "fixed" in, say, seven days but without progress reports than to have them fixed in, say, four weeks but with timely progress reports. :) <g>
  19. I like the new preferences options and defaults. AFAICS the 'Personal copies of outgoing reports' options is now split off from the '3rd party report default' and the system is much more flexible with a new 'Public standard report recipients'. All I know is that I now no longer have to tick every report to get my personal copy of each report while leaving the cyveillance copy option unchecked so it saves me time....thank you....

    35399[/snapback]

    This behavior is considered to be a bug by at least two Deputies, and has been reported as such.

    35400[/snapback]

    ...But you could request a New Feature for a user preference which works for user-specified recipients in the same manner as does "Report Handling Option" "3rd party report default" for third party report recipients.
×
×
  • Create New...