Jump to content

James Cridland

Members
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by James Cridland

  1. James Cridland

    Gmail's server blocked

    Neither of the two answers actually answer the question I'm asking. If a number of Gmail users politely ask Google to fix whatever is wrong, and give clear and succinct instructions on how to do so, then they are more likely to fix it. Asking them to sarcastically follow their program policies is immature and stupid, so I'll not be doing that: and, working for a new media operation myself, I know what my to-do list is like, and also know how to politely get Google to move something up the list a little. Now, if you don't wish to help, that's fine, just say you don't wish to help. Of course, you may all be happy that SpamCop is currently having the effect of screwing up Gmail users' emails; that's also fairly clear from some of the replies here. That's well and good too. Otherwise, let's have a serious answer, so we can get Gmail to take this problem seriously. Might I remind you all that the primary mode of support here is peer-to-peer, meaning users helping other users. A little mature help, in this case, won't go amiss; and there's precious little of that going on in this tawdry discussion.
  2. James Cridland

    Gmail's server blocked

    Right, I'm getting bored of this. Would someone please tell me... 1. What should I, and other Gmail users, be telling Gmail to do? 2. Is there an email address that would be best to inform Gmail what to do? There, that can't be that difficult, can it?
  3. James Cridland

    Gmail's server blocked

    Steven, I completely agree that there is no reason for a human being to be sending email to a spamtrap address. However, the fact that it's happening (whether maliciously or not) has massive consequences in this case. Blocking (or tagging) all Gmail, or Hotmail, or AOL, etc, messages as "spam" - simply because one miscreant has sent an email to a spamtrap - is using a very big sledgehammer to crack a very tiny nut. The majority of people do not care to receive messages from Gmail, Hotmail, etc? Get real.
  4. James Cridland

    Gmail's server blocked

    For the record, I searched for "Gmail blocked" and saw nothing on the first page of the search results. It's probably fair that I expected this issue to be a recent discussion.
  5. James Cridland

    Gmail's server blocked

    Correct. End users can - but I can't override their blocklist for them. (And with this particular user I'm emailing, I can't get in contact any other way). There is absolutely no justification for blocking my email, and that of thousands of other Gmail users. If 99.999% of users of Gmail are using Gmail perfectly legally and happily from Gmail's addresses, there is no justification to block access for the 0.001%. It's a different thing from blocking an errant open relay: when you block a server which belongs to Gmail, you are mostly blocking legitimate users, most of whom don't know or care about blocklists. A possible solution, even if you don't accept that whitelisting is a good thing, is to at the very least treat these IP addresses differently from 'normal' IP addresses by making them need many more reports to block them. Some differentiation is surely the sensible thing to do here. As it currently is, you are hurting many more people than you are helping, which is a Bad Thing, and not what SpamCop's there for.
  6. James Cridland

    Gmail's server blocked

    Greetings! As a paid-up SpamCop user, allow me to have a quick moan. http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblo...p=72.14.204.196 A user-contributed blacklist is pointless if you allow users to block services like Gmail. Surely these IPs should be whitelisted, permanently? If there are any arguments against this, I'd be really interested (and will cheerfully demolish them). As it is, SpamCop, or its dumb users*, have screwed me over today by rendering Gmail totally useless to reach one of my contacts. Grr. * Please see first line before flaming
  7. James Cridland

    Statistics

    Better still: rather than give up completely, you should encourage them to report the most useful spams to SpamCop during that limited time. Okay, fair enough. But nothing in the current statistics helps this - indeed, you also have no way of knowing whether a spam you're reporting really is "fresh" before you've done it. I always report spam in this order: 1. spam from my inbox: in full, including spamvertised sites 2. Newer spam from my held box 3. Older spam from my held box Where I have limited time, #3 - or even #2 - gets just trashed. However, in terms of #1 - where the emailed reports are of some use - then it would seem they're the best emails to process first?
  8. James Cridland

    "No headers"

    http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...ange+%2Bheaders ...returns 68 messages, none of which are too useful - most deal with totally stripped headers. But, anyway, it's obvious that Wazoo wants another shot at telling me how marvellous he is. I'll leave it, I can't be bothered.
  9. Much confusion... SpamCop returns ...except there *are* headers. Here they are... Wassup?
  10. James Cridland

    "No headers"

    With respect, it doesn't mention what you think it does. The link from that page marked 'Microsoft Exchange' refers to the old workgroups mail program, once known as 'Microsoft Exchange', that was shipped with Windows 95 and NT4. It was renamed "Windows Messaging" in Win95 OSR2. For a screenshot of the Microsoft Exchange mail client, try this: http://www.windowsnetworking.com/j_helmig/exchngms.htm - that brings back some memories! This page has no relevance at all for any problems with Exchange mail servers. In particular, the page which talks about the old Exchange mail program talks about a 'File' 'Properties' menu - i.e. a program - and not the mail server that I connect to using Mozilla Thunderbird. Thanks for helping, though. Curiously, http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2923 seems to refer to MS Exchange (Server) stripping ALL headers except for the bare essentials - which isn't the case here. Similarly, our MessageLabs service has ADDED mail headers, including SpamAssassin-like mail headers, which the Exchange server doesn't mutilate. The fact that there are no other posts here regarding Exchange (Server) mutilating headers seems to point the finger elsewhere. It's a highly popular mail server for many companies. (Well, not 'popular', exactly, but... you know.) Only two mentions of any problems hardly points to a general problem with Exchange. I've asked our IT team's email expert (also a SpamCop.net customer) to investigate the missing headers.
  11. James Cridland

    Statistics

    I'm presuming that this figure is here to encourage us to report spam quickly. However, it doesn't encourage us to report the "right" kind of spam to enable SpamCop to keep working properly. I've always believed that if I only have time to make five spam reports that these should be spam that made it into my inbox, not spam that SpamCop has already spotted. If this belief is right, a better bet would be a "Yum, this spam is fresh" proportion, to encourage people to report quickly, and also encourage people to report un-noticed spam. Better still would be to only give statistics on recent reports, to encourage people to keep reporting. I appreciate that the 'recent reports' statistic does require major re-programming; but the proportion calculation shouldn't be difficult, and help all SpamCop users.
  12. James Cridland

    "No headers"

    This gives information about Outlook, not Exchange. Indeed, I did not use Outlook at all for purposes connected with this thread.
  13. On 'paycomplete.php', when you've finished paying or renewing, it says... I thought that the imap server was imap.spamcop.net, and the pop server similarly changed, as of 18 months ago? (Yes, mail.spamcop.net probably still works, but that's not the point) Secondly, you really ought to promote https://webmail.spamcop.net/ rather than the plain http:// version, to my mind. J
  14. James Cridland

    "No headers"

    This is getting a bit tiresome, Wazoo. Bits of the header are missing: as Ellen helpfully points out, the main bit of header missing is the extra X-Spamcop-Conf header, which I can now chase without having to refer to RFC documents (where X-SpamCop-Conf doesn't appear, of course). I'm not claiming you're wrong; just suggesting that, since you don't actually use this mailhost system, it might be better for those with direct experience of this to immediately jump in with any replies, particularly since you clearly didn't understand my original question and had to have it explained to you. That's not my problem, and this "but I told you I was right" charade is all a little pointless. Take a chill pill. Relax. Calm it. Now that I know the specific header which is being stripped out, I've done that. Though, as I hope is fairly clear, I'm not expecting Exchange to be configured to strip this out, since Exchange is used by a huge amount of people - rather, that MessageLabs may be stripping this out. You appear to be quoting someone, but not sure where these quotes are coming from. I've certainly never said any such thing. The simple fact is that the SpamCop error was that it said "headers not found", when there WERE headers sent to the system; indeed, I gave full headers available to me to the system. It might be an idea to make this error message more helpful to those of us that know what we're doing. Sorry that I've obviously got up your nose, Wazoo - I actually want the best for SpamCop, as any search of my posts will show.
  15. James Cridland

    "No headers"

    Ellen: thank you for a succinct and helpful answer. I presume it isn't an issue with Microsoft Exchange (since it would be rather a large issue if so!) and can only assume that MessageLabs are stripping this header before sending it on to our Exchange box. I'll have words: many thanks. As a SpamCop issue: this thread would have been avoided if the error message wasn't "We can't see any headers", but "We can't see the X-SpamCop-Conf header" or something similar. How can I get this into the feature request queue?
  16. James Cridland

    "No headers"

    It's not a sample of headers - it's the full headers. And it's pasted into the mailhosts configuration web interface. The mail went from SpamCop through MessageLabs and into my corporate account, which is on an MS Exchange box. I connected to it via IMAP, and used View/Source using Thunderbird to copy and paste that mail. I'm unsure why it doesn't think it has adequate headers; I can't really get any more... On a separate point, I appreciate your help, Wazoo - but if you've not used the mailhost system configuration, I'd politely question why you're giving advice in the mailhost system configuration area. Not to be rude, and I'm sure your advice is useful elsewhere here.
  17. James Cridland

    Authenticated SMTP server

    I like using my mail client on this here Mac, but it's a real bind having to change my outgoing SMTP servers now and again, depending on which network I'm connected to. I'm also aware that my current ISP is expecting me to send email as blah[at]myisp.com when actually I'm using my own domain-name, which goes through a spamcop.net account. This might cause problems for some mail servers in future, if SPF or something similar happens. (Actually, SPF is a side-issue here - my primary reason for requesting this is to stop changing stuff.) So. If SpamCop had an authenticated SMTP server, ideally which can be used with my own domain email address as well as [at]spamcop.net, then it would be many a splendid thing, and I'd personally pay to use it.
  18. Apparently, this list manages around 95% accuracy in blocking spam. Hmm. Anyway... http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/ has more information on it: is this worthwhile to add to the blocklist for SpamCop email customers?
  19. James Cridland

    DCC - distributed checksum clearinghouse

    I didn't see this as a new feature - blacklist blocking is hardly a new feature, after all. Apologies if I've put it in the wrong place, therefore. Anything that we can do to make SpamCop better is probably a good plan. I don't know whether DCC makes SpamCop better, but I note that it hasn't been discussed here, so I thought I'd ask. If the answer is "It'll not make SpamCop better", then that's a fine answer to give; however, adding the choice in the email options - just like 'block all of Brazil' - isn't, I'd guess, a lot of work, and some people may like to add this blacklist into the mix. Just as 'block all of Brazil' isn't always a good plan for everyone, so the DCC may, or may not, be useful to people. Incidentally, SpamCop is excellent (though Gmail's spam trapping is nearly as good, in my experience). So I'm pretty happy with it now, as it happens.
  20. I'm currently filtering all my mail through SpamCop. Mail to myaddress[at]cridland.net goes to myaddress[at]spamcop.net, whereupon filtered messages are sent to myaddress[at]gmail.com However, Gmail gets confused with the extra headers that SpamCop places in the message, and marks around 60% of all my filtered messages as spam. This is obviously rather tiresome, since Gmail's interface is really rather nicer than Horde (Spamcop's own webmail). Has anyone else noticed this? And any way to fix this? (Incidentally, Gmail's spam filtering is normally surprisingly good: around 98% reliable for me. But reporting the spams is a pain, and I'd rather report them if I can.)
  21. James Cridland

    Project Worth Supporting

    I stumbled upon www.projecthoneypot.org recently, and installed a hidden 'honeypot' page on my website, to catch people who are skimming my site for email addresses. Amazing. So far, in just a week, this hidden page (so hidden that a normal user won’t ever see it) has had 101 visits. Five pieces of email have been sent to unique email addresses which only appear on these pages. In particular, 80.46.67.1 has visited eleven times: this is an IP address in the UK owned by Tiscali. An IP address in China has sent email to the unique email addresses that were displayed to the Tiscali-owned IP address - leading me to suspect that a trojan program is installed in some unsuspecting user’s PC, which is doing the dirty work for this Chinese company. Other visits have been from computers in Peru and Korea - including arch-spamming company Kornet. This is a *really* good idea: and moderately painless, too. If you can, please do add a honeypot to your site: it looks a great extra way to combat spam. Should these people and SpamCop.net sit down and have a chat?
  22. I try to fully report email where I can; I want the owners of the websites being promoted to also get the reports (which I gather the 'quick report' doesn't do). Fully reporting three spams currently works like this: As a suggestion, could it actually go... This would halve the amount of clicks, and make it much quicker to properly carry out full reporting.
  23. James Cridland

    VER user-interface enhancement

    With respect, Wazoo, you seem to have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about - on this thread or others. You seemingly have no programming background. You're obviously trying to be helpful, but you're coming across as being rather ignorant. Sorry. In terms of the non-acknowledgement of this request, perhaps the best thing for SpamCop.net would be a Bugzilla installation, so that requests for enhancement, and bugs, can be correctly categorized.
  24. James Cridland

    messagelabs problem

    It has the same effect.
  25. One of my accounts is giving the following error: I'm doing it exactly as I have the other accounts (ctrl+u in Thunderbird, select all, copy into new email, send back), so I'm confused as to why this is happening. Here is an example. I've blanked out the actual mailserver, my address, and the spamcop.net address. I hope! We use, as you can see, MessageLabs for our mail at work.
×