Jump to content

Polyergic

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Polyergic

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. I have three apparent replies to one SpamCop report each of which contains an apparent error message followed by the SpamCop report. All three replies are from abuse[at]locaweb.com.br with subject "User could not be loaded" ---- The error messages are: User 'xxxxxxxxxx[at]reports.spamcop.net' could not be loaded in the mail gateway ---- RT could not load a valid user, and RT's configuration does not allow for the creation of a new user for your email. ---- User creation failed in mailgateway: Could not set user info ---- What should I do with these? Are they spam?
  2. Polyergic

    Report page stalls before parsing header

    I run my own personal email server, so I have an IMAP spam folder and a cronjob that reports any messages I move to that folder. The filtering options are pretty much anything that can run within the resources available on that machine.
  3. Polyergic

    Report page stalls before parsing header

    The only thing I could do about that is modify the headers before submission, which is not allowed. This looks like a new way to prevent reporting; I assume it will be added to the list and fixed eventually. For now, I could filter so I don't submit more messages with this problem - what would be the best criteria for that filter? Also, is there a way to remove just this one unreported spam? I only see the link to remove all unreported spam.
  4. http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5461425181z2...f93a3b0f3a0d07z Loads up to "View entire message" link, never gets to "Parsing Header:"
  5. Polyergic

    IPv6 Routing Support

    Just ran into this too, shocked to see that any spammer can prevent reporting by forging a received header with an IPv6 address. Why not, in the short term, only consider received headers up to the first which contains an IPv6 address? It would prevent reporting when the last step went over IPv6, but I expect that's really uncommon. Are you keeping track of how common that is? Received headers from my failed report: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5022302439z8...b815b78a60e50bz Received: from exsmtp3.ntu.edu.sg ([155.69.5.168]) by host.theinternetco.net with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <NEC-RSVN[at]ntu.edu.sg>) id 1QRQdJ-0004gY-OQ for x; Tue, 31 May 2011 09:13:27 -0600 Received: from EXCHHUB2.staff.main.ntu.edu.sg (155.69.24.24) by EXSMTP3.staff.main.ntu.edu.sg (155.69.5.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.436.0; Tue, 31 May 2011 23:12:58 +0800 Received: from EXCHANGE32.staff.main.ntu.edu.sg ([fe80::a14d:b7e8:6637:5d61]) by EXCHHUB2.staff.main.ntu.edu.sg ([2002:9b45:1818::9b45:1818]) with mapi; Tue, 31 May 2011 23:12:58 +0800 Which looks like a normal final receive by my provider, a normal untrusted receive by a spam relay, and a forged IPv6 receive to prevent reporting.
×