Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Farelf

Release of Spamcop Version 4.6.0-028

Recommended Posts

See main announcements at:-

http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10555

"Emailed spam submissions will be accepted but will be queued for later handling. When the reporting service is brought back up please expect several hours of delay as the backlog is processed.

This outage does not affect the SpamCop/CESMail email service."

That's from Wednesday, August 19, 2009 - 0900 PDT, 1600 UTC/GMT, etc. for an estimated 8 hours initial downtime (then backlog).

[edit, clarification on downtime].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is 3:45 pm PDT here in California and I am logged into spamcop and am reporting my spam. I don't see any difference from the old version. Did the update process OK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...If my math is correct (9 am start + 8 hours = 5 am completion), the upgrade is not expected to be completed for another hour or so, yet (it is now 6:55 pm EDT = 3:55 pm PDT).

...Yeah, I know, the web site is supposed to be down but isn't but maybe they found a way around having to bring it down while installing the upgrade .... :) <g>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was down for about 6 hours. But it is back up and working. Guess I shouldn't complain. I have tons of spam to report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was down for about 6 hours. But it is back up and working. Guess I shouldn't complain. I have tons of spam to report.

It is up and using the new code (reported at the top of each submit page). The graph shows it down a little over 4 hours. Good job SpamCop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://zeta.cesmail.net/pipermail/scspamco...ust/009015.html

From: "Wazoo" <nobody[at]devnull.spamcop.net>

Newsgroups: spamcop

Subject: Re: Release of Spamcop Version 4.6.0-028

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 20:41:42 -0500

Message-ID: <h6i9kh$v2t$1[at]news.spamcop.net>

References: <h6d9uj$pdu$1[at]news.spamcop.net>

NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:41:37 +0000 (UTC)

Xref: news.spamcop.net spamcop:171831

"Richard W" <nobody[at]spamcop.net> wrote in message news:h6d9uj$pdu$1[at]news.spamcop.net...

> The long awaited new version of SpamCop (v4.6) will being going

> into production release Tuesday, August 18, 2009. This means the

> SpamCop reporting service and website will be offline and

> unavailable for approximately eight hours beginning at 9:00 a.m.

> PDT.

Submitted six spams via the cut/paste into the web-form, full details mode selected.

After hitting the Submit button, three came back with a refreshed screen citing "unreported spam"

Following that link resulted in a "full technical details" parse result page stating that reports had already been sent.

Appearances are that the full database isn't quite in sync, updating fast enough, or there's too much time spent between servers talking to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Appearances are that the full database isn't quite in sync, updating fast enough, or there's too much time spent between servers talking to each other.
Parallel topic opened in http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10560 based on the "unreported spam"-"reports already sent" sightings. Newsgroup discussion has gone quiet but I think your suggestion there that the processing server identity be noted and actioned by others whenever this occurs (if it continues) - for passing back to SC.

(Thinking out loud) That's the line that looks like

<!-- SpamCop::Web::Look $Revision: #13 $ produced by prod-sc-www1 -->
near the top of the page source for the parse. You go to your member page to review and release the queued report but if the resulting parse says "reports have already been sent for ..." in the reporting section (when you haven't sent such reports) then that is the page from which to "view source" and pick up the production server line. Is that right? Any subsequent looks at the parse may have been processed through a different server and may not show the same behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×