Personal Whitelist Problem

[Guest SkydiveMike]

You don't have spamcop.net on your whitelist. What exactly were you thinking would whitelist this message?

22668[/snapback]

Screen Shot #3 of My Whitelist

Just for classification purposes: this post contains answers, screen shots, and details -- I wouldn't want Wazoo to think I am ranting

P.S. The email addresses of my friends, relatives, and business contacts are (again) blacked out. I almost left the email address of my retarted sister in just for Wazoo

[Guest SkydiveMike]

A bit of input from Don .. maybe something to be added to the White-list / Filter FAQ?

22677[/snapback]

Thanks for posting that -- I received it via email from Don also and was going to post it.

[Wazoo]

You wanted to see what was "blacked out" on the screen shots of my whitelist. You asked twice.

I never asked squat on this. Only pointed out that what was blocked out was an unknown, therefore made "us" guessing at some of the other possibilities involved. There's a lor of differenrce between what I said and what you are saying I said.

Since when is a customer looking for help a "dance"?

You've already posted that you've seen yet another post of some results of the reference to "another dance" ... as indicated, this "other dance" was dealing with specific issues and involving other parties ....

I did follow the links, I understand the issue with SPF/SRS -- what you don't understand is that email from abuse[at]isp to munged-me[at]spamcop does not go through pobox, does not have SPF/SRS stuff in it, has a return path containing spamcop.net, I have spamcop.net in my whitelist, and the mail still ends up in held mail -- ergo the whitelist doesn't work -- back to my original problem (aka subject == personal whitelist problem).

You have raised two specific issues. One of them involves SRS. The other is now involving that "other dance" .. and again, results are coming in on that issues also.

I didn't see any technical questions or requests for information in your post so I can't answer any. If you look through the topic carefully you will see that I have answered every question and provided technical details (tracking URL's) in response to every request. Most of those requests came from other forum users, not you.

That's only partially correct, but ... check out 90%+ percent of all other "discussions" within the Help Forums and you see qustions asked, answers come right after .... yet again, pointing out that starting a Topic "here" . posting in another Forum, another discussion and adding a bit of detail "there" .. then repeating "that" action again in yet another Topic ... hardly the same as almost every other "Help" request here. And not to ignore that time frame of playing duelling keyboards, you posting repeatedly all over the place trying to stay ahead of my moving 'new' posts back into 'your' Topic, deleting those dozens of other repeated postings, as it made no sense having those dozens of copies of the same post inserted into the 'same' discussion. Yes, you've taken time from at least a half-dozen other people in trying to "work" your issue, your problem, your tirade ... and yet .... you're still spending more time trying to work me over than working your own issues out ... give it a rest

[Guest SkydiveMike]

I never asked squat on this.  Only pointed out that what was blocked out was an unknown, therefore made "us" guessing at some of the other possibilities involved.

22692[/snapback]

You claim that everytime someone helpful, or a powerful moderator such as yoursefl, post a request I should reply (to help you help me). Twice you mentioned the blackouts in my screen shots, therefore, by implication you wanted to see what was under them. (References below).

When I posted a response that stated these blackout were my friends, relatives, etc. you accused me of not answering questions and ranting.

Which is it, do I:

• Answer everyting that a moderator posts and disrespect the privacy of my whitelisted contacts
  
• Explain that the blacklist is there fore privacy reasons and be accused of "ranting" -- a claim which is then used to further justify keeping my valid request for customer service out of a customer service forum and in a hang out lounge
  

And even now, after posting a couple of graphics that only leave two line items displayed out of an identified "12 pages" of stuff ... once again, how would anyone on this side of the screen guess at ...

22537[/snapback]

(yet images posted later show the Yahoo entries interspersed among other blacked-out items ...???)

22536[/snapback]

[PeterJ]

Will you two cut it out please? Thank You.

[StevenUnderwood]

Wazoo:

I have informed jefft of Mike's reply here since he did not indicate whether he emailed that information or not. Having 2 email copies, after 11 pages of correspondence, certainly could not hurt at this point.

[Guest SkydiveMike]

I have informed jefft of Mike's reply here since he did not indicate whether he emailed that information or not.  Having 2 email copies, after 11 pages of correspondence, certainly could not hurt at this point.

22710[/snapback]

Thanks Steve -- I think I email the link to the screen shot at the same time I posted it; but I am honestly don't remember.

[DavidT]

FWIW, I think this topic should be moved to the "SpamCop Email System & Accounts" forum, where it obviously belongs. Then, when people browse that forum looking for whitelist issues, it will be in the right place.

C'mon, Wazoo.

DT

[Guest SkydiveMike]

FWIW, I think this topic should be moved to the "SpamCop Email System & Accounts" forum, where it obviously belongs. Then, when people browse that forum are are reading up on whitelist issues, it will be in the right place.

22714[/snapback]

Thanks David. I appreciate this very much.

[Guest SkydiveMike]

I have informed jefft of Mike's reply here since he did not indicate whether he emailed that information or not.  Having 2 email copies, after 11 pages of correspondence, certainly could not hurt at this point.

22710[/snapback]

Presumably everyone has seen the screen shot that shows spamcop.net on my white list.

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z710370850z5f...5606afefea7748z

Here is another, new, tracking URL that has (as its first line)

Return-Path: <spamcop[at]devnull.spamcop.net>

This message should have passed my whitelist -- it did not, it was in my held mail.

Just out of curisoity, does this count as a "it doesn't work rant" or does it count as "technical information, evidence, and me trying to help the support people (paid or volenteer) help me"?

[Wazoo]

StevenUnderwood's post #143 notes the crititical line in his parsing of;

X-SpamCop-Whitelisted: spamcop.net

Your parse does not include this line.

Both samples do include a BL identification, though not the same BL (in the one of Steven's that I looked at). Still don't see where we've progressed beyond that no one else seems to be having these problems.

For those that know these things, is there a possibilty that something called "identities" be involved here? Settings are made inder one identity, but actions occurring based on another "identity" being logged in/used???? Just something caught in anther Topic, another Forum, a completely different subject ... but noting that I haven't come across anything that documents this item???? can someone rule this out?

[StevenUnderwood]

Wazoo:

I don't think identities are involved here. They are similiar to the "Personalities" in Eudora. You can set individual things like screen name, return address, and signature to be used when sending messages. I don't think they come into play at all on receiving spam.

I think we have done about as much as we can to this point to see there does seem to be a problem, at least with this account and this whitelist entry, and need to sit back and wait for JeffT to come back, look into the account again to confirm whether he had the incorrect account before. Perhaps this is pointing to a corruption problem somewhere that JeffT is looking the same way the system does and not finding the whitelist yet Mike does see it form his end (just a guess)? JeffT may also be able to look at the message and check the logs for comparison to the whitelist.

My message hit the Brazil country bl where this latest one for Mike hit he scbl. I don't remember what bl was hit by Mikes other example. Perhaps, that is coming into play as well.

By the way, I just had another that was blocked and whitelisted.

X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on blade2.cesmail.net

X-spam-Level:

X-spam-Status: hits=-98.7 tests=AWL,FORGED_RCVD_HELO,USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO

version=3.0.0

X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.101 64.74.133.248 192.168.19.203 192.168.18.82 199.249.17.7 198.5.241.38

X-SpamCop-Disposition: Blocked dnsbl.sorbs.net

X-SpamCop-Whitelisted: devnull.spamcop.net

I also get the "X-SpamCop-Whitelisted: devnull.spamcop.net" line on messages that were not blocklisted. So any "SpamCop has accepted" or "SpamCop Quick reporting data" messages should be whitelisted as well.

Mike: Do you have ANY messages that have "X-SpamCop-Whitelisted: devnull.spamcop.net" or the equivalent in them? When was this message sent?

[Wazoo]

I don't think identities are involved here.  They are similiar to the "Personalities" in Eudora.  You can set individual things like screen name, return address, and signature to be used when sending messages.  I don't think they come into play at all on receiving spam.

No, I didn't think so either, but it's the only thing that had yet to come up thay I can find.

I think we have done about as much as we can to this point to see there does seem to be a problem, at least with this account and this whitelist entry, and need to sit back and wait for JeffT to come back, look into the account again to confirm whether he had the incorrect account before.  Perhaps this is pointing to a corruption problem somewhere that JeffT is looking the same way the system does and not finding the whitelist yet Mike does see it form his end (just a guess)?  JeffT may also be able to look at the message and check the logs for comparison to the whitelist.

Yeah, the only thing I can suggest at this point is that the entire list be deleted and rebuilt (also part of the "changing identities" query) ... but I have no doubt as to the type of response this suggestion would get ...

[Guest SkydiveMike]

StevenUnderwood's post #143 notes the crititical line in his parsing of;

X-SpamCop-Whitelisted: spamcop.net

Your parse does not include this line.

Indicating that the whitelist is not being applied -- this is the core of the whitelist problem that I have been seeking customer serivce on for a few days now.

For those that know these things, is there a possibilty that something called "identities" be involved here?  Settings are made inder one identity, but actions occurring based on another "identity" being logged in/used????  Just something caught in anther Topic, another Forum, a completely different subject ... but noting that I haven't come across anything that documents this item????  can someone rule this out?

22730[/snapback]

If you mean email client identies (like in Eudora) then Steve just replied that they shouldn't matter (and since the client doesn't ever see the incoming mail until after the spamcop filters, I agree with that assessment).

If you mean some kind of HORDE/Webmail identity then I think I can provide information that will rule that out -- I didn't even know HORDE has identities and therefore have not been using them.

[Guest SkydiveMike]

I think we have done about as much as we can to this point to see there does seem to be a problem, at least with this account and this whitelist entry, and need to sit back and wait for JeffT to come back, look into the account again to confirm whether he had the incorrect account before. Perhaps this is pointing to a corruption problem somewhere that JeffT is looking the same way the system does and not finding the whitelist yet Mike does see it form his end (just a guess)? JeffT may also be able to look at the message and check the logs for comparison to the whitelist.

All good possibilities, and like you said the only thing now is to wait for JeffT (or some other owner/developer/whatever) to check out some more things.

My message hit the Brazil country bl where this latest one for Mike hit he scbl. I don't remember what bl was hit by Mikes other example. Perhaps, that is coming into play as well.

I can provide some additional data -- to the best of my recollection all of my not-whitelisted-but-should-have-been ISP responses were Brazil. I guess I could always kludge around the whole problem by not using the Brazil blocking list

Mike: Do you have ANY messages that have "X-SpamCop-Whitelisted: devnull.spamcop.net" or the equivalent in them? When was this message sent?

22731[/snapback]

I don't have access to alot of my older email right now, but there is nothing in a HORDE search of the last few weeks.

[Guest SkydiveMike]

Yeah, the only thing I can suggest at this point is that the entire list be deleted and rebuilt (also part of the "changing identities" query) ... but I have no doubt as to the type of response this suggestion would get ...

22732[/snapback]

Nice, even when you are trying to be helpful you can't leave the sarcasm out.

As my screen shots have shown, I have 12 pages of whitelist entries. There would be alot of effort involved in deleting and recreating this list -- this isn't, by itself, enough to make me say categorically that I am unwilling to do it.

If your idea is based on anything logical, please let me know and I will spend this time and effort.

If your idea is just a SWAG, then I can't see investing the time in that ordeal for what will likely be no return.

Let me know how confident you are of your suggestion, please.

[Guest SkydiveMike]

Interesting; I just received in my INBOX six ISP responses that are like this one:

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z710417576z67...f40730833ff5d3z

(Like means all from the same ISP -- I only did the move-to-held-mail by hand to generate a tracking URL trick for one of them).

[StevenUnderwood]

Interesting; I just received in my INBOX six ISP responses that are like this one:

Well we have now seen it work at least a little. We will still need to wait for jefft to see if he found something, did something, or if this message (or the others) were anomolies.

(Like means all from the same ISP -- I only did the move-to-held-mail by hand to generate a tracking URL trick for one of them).

22737[/snapback]

Hate to go off topic at all but you can submit right from the InBox by selecting the message from the list view then clicking the Forward link just above the list. This will open a new compose window which you can address to your submit address (use a shortcut in the address book)

Nice, even when you are trying to be helpful you can't leave the sarcasm out.

Mike, I see no sarcasm in Wazoo's message. Most people, who extensively use the whitelist function would bristle at starting over. I know I would.

[jefft]

I did have spamcop.net on my whitelist and didn't ever delete it. My spamcop mail is mike.mclean[at]spamcop.net

22684[/snapback]

OK, but you didn't when I looked. You do now and your emails are being whitelisted correctly. Right?

JT

[Jeff G.]

WRT Mike's problem with ISP replies not being whitelisted, contacting SpamCop Parsing and Reporting System Admins is the way to go.

22594[/snapback]

I did just that on behalf of all SpamCop Reporters.

When the SpamCop Parsing and Reporting System's Server(s) at reports.spamcop.net process incoming email, they: WRONGLY CREATE THE ORIGINAL "Return-Path" HEADER LINE (wrongly because they are NOT the final SMTP transport system) ... Note that all Tracking URLs show emails with not one but TWO Return-Path Header Lines each, the first/lower created by SpamCop Parsing and Reporting System Server sc-app4.eq.ironport.com.  In each case, the first/lower one should not have been created by sc-app4.eq.ironport.com, but it was in fact created.  This appears to be an violation of Section 4.3.1 of Internet Standard #11 and RFC 822 "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages" ("RETURN-PATH ... This field  is  added  by  the  final  transport  system  that delivers  the message to its recipient"), Section 4.4 of RFC 2821 "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol" ('When the delivery SMTP server makes the "final delivery" of a message, it inserts a return-path line at the beginning of the mail data' ... 'Here, final delivery means the message has left the SMTP environment'), and Section 3.6.7 of RFC 2822 "Internet Message Format" ('an optional "Return-Path:" field'), perpetrated within the SpamCop Parsing and Reporting System

22594[/snapback]

Julian says he is going to fix it. Thanks, Julian! Time will tell if that fix is really Mike's fix, or if there really is a problem with whitelists not getting applied.

[Jeff G.]

I'm glad it seems to be working for you now, Mike. What seems to have changed to cause that? Thanks!

[Guest SkydiveMike]

Hate to go off topic at all but you can submit right from the InBox by selecting the message from the list view then clicking the Forward link just above the list.  This will open a new compose window which you can address to your submit address (use a shortcut in the address book)

Yeah, but I have habitually used the held mail folder for so long .....

Mike, I see no sarcasm in Wazoo's message.  Most people, who extensively use the whitelist function would bristle at starting over.  I know I would.

22739[/snapback]

Without the past history, the refusal to acknowledge that I have a real problem that belongs in a real forum, and the rudeness I would probably agree with you. Past behavior accounts for a lot, however.

[Guest SkydiveMike]

OK, but you didn't when I looked. You do now and your emails are being whitelisted correctly. Right?

22740[/snapback]

I have neither deleted, nor added spamcop.net to my whitelist -- I found (yesterday, posted in this thread) another one that didn't work (a Brazillian ISP) and some that did.

So, no, it doesn't work because it is inconsistent. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

[Wazoo]

Have been trying to stay out of this, but .. some of that other dance thing going on also ... I have seen many, many requests from folks fo some magical way to import their addressbook data to populate their white-list, therefore realizing that the suggestion of deleting and re-adding your 12 pages worth of stuff would send you into orbit ..

But on that note, it has been a repeated suggestion to clear out, re-enter, whatever at least a couple of entries. I am still waiting for one of three requests for help to be answered in reference to the "sorting" of data within this white-list data ... so I still don't know whether there is a sort function or not. Why am I curious??? Because if there isn't, then it would seem that if one added a new item or removed and re-added an item, one would tend to think that it would show up at the "bottom" of the listing of white-list entries. My recollection of your blacked-out samples show the discussed items as being well within those 12 pages of data.

Then we add in the confusion that JT looked once, items weren't there ... looked later, items existed. Doing a bit of scanning on all your previous posts, I find more confusion factors. You make three kinds of statements in regards to the suggested action of adding or deleting and re-entering of some specific data as part of the troubleshooting process from your end;

You "verified" data ...?? (doesn't quite have the ring of "re-typed it in")

You did delete and re-enter data ...

You never deleted and re-entered data ...

Though I didn't pull each and every statement, there's enough here to justify the confusion statement above. I assume you're going to continue with the "I'm bashing you" mode, but this is meant to point out that again, you are making things difficult to troubleshoot with some of your responses.

SkydiveMike says:

Posted on: Today, 09:08 AM - I have neither deleted, nor added spamcop.net to my whitelist

Posted on: Jan 6 2005, 09:33 PM - did have spamcop.net on my whitelist and didn't ever delete it

Posted on: Jan 5 2005, 07:48 PM - I have tried deleting and re-entering the entry (and other affected entries) with no success. I have, at various times, tried both devnull.spamcop.net and spamcop.net. At no time was the entry fat-fingered -- I double checked each time. Yes, I am talking about the spamcop whitelisting, not a HORDE filter.

Posted on: Jan 5 2005, 11:32 AM = I do have spamcop.net in my white list which should match devnull.spamcop.net

Posted on: Jan 5 2005, 08:49 AM - Miss Betsy says: "only suggestion I have is that you delete the whitelisting and try again" - Mike says -> If you read the thread, you will realize that this has been tried.

Posted on: Jan 5 2005, 12:00 AM - validating settings (whitelist) that have not changed in months

Posted on: Jan 4 2005, 11:42 PM - verified that "returns.groups.yahoo.com" is still in my whitelist

Posted on: Jan 3 2005, 09:09 PM - getting all of my yahoo groups email in my held mail; not my inbox. I tried re-adding the addresses above to my whitelist

[Guest SkydiveMike]

Have been trying to stay out of this, but .. some of that other dance thing going on also

Thats it. I have put up with the harrassment and outright obstruction by Wazoo.

I have just cancelled the two spamcop accounts (me and my wife) under my control.

The actions of Wazoo are solely and 100% responsible for this.

Wazoo -- since you are the all powerful moderator please delete my forum account.