StevenUnderwood Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 Bye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 See ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 please delete my forum account.22771[/snapback] Hmm, I don't see an easy way SkydiveMike or another in his situation can voluntarily remove his/her forum account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim P Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 I will repeat, the only 'evidence' offered shows that this specific e-mail was Blocked based on the use of a filter "brazil.blackholes.us" .... If there was a demonstration of a possible system failure, I'd have dropped JT a heads-up myself already ... Thus far, I'm not convinced .. sorry. 22404[/snapback] From my own experience with Yahoo!...sometimes they do changes, or alterations, to the headers that affect the way my email client handles them. It seems that, yet another change at Yahoo! has been implemented and your current whitelist filter is no longer valid. Just a guess, but that seems to be what this situation is. I dont know what all the fuss here is really about though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 From my own experience with Yahoo!...sometimes they do changes, or alterations, to the headers that affect the way my email client handles them. It seems that, yet another change at Yahoo! has been implemented and your current whitelist filter is no longer valid. Just a guess, but that seems to be what this situation is. This user's original complaint with his YahooGroup / white-list failure turns out to be due to his YahooGroup e-mail traversing the pobox.com system, which turned on an anti-forgery/sender-verification type tool that coincidentally is known to break the "forwarding" mechanism. This user then chose to try to turn the focus to an different issue / different e-mail, but still standing on the cause that the SpamCop white-list function was totally broken (then changing that to sometimes, kind of, etc ...) The second issue has raised some discussion (to include outside this Forum) .. however, multiple users have demonstrated that the white-listing function works for them, based on very similar (if not the same) e-mail .. but this user took the stand that as he was having problems, it was SpamCop that was hosed ... The rest of it seemed pretty much based on his perception that no one was paying any attention to "his" problem (can't emphasis that enough) .. even though he had several people in here trying to work it, to include the administrative guy on the Reporting side, the owner and administrator of the e-mail side, both Moderators here ... and after all this time, effort, and expended energy, "we" still don't know what "his" problem actually may have been .. there still aren't any other users making the same complaint (or anything close for that matter) ...??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 there still aren't any other users making the same complaint (or anything close for that matter) ...???22800[/snapback] Actually, another similar complaint has cropped up on the newsgroups - please see the [spamCop-Mail] Why is this Mail FROM SpamCop to SpamCop being blacklisted by SORBS? thread for details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Except that the message presented HAS the "X-SpamCop-Whitelisted: spamcop.net" message that the ones in this thread do not. The whitelist (at least for all of my messages) over rides all of the blacklists but the personal filters (as you mentioed to this OP) can move things afterward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Actually, another similar complaint has cropped up on the newsgroups - please see the [spamCop-Mail] Why is this Mail FROM SpamCop to SpamCop being blacklisted by SORBS? thread for details. Actually, yes, I saw that thread. As Steven mentioned, the white-listed line was showing, which was different. But there are also other questions still hanging on that user's experience. I was waiting for further input from that user, but that may have been short-circuited by the advice to forward it all up to Deputies .... so not sure if the results will be posted or not. This is a relatively new user that has been asking lots of questions, so I'm not sure that he's done "playing" with settings and configurations yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentlarry Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Wow, nice slugfest going here. I wore out about page 6, so perhaps this has already been covered. But I'll thow this in. Maybe more spit will fly! All this is somehere in a post I started in the mail fourm a while back, but to sum up: 1) I have always had "returns.groups.yahoo.com" on my (spamcop email) personal whitelist. 2) One day out of the blue, mail from yahoo groups I subscribe to were suddenly going into the Held folder. (sound familiar?) 3) What had changed was; the Return-Path: header, previously a xxx[at]returns.groups.yahoo.com address was now, suddenly, the address of the author of the message; impossible to whitelist them all. 4) The target of my yahoo subscription was a pacbell.net mailbox, which was POPed by my spamcop mail. After much thrashing around, I discovered that the Return-Path: header was getting morphed only when the yahoo group mail went thru the pacbell mailbox. When I changed the target of the yahoo group mail to go direct to spamcop, Return-Path: was once again xxx"[at]returns.groups.yahoo.com", and whitelisting was functioning again. I have no idea why the morphing started, and I figured it would be an exercise in frustration to persue any further. 5) I guard my SC address closely, so I now forward yahoo group mail thru a sneakemail.com address, and whitelist on that. 6) I have since discovered that the yahoo group owners can select if they want reply'd to group mail to go to the group, or sender of the message (presumably this would change Return-Path:). So there are still more variables possible. I.e., if a group owner decides one day to change the replys to go to the senders instead of the group, it will (presumably) break your whitelisting. We now return you to the emotional piefight already in progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 I don't subscribe to any Yahoo! Groups, but it would be helpful to know from a support standpoint whether or not choosing to have replies sent to the group member rather than the group actually affects the contents of the Return-Path. If it does, Yahoo! Groups is even more evil than I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentlarry Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 I don't subscribe to any Yahoo! Groups, but it would be helpful to know from a support standpoint whether or not choosing to have replies sent to the group member rather than the group actually affects the contents of the Return-Path. If it does, Yahoo! Groups is even more evil than I thought.22851[/snapback] Please keep in mind this was a presumtion/theory/wild guess on my part. Which it appears you did keep in mind... I just want to restate it for CYA purposes. Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Please keep in mind this was a presumtion/theory/wild guess on my part. Which it appears you did keep in mind... I just want to restate it for CYA purposes. As it is apparent that the current FAQ entry that points to an ancient YahooGroup blocking incident wasn't sufficient, and trying to find a 'good' posting throughout this last go-round hasn't been successful .. it is easily seen that a good FAQ entry needs to be written up. Your suggested scenario seems like a citical item for inclusion. Do you still have any of the 'experimental' data/headers involved? I'm not exactly sure how much work / effort would be involved in asking if it could be created and documented again ..??? But definitely thanks for bringing it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentlarry Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Do you still have any of the 'experimental' data/headers involved? I'm not exactly sure how much work / effort would be involved in asking if it could be created and documented again ..??? Might still have the old stuff. I may have some fresh stuff already as well, but it'll have to wait until tonight at least. I never did figure out who was messing with the header. Did pacbell/sbc manipulate stuff coming from yahoo groups, or did yahoo do it due to the pacbell target address? The whole thing seemed so silly, I could only think of reasons for neither one to do it. Having experienced the rage-inducing horror of the pacbell/SBC help desk, and yahoo being what it is, I just gave up investigating and took the path of least resistance (sneakemail). As for my conjecture about the other possible failure mode (#6), I probably should have phrased it more like a question, a la "could it be possible that...". For all I know, yahoo may just add a "reply-to" header, that would make more sense. I (recently) became an owner of a yahoo group, but I am loath to experiment with that setting as it is a functioning group. If I get time, there is a yahoo-group-owners group I might throw it out too (i.e.; "what is the return-path if the group mail is optioned to reply to the sender). Aye dunno how techy savey that group is, if it's any less so than me that would be unfortunate. But definitely thanks for bringing it up. No problemo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I never did figure out who was messing with the header. Did pacbell/sbc manipulate stuff coming from yahoo groups... It's most likely that the return-paths of all mail going through the Pacbell/SBC route was being affected...not just your Yahoo!Groups stuff. I (recently) became an owner of a yahoo group, but I am loath to experiment with that setting as it is a functioning group. If I get time, there is a yahoo-group-owners group I might throw it out too (i.e.; "what is the return-path if the group mail is optioned to reply to the sender). That's not very likely. I've been the admin of many lists (but not Yahoo) and no matter if the lists were reply-to-sender or reply-to-all, the return-paths were always related to the server doing the sending. I don't think your "presumtion/theory/wild guess" holds any water, and I'd recommend not wasting any time persuing it...nor does it belong in the FAQ. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentlarry Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 It's most likely that the return-paths of all mail going through the Pacbell/SBC route was being affected...not just your Yahoo!Groups stuff.22881[/snapback] I don't know and; no, not gonna guess. In other news. I've just examined the headers as received in a couple of my pacbell mailboxes. Both Yahoo group mail, and some mail sent from horde currently show NO return-path header whatsoever. Don't know what that's about. Probably not relevant to anything. >That's not very likely. I've been the admin of many lists (but not Yahoo) and no matter if the >lists were reply-to-sender or reply-to-all, the return-paths were always related to the server >doing the sending. I don't think your "presumtion/theory/wild guess" holds any water, Then I feel all the better for having disclaimered the hell out of it. >and I'd recommend not wasting any time persuing it... Thank god... that would have been a pain in the rear. >nor does it belong in the FAQ. Wasn't my idea... (not this time anyway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 >nor does it belong in the FAQ. Wasn't my idea... (not this time anyway) I know...but when Wazoo wrote "Your suggested scenario seems like a citical item for inclusion (in the FAQ)," I thought I should debunk the theory so that this non-issue wouldn't muddy the FAQ. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.