Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Much confusion...

SpamCop returns

Headers not found.

It appears you did not provide all email headers.  Please consult this FAQ

for more information on getting full headers from your software, then try

again.

...except there *are* headers.

Here they are...

Received: from sappnt01.ginger.com ([192.168.83.44]) by sexcnt03.ginger.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13)

id DFDR2J33; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:58:50 -0000

Received: from mail25.messagelabs.com (unverified [193.109.254.115]) by sappnt01.ginger.com

(Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.14) with SMTP id <T6ebb150e4bc0a8532c44c[at]sappnt01.ginger.com> for <#############>;

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:58:41 +0000

Received: (qmail 19131 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2005 10:58:39 -0000

Received: from sc-app3.spamcop.net (HELO spamcop.net) (64.74.133.244)

  by server-22.tower-25.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 26 Jan 2005 10:58:39 -0000

Received: from [68.142.85.250] by spamcop.net

with HTTP; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:58:37 GMT

Message-ID: <wh41f777ddg6fc9[at]msgid.spamcop.net>

From: SpamCop robot <mhconf.###############[at]cmds.spamcop.net>

To: ############

Subject: SpamCop account configuration email

Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:58:37 -0000

Wassup?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, why are you trying to "report" this specific e-mail?

Second, what you provided has been much mangled by the process of your posting it 'here' ... there are some details missing that are normally found in an e-mail header .. one specific for example is the lack of a Content-Type: line ...

Anyway, copied what you provided, "fixed" it, ran that result through the parser and came up with this result; http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z725299535zab...4f4002e99c7cb5z

I've got no idea how to tell you what went wrong with the delivery of this e-mail ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wazoo, Since this is in the mailhost forum (unless you moved it here) and the "reported" message came From: SpamCop robot <mhconf.###############[at]cmds.spamcop.net>, I assume he is trying to return the probe message.

How (hardware, software, ISP) he is trying to return the probe message has not been defined, but "Forward as attachment" is usually the best way, if possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't move it. Not having done the MailHost configuration myself, working a bit in the dark, but .. I took the "error" message as suggesting that the parser got hold of the e-mail in question. I'm of the belief the the "return of the probe" is to an address other than one's "reporting" address. ???? (though still standing on that there is something way wrong with the content seen in the provided sample)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm of the belief the the "return of the probe" is to an address other than one's "reporting" address.  ???? 

23619[/snapback]

The return of the probe goes to mhconf.<same 16 digit code>[at]...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's as I recall ... so looking once again at the posted 'sample' of headers, maybe it's possible that all header data wasn't copied, thus partially invalidating my first response .. but the 'apparent' problem with the 'handling' is still valis . specifically, bad line-wrapa ... so, yes, back to how the e-mail is actually being handle, perhaps by what ... so not even sure if the alternate web-paste option would work at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Years of training (or the lack thereof) .. being in the position of "the guy in charge .. system is broke ... I want it fixed now" wya too many times. Many a problem has been solved by having the operator explain how it was supposed to work, and in that process, new knowldge is gained by both, and the problem gets resolved. In the data / problem you've presented, I don't see a Mail-Host issue as much as I see a data-handling issue. So though I don't use the Mail-Host Configuration (it cripples my ability to parse 'your' spam for instance), I have read every query / response here, my memory hasn't totally failed me yet, and application of what I do know to what I don't know has never steered me wrong yet.

I've got no problem telling you that what you have presented is not a full and complete header, the data that does exist has been "bent" .. and until that gets resolved, you will have numerous problems submitting your spam, Mail-Host or no Mail-Host Configuration .... If that observation is of no value to you, OK .... I can only offer help, no way to force you to try to use it ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things might have changed since then, but here is my probe from March 2004. You will notice that the X-SpamCop-Conf: and X-SpamCop-Test1:headers are missing from your message.

I have replaced my spamcop code with xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and my email address with x and all [at] signs with <at>

From ???&lt;at&gt;??? Thu Mar 18 19:30:26 2004
X-Persona: &lt;SpamCop POP&gt;
Return-Path: &lt;service&lt;at&gt;admin.spamcop.net&gt;
Delivered-To: spamcop-net-underwood&lt;at&gt;spamcop.net
Received: (qmail 14316 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2004 00:07:13 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailgate.cesmail.net) (192.168.1.101)
  by blade1.cesmail.net with SMTP; 19 Mar 2004 00:07:13 -0000
Received: (qmail 11255 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2004 00:07:12 -0000
Received: from mtai04.charter.net (209.225.8.184)
  by mailgate.cesmail.net with SMTP; 19 Mar 2004 00:07:12 -0000
Received: from mxsf27.cluster1.charter.net ([10.20.201.227])
          by mtai04.charter.net
          (InterMail vM.6.00.05.02 201-2115-109-103-20031105) with ESMTP
          id &lt;20040319000711.DDIL978.mtai04.charter.net&lt;at&gt;mxsf27.cluster1.charter.net&gt;
          for &lt;x&gt;; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 19:07:11 -0500
Received: from spamcop.net (victor2.ironport.com [206.14.107.103])
	by mxsf27.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.10/8.12.8) with SMTP id i2J05GSu063607
	for &lt;x&gt;; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 19:05:16 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from service&lt;at&gt;admin.spamcop.net)
X-SpamCop-Conf: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-SpamCop-Test1: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Received: from [66.189.76.79] by spamcop.net
	with HTTP; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:05:16 GMT
From: SpamCop robot &lt;mhconf.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&lt;at&gt;cmds.spamcop.net&gt;
To: x
Subject: SpamCop account configuration email
Precedence: list
Message-ID: &lt;wh405a393cga54b&lt;at&gt;msgid.spamcop.net&gt;
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:05:16 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; Q312461)
	via http://www.spamcop.net/ v1.3.4
X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on blade1
X-spam-Level: ****
X-spam-Status: hits=4.1 tests=FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA,FROM_HAS_MIXED_NUMS,
	MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR version=2.63
X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.101 209.225.8.184 10.20.201.227 6.0.5.2 206.14.107.103 66.189.76.79 
X-SpamCop-Disposition: Blocked list.dsbl.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to add to the "problem" .. although "we" all know that Steven's account is working just fine, if he had posted the same data as a query as to why there were problems, I'd be pointing to some of the same data. Again the issue is the tools in use on Steve's system, the way data was snagged, how it was pasted into this aplication, how this application handled it, and then finally how it's displayed on this screen ...

For example, in Steven's example, these lines look great;

Received: from unknown (HELO mailgate.cesmail.net) (192.168.1.101) 
    by blade1.cesmail.net with SMTP; 19 Mar 2004 00:07:13 -0000

These lines look broken;

Received: from spamcop.net (victor2.ironport.com [206.14.107.103])
by mxsf27.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.10/8.12.8) with SMTP id i2J05GSu063607
for &lt;x&gt;; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 19:05:16 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from service&lt;at&gt;admin.spamcop.net)

Received: from [66.189.76.79] by spamcop.net
with HTTP; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:05:16 GMT

The good/bad call is based on known construction of a valid e-mail header .. what went wrong between what Steven had and submitted that worked and what was presented here is part of that nebulous thing that makes any remote troubleshooting support difficult.

However, that there is the possibility of even more missing data per Steven's post just seems to reinforce what I started with ..???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Much confusion...

SpamCop returns ...except there *are* headers.

Here they are...

Wassup?

23610[/snapback]

The X-SpamCop-Conf line is missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The X-SpamCop-Conf line is missing.

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?

Edited by James Cridland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I stated originally, the headers as provided are "broken" ... that there is also missing data that compounds the specific MailHost registration process is an additional issue. You may actually suggesting that the folks that set up the Exchange server have it configyre to remove (or simply not pass on) certain header data .. which would be an issue you need to take up with them. Point them to this discussion to demonstrate the issue..???

The tools Julian has develpped start with the premise of an RFC compliant header / e-mail being the submitted package. Some work-arounds have been offered for specific issues, but "totally broken" and the possible suggested "critical data removed" just isn't going to fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I stated originally, the headers as provided are "broken" ... that there is also missing data that compounds the specific MailHost registration process is an additional issue.

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.

You may actually suggesting that the folks that set up the Exchange server have it configyre to remove (or simply not pass on) certain header data .. which would be an issue you need to take up with them.  Point them to this discussion to demonstrate the issue..???

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.

The tools Julian has develpped start with the premise of an RFC compliant header / e-mail being the submitted package.  Some work-arounds have been offered for specific issues, but "totally broken" and the possible suggested "critical data removed" just isn't going to fly.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've no problem .. just trying hard to understand the issue you seem to be having ... I pointed at incomplete headers/missing data, Steven pointed at incomplete headers/missing data, Ellen pointed at incomplete headers/missing data ... but you're taking me to task, I don't recall a response to Steven, and you give great kudo to Ellen ... pretty confusing from this side of the screen ... the only thing majorly different is that I'm pointing out future issues if the "breakage" isn't resolved .. MailHost or no MailHost ...

Your "my quoting someone" is me highlighting what I've been saying all along, with the additional emphasis on data you provided about lines being removed from those headers before you submitted them ...

Your request for a different error message could only be possible if the headers provided were not broken ... "header data" pasted in is just a bunch of text if it's not formatted properly, which is basically why you received "header not found" ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

There are many problems with the way Exchange handles email headers (completely dropping some in certain configurations). See the FAQ for more information: http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/118.html

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?

23731[/snapback]

To be exact, spamcop never said "we can't see any headers". even in your original posting, the error states:

Headers not found.

It appears you did not provide all email headers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That link is for Microsoft products in general and contains a link for specific MS products, including Exchange, but I believe Exchange (in certain configurations) exhibits the same characteristics of not storing all headers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That link is for Microsoft products in general and contains a link for specific MS products, including Exchange

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

23770[/snapback]

With all due respect, did you really read through the 17 pages of posts (413 seperate posts) that mention Exchange in these forums (use the search function selecting "All forums").

Also, while it is widely used, I would not call it "highly popular". And reporting spam from most companies I am aware of is not a supported function (except for the IT staff). Companies generally do not want their people wasting their time on things that do not generate money for the company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps just to carry your theme a bit further .. I also do not use / maintain an Exchange server of any vintage, but I can rell you that I have certainly tried to work a number of folks through some issue 'here' ... doing research, finding/providing links, and in fact added items to the FAQ "here" that in fact fo deal with Exchange servers, to include current versions .... I'm not sure what your search parameters were or how for you dug, but ......

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  

×