StevenUnderwood Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 It also appears that spam submit as "forward as attachment" is slower or not run at all as compared to "forward as attachment" with the source data in the message body. This does require canceling one of the submitted spams. 26963[/snapback] Please explain this in a little more detail. What applications are you using? I am submitting messages from Spamcop's webmail application and while still slow (about 19 hours for full reporting) they are processing whether I submit using the "Report as spam" link (quick reporting or use the Forward link (for quick reporting). Please fix the problem, you do have a problem and its not just a backlog! 26963[/snapback] Again, please be specific about what "problem" you are seeing. I still see things as simply being slow from a backlog as described by those who can see what is going on in the background. The hardware is busy to stressed during normal operaton. When you have 4-5 hours of outage on a system that averages nearly 4 messages per second, that is a LOT of backlog to work through. Please see the stats pages: http://mailsc.spamcop.net/spamstats.shtml 1 month agerage: 4.0 messages/second 10258691 total messages 24 hour average: 5.8 messages/second 500390 total messages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobster Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 Not quite sure, use outlook express ver. 6, there just seem to be a differents between the way the submital is handled (process speed) between a plan "forward as attachment and "forward as attachment" but adding the text (source in info) to the body of message before forwarding it as a email (submit.xxxxxxxxxxxx[at]spam.spamcop.net). {Please see the stats pages: http://mailsc.spamcop.net/spamstats.shtml} doesn't really tell a full story (yes, I did look). My point was only I see difference in the process method of submital as a possible problem and suggestion. I do agree, when you have 4-5 hours of outage on a system that averages nearly 4 messages per second, that is a LOT of backlog to work through. It could be exactly what your saying. It better not to assume and to speak up and if I'm wrong that OK too, in fact, I hope I am wrong. My ps was simply saying I may be new to the forums (newbie) but not new to spamcop and sorry if this was taken the wrong way. Maybe we should assume people read the Announcement. Its my first stop. I think your doing a great job and I've been there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 (submit.xxxxxxxxxxxx[at]spam.spamcop.net). A couple of hours went by before I got back to the house/keyboard. Therefore, it is possible that your post has already been picked up by a search engine bot, maybe even already harvested. I leave it up to you, especially not knowing if you've a free or paid account, but your submittal address should be seen as now being compromised. I did go ahead and modify the data that did look close enough to be a real submittal address. My ps was simply saying I may be new to the forums (newbie) but not new to spamcop and sorry if this was taken the wrong way. Timing and sensitivities going on with your comment .. a bit of 'discussion' going on over in the newsgroups. I'd pointed a user to the Forum version of the FAQ, noting that there were several pointers that answered the query (data not found in the www.spamcop.net FAQ [which is incorporated into the Forum FAQ]) .. and had someone there do the bitch and complain routine that this web-Forum sucked and that he also was "not a newbie" and did not appreciate that title. Upon suggesting that helping a few users here would bump that 'ranking' up a bit, the previous sentiments were pretty much repeated. It was after responding to that discourse 'over there' that I came upon your 'newbie' comment 'here'<g> Maybe we should assume people read the Announcement. Its my first stop. I would suggest that this effort makes you one of the special people <g> I think your doing a great job and I've been there. Speaking for all the folks trying to provide help here (even the ones that won't read this), these words and thoughts are much appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 My turn around time is now down less than an hour. We are getting there folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 My turn around time is now down less than an hour. We are getting there folks.27034[/snapback] ...My latest just came back within about 3 minutes! <big g> Now if only the Online processing would return to normal speed.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 ...It's getting bad again. The last e-mail returned to me was sent at 4:16 PM EDT; I sent it in at 1:39 PM; the latest e-mail I sent in (am still awaiting a reply at 5:21 PM) was at 4:13 PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lking Posted April 25, 2005 Author Share Posted April 25, 2005 Is true. Untill the backlog / delay is gone I have been using the web page to cut and past the spam report. Slow, takes lots of time - but gets the spam reported in a reasonable time. Some of these spewers are so flighty if it takes to long to report they get a pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 ...Yesterday was really good <g> but today I'm seeing a one hour delay between the time I submit spam via e-mail and SpamCop sends back its reply. The web page also seems slower than it was yesterday <frown> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobster Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 [Extraneous quoting excised by Jeff G.] Everything seems to be working find and thanks for all the Help!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 ...Much better, now: e-mail submission sent 3:27 pm EDT was returned from SpamCop at 3:28 pm and arrived at 3:30 pm; web page was quite fast. <g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooster Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 <snip> ".. a bit of 'discussion' going on over in the newsgroups. I'd pointed a user to the Forum version of the FAQ," ... <snip> "...and had someone there do the bitch and complain routine that this web-Forum sucked" <snip> "... Upon suggesting that helping a few users here would bump that 'ranking' up a bit, the previous sentiments were pretty much repeated. <snip> Wazoo; When I came across your reference to the "newsgroups" the other day, I decided to mosey on over and see what it had to offer. I hadn't visited the site previously. The SC Newsgroup Site I happened on is definitly not SC's best suit. Anyone evaluating SC generally based on what is made to appear of that group specifically, would not be inclined to advertise favorably on SC's behalf; unless there was a lot of money involved. One poster in particular arrived in a fume because she had been told, i.e. misinformed, that SC was responsible for causing emails *to* her inbox to be intermittently "Hard Bounced" back to a number of different senders. The first few responses she got mocked her outright, and on a more or less personal level, too; then the wiseacres digressed to condemnation that she was undoubetdly a spammer .... as if they had any way of knowing, which they didn't, ..... all interlarded with flawed assumptions, insulting and equally flawed accusations. They seemed to arrogate a lot of personal credit for her distress; evidence being a poor and feeble foil when the prospect of a lynching has the mindless in thrall. Whether or not the girl is engaged in spamming could not be deduced from nor attributed to, any of the information available to the ng. If she does spam, email routing by a path different from the one she presented would almost certainly have to be at involved. But once the 'swarm' had got sniff of blood, (some of the fish bat clubbing probably opened wounds), they were on her like so many bot flies on a road kill; or like a glee club of crazed "Freddies" at a Friday nite ghoul fest. Pa-the-tic! I wouldn't be surprised if the girl lies awake nites conceiving ways and means to "badmouth' Spamcop; which she wasn't sanguine about it in the first place. By the time seasoned and reasoned heads arrived on the scene with apt suggestions, she had gone from 'pissed' to 'postal'. She didn't know if she should putt, punt or pucker. I don't think she was prepared to begin a literature review of FAQs on the circulatory system while she was bleeding in a shark pool. To say I was disappointed by what I saw would be an understatement. In fact, I was embarrassed ... much along the lines of the flush of discomfiture a mother might feel if she swung in and caught her son reading an 'art' magazine; quite possibly endangering his eyesight down the line; theoretically. If *that* ng had been my first exposure to Spamcop, it is less than likely I would ever have 'seen' my way to explore any SC service or resource. I opine myself to still be in the, "I'm not worthy", category of members, and therefore lucky to be here at all. Reasoning that adolecents are going to do what they are going to do, anyway, and they have any number of suggestions as to where, (according to all the best proctologists), the world can file it's offers of help, (which, by itself, is a pretty good indicator of adolecence, eh? ), maybe it would be better to leave them flop about in steerage before "bumping" them all the way up to the cabin with the fluted stemware. Now, theology, (as the saying goes), "ain't my best hold"; not by a longshot. But, I do remember a snip from an oldish text that goes; "Counsel a wise man and your earn a friend for life; counsel a fool and you only bring contumely down upon your own head." You won't get very far today lobbing words like, "contumely", into casual conversation, but the point is still there. There is another saw that goes; "Put a glove on your hand and stick it into a bucket of mud; the glove gets muddy, the mud doesn't get glovey". I'm not sure those are the exact words; it might have been, "mit", instead of glove, and some other substance ... no matter. For my part, I am sooo not going back to that forum. After all, how many pseudonyms can there be for Yuriah Heap ? rooster boundary bay, b c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 You picked an interesting time (and thread) to hit there. It's been quite a while since someone arrived there in such a state. A bit calmer, a bit more detail, no mention of a "law suit" .. things would have gone quite a bit differently <g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooster Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Hi Wazoo; Yeah, I know. If she had opted for the, "Damsel in Distress" approach instead of sweeping in on horseback à la Xena, "Warrior Princess", half a dozen Gallahad wann'a be's would have plighted their troth to free her from the clutches of the big bad fiery dragon what got her email hole up in his cave. There were 3 signifigant things I noted in her OP: 1. She had a pre-existing, negative opinion of Spamcop's effect on the internet. 2. Spamcop's name had been given to her in connection with having email from a certain ng (Yahoo, I think) interdicted ("Hard Bounced") 3. The transmittals in question were coming TO her, not sent BY her. ..... and perhaps we could add a 4th: the girl was torqued tighter than the lug nuts on a Jimmy at time of posting Working back up the list, a good first response might have adopted a neutral(izing) tone and said something like: "... just read your post. I need to think it over for a few minutes and will get back ASAP. with a few questions". That way, she would at least feel she is being heard, with consideration, and could take a few minutes to dial her flamethrower down to Standby. In the follow-up, instead of patronizing her , or making her out to be up to some villainry or other, tease out what her understandings might be of the issues once put in some logical format. Maybe something along the line of: "If the messages are being blocked downstream of your inbox, can you log for me what you understand to be the exact route one of these messages would take? If you received information that a SC Blocklist is involved, can you copy me the info they gave you with identification of who is telling you this? They appear at this point to have critical information which we don't; either that, or they are intentionally or unintentionally misleading you." ..... ..... and like that. In my experience, fighting fire with fire is bad PR. And, once the matter is resolved, that might be the time to close with a molifying reference to having saved a bundle in legal (sueage??) fees .... and invite her to check out the SC FAQ just in case she runs into trouble again. Chances are, to some extent, her negative pre-judgements of SC derive from disconsolate spammers doing their own PR better than we are. Why feed into that by acting like jerks with the same contempt for people that spammers personify? If it does turn out that the root cause is her involvement in spamming; then let the snideries and vituperations flow like lava; otherwise, why not play nice? You practice the concilliatory approach all the time, as do most of the members in the Discussions Forum. Its tried and true and it suits. The snapshot I took of the SC NG... well, that is just plain crude & rude, dude. rod DISCLAIMER Today's sermonette by rooster was brought to you under the auspices of, "The Boundary Bay Morning Steamer". Opinions and ideas presented here do not necessarily reflect those of SC, it's members or affiliates; much less, his wife, who thinks he's an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 ...Bad again, today. I've been waiting for a reply to my first e-mail spam submission for about an hour, now .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lking Posted April 29, 2005 Author Share Posted April 29, 2005 I also noticed that the volume has doubled between 7 and 10 this morning. http://www.spamcop.net/spamgraph.shtml?spamstats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Mechelynck Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 My latest SC Autoresponder message was 17 hours ago (yes, seventeen hours!), though I have been submitting "as attachment" several times since six hours ago. I'm still seeing the paste-in form whenever I refresh my browser; there is no "Report Now" link on it. Anything wrong with the SC incoming-mail servers? I don't see anything out of the ordinary in the stats graphs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 My latest SC Autoresponder message was 17 hours ago (yes, seventeen hours!), though I have been submitting "as attachment" several times since six hours ago. I'm still seeing the paste-in form whenever I refresh my browser; there is no "Report Now" link on it. Anything wrong with the SC incoming-mail servers? <snip> 27479[/snapback] ...This has happened to me several times in the past and the problem turned out to be with the outgoing servers of my e-mail provider (my employer). ...My SpamCop submissions via e-mail seem to be being handled very quickly this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Mechelynck Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 ...This has happened to me several times in the past and the problem turned out to be with the outgoing servers of my e-mail provider (my employer). ...My SpamCop submissions via e-mail seem to be being handled very quickly this morning. 27482[/snapback] There is an "Announcement" thread about this problem, see http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...view=getnewpost One of the posts in that thread (by SpamCopAdmin) says that about 30 hours' worth of spam has been lost. At the moment I am submitting spam by web without problems. My current time is 17:33 +0200. Tomorrow I will try submit-by-mail again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 There is an "Announcement" thread about this problem, see http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...view=getnewpost 27483[/snapback] That announcement is more than a week old and as others here have mentioned, very quick turn around this morning. Subject: SpamCop has accepted 1 email for processing Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 10:29:48 GMT (6:29 EDT) SpamCop is now ready to process your spam. The email which triggered this auto-response had the following headers: ... Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 06:28:43 -0400 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobster Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 Hi, Haven't seen a problem today, my turn around time is about 30 sec. It may be your ISP. BOBSTER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 My latest SC Autoresponder message was 17 hours ago27479[/snapback] A.J., the problem you are reporting is very reminiscent of the problems reported by the Original Posters of [Resolved] Help reporting spam as an attachment via OE 6.0 and/or Why did this happen?. Please review them. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Mechelynck Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 A.J., the problem you are reporting is very reminiscent of the problems reported by the Original Posters of [Resolved] Help reporting spam as an attachment via OE 6.0 and/or Why did this happen?. Please review them. Thanks! 27492[/snapback] Unlike the OPs of those threads, I am not getting any bounces. I keep trying to submit spam now and then using "Forward as attachment" in Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.4. Today I have got one SC Autoresponder email, the rest apparently fell into some bit bucket somewhere. Next thing I'll try is see whether there is a difference if I use one or the other of the SMTP servers (for my two email accounts). Until Sunday evening (my time zone, +0200) evrything went OK and I haven't changed my routine. I will check the "settings" pages at my ISP to see if there is anything untoward. See you later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 Today I have got one SC Autoresponder email27555[/snapback] Can you please forward that one to the Deputies via their address deputies <at> spamcop.net? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Mechelynck Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 Resent an old batch of spam through the other SMTP server with Bcc to me ... no Autoresponder msg ... Bcc didn't come back Sent new spam to SC 3 ways: - as .eml attachments ... no autoresponder msg - as .txt attachments ... no autoresponder msg - by copy-paste into the body of an email ... no autoresponder msg Trying to convince my ISP? Wouldn't work; "they know better". They "know" that only MS-Windows, only IE6 and only OE6 are good for me. (Anything else is "unsupported" by their services.) They "know" that their built-in "security pack" is good for me and won't let me see its settings (even in IE6, the web page asks for my username and password, then answers that in order to use that function I need a Belgacom connection -- which I have and was using at the time). It looks like I can report only by pasting into the SC web form from now on, unless SC will accept zipped spam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Mechelynck Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 Can you please forward that one to the Deputies via their address deputies <at> spamcop.net? Thanks! 27558[/snapback] Deputies (at) spamcop.net or deputies (at) admin.spamcop.net ? (I'll send to both.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.