Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GaryStebbins

Mailhost config - quick reporting not blocked

Recommended Posts

I attempted to go through the mailhost configuration, and was unsuccessful. I have several accounts that forward (or are aliases?) to another, which forwards to SpamCop. I don't recall the exact error message (I know - I should have written it down or copied it), but bottom line is, after a number of attempts, I finally clicked the cancel button to undo whatever had been done.

Then, I foolishly went to my Held Mail to do some cleanup and reporting (as suggested in a FAQ somewhere). (open message, verify it's spam, click "report as spam")

Needless to say, all the reports got sent to MY ISP! Are they ever pi**ed! They threatened to cancel all my forwarding to Spamcop AND close my mailbox. (Not sure they need to cancel the forwarding once they close the mailbox... ;) )

There is a thread somewhere that says once you do the host configuration, that no quick-reports will be allowed for a period of time. Apparently in my case, the host configuration got partially done or didn't get undone or something, but the quick reporting didn't get blocked. At this point, I feel it would be unsafe for me to report any spam through SpamCop.

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...This kind of experience is one of the reasons I post repeated warnings in these fora against using Quick Reporting. IMHO, its advantages just aren't worth the risk. Of course, that's easy for me to say, since I've never used it, but ....

...Sorry to hear that you had to learn this the hard way. :( <frown>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Needless to say, I think I've learned my lesson. I've now been struck twice, in two different ways. I wish I could remove the quick reporting buttons from the pages!

I'll repeat what you said: DON'T USE QUICK REPORTING - IT'LL HURT YOU! (And, yes, I intended to shout)

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Glad to have you on board, Gary! :) <g>

...Note, though, that there are plenty of SpamCop users who can handle Quick Reporting and for whom it is a wonderful time-saving device. The shouting should be reserved for those of us who aren't always fully awake when we report spam although we know better than to use Q R blindly and for the relatively novice among us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, one of the Pinned items talks about the clearing of the Quick-Report flag when starting the MailHost configuration process ... However, every basic entry does mention that the results need to be checked prior to sending any reports at all ... and the only way to do this and be sure of all the results is to use the paste-your-spam-in-the-box with "full / Technical details" turned on ... only after that passes muster does one get to actually reporting stuff .. only then possibly try Quick-Reporting mode ...

Your description of "I finally clicked the cancel button to undo whatever had been done" doesn't really indicate anything ... there is a methodology involved in removing the MailHost configuration (as it interfere's with the analysis of other folks' spam reports, I don't use it, however ..) I don't recall anyone describing that process as "just hitting cancel" ... one can only assume that your account is in some kind of 'partially' configured state ... it needs to be fixed correctly ...

For starters, please hit the Foum FAQ (a Pinned link is in almost every Forum section) .. go to the Glossary ... read the text on "Tracking URL" .. please provide one or two for some specific guidance / determination of what's going on ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent a message to the deputies when my ISP was reported. I got back a response explaining what I needed to do to "undo" what was done - I hadn't done all the steps, and the "no quick reporting" flag had been cleared based on what I had done. Then I foolishly reported spam. Yes, I was an idiot. I knew better, just had my brain in neutral for a few minutes. It's been a trying, but educational, afternoon and evening.

When I have some time to work through it, I'll give it another shot. Also, in my ISP's flame to me :( , they did explain the forwarding route for my multiple email accounts/aliases, which may help. They set it up differently than what I understood from previous conversations with them.

The forwarding apparently is:

[at]mydomain.com -> me[at]ISPdom1.com -> me2[at]pop.ISPdom1.com -> me[at]spamcop.net

There's also another, supposedly "real", totally unfiltered email address, me2[at]pop.ISPdom2.com. Not sure where that fits into the picture. I think some of this is legacy from my old dial-up email account, then a switch to DSL. And, there's an alias that points to me[at]ISPdom1.com that still receives a couple emails a year.

I gather that, in setting up the mailhost configuration, I should start with me2[at]pop.ISPdom1.com first, and work backwards to mydomain.com. Guidance here would be welcome. I'll read the pinned notes once again and try again in a few days.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read your last as possibly still standing on shakey ground. You appear to be confusing "e-mail accounts" with "hosts" .... per your example flow, the passing of e-mail from "me[at]ISPdom1.com -> me2[at]pop.ISPdom1.com" describes "two" accounts at the "same" host. If the header lines are constructed so as to show this handoff correctly, then there will be no issue with (read this please) "stopping that forwarding" at either account and running that "host" through your MailHost configuration. (Again, providing a Tracking URL of a parse will aid someone 'here' to point out the problems the parser may find.) It's hard to guage the impact of your sample "pop.ISPdom2.com" as there is no way to guess from this side of the screen exactly what you are trying to 'show' ....

Let me put it this way, if you want specific answers, you're going to have to provide specific data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then, I foolishly went to my Held Mail to do some cleanup and reporting (as suggested in a FAQ somewhere). (open message, verify it's spam, click "report as spam")

27713[/snapback]

Sounds like you're using the webmail interface, and not VER, if the name on the button you clicked was literally "Report as spam".

I think a possible confusing point, which seems to have ensnared you as it has others, is that the "Report as spam" button in the webmail interface does use quick reporting, and it doesn't clearly say so.

The VER interface, which other posters may be talking about, has "Quick - report immediately and trash" as one of the selectable actions.

However, from the webmail interface, it appears that quickreporting is the only easily accessed method for reporting spam. This would seem to be just a little dangerous. If the so-called "no quick reporting" flag indeed disables quickreporting, it should apply to the webmail interface as well as to the VER interface. Perhaps it does not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, from the webmail interface, it appears that quickreporting is the only easily accessed method for reporting spam.  This would seem to be just a little dangerous.  If the so-called "no quick reporting" flag indeed disables quickreporting, it should apply to the webmail interface as well as to the VER interface.  Perhaps it does not?

27754[/snapback]

In my experience, the "Report as spam" button did not do quick reporting until I requested such via the deputies. It submitted via quick, but the message received back was that quick reporting was disabled and the message was actually submitted for full reporting. It also gave directions for requesting quick reporting be enabled via a deputies inquiry into your reporting tendancies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my experience, the "Report as spam" button did not do quick reporting until I requested such via the deputies.  It submitted via quick, but the message received back was that quick reporting was disabled and the message was actually submitted for full reporting.  It also gave directions for requesting quick reporting be enabled via a deputies inquiry into your reporting tendancies.

27755[/snapback]

Hmm. One of my users had exactly the opposite experience. With no request to enable quick reporting, her "Report as spam" button did quick report with no complaint, and as the mailhosts configuration was not complete it caused a bit of concern -- one report only, no no big problem, but nevertheless...

I don't trust quickreporting enough to give it a test, just in case the button does in fact quick report.

Side question: what actions cause the "no quick reporting" flag to be set? Would adding a mailhost? Would deleting all mailhosts? Would deleting all mailhosts and adding one or more new ones? Or is that flag set only on new SC accounts, and then not again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Query sent upstream to ask if Ellen's Pinned quote of Julian's words has changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Side question:  what actions cause the "no quick reporting" flag to be set?  Would adding a mailhost?  Would deleting all mailhosts?   Would deleting all mailhosts and adding one or more new ones?  Or is that flag set only on new SC accounts, and then not again?

27756[/snapback]

First off, there are two types of quick reporting available. The first is what is available to SpamCop/CESMail customers and done through the webmail or Held Mail link on the SpamCop site. My recollection is this has alway been referred to as Very Easy Reporting (VER).

The second, available to all users is what we have referred to as Quick Reporting (QR), must be manually turned on in user accounts and permits them to 'quick report' spam via mail. Since I don't get to hang out here or the newsgroups often, users may have come to use the terms interchangeably, but they are really two different things.

Because of the very problems experienced by some users in this thread, all forms of quick reporting are supposed to shut down in a user's account as soon as they start adding mailhosts to their account. I believe a button to turn "VER" back on is supposed to appear somewhere on the user's SC page. Just as we have to turn QR on in a user's account, we have to manually turn it back on after mailhosts turns it off.

I did send this issue to Julian on Friday night based on Gary's experience. I don't expect to hear back until Monday at the earliest.

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First off, there are two types of quick reporting available.  The first is what is available to SpamCop/CESMail customers and done through the webmail or Held Mail link on the SpamCop site.  My recollection is this has alway been referred to as Very Easy Reporting (VER). 

The second, available to all users is what we have referred to as Quick Reporting (QR), must be manually turned on in user accounts and permits them to 'quick report' spam via mail.  Since I don't get to hang out here or the newsgroups often, users may have come to use the terms interchangeably, but they are really two different things.

OK, this second form (submitting spam to the 'quick.secretcode[at]..' email address) is the one that needs to be turned on by special request (and I hope lots of grovelling). IIRC, email sent to the 'quick.*' submission address results in a confirmation return email warning that quick-reporting is disabled due to misuse, and instead shunts the spam into the normal submit queue for later manual processing.

I'll bet it's the first kind of quick reporting (VER or webmail) that is causing the trouble, and if I understand you correctly this also is supposed to be disabled by the "no quick reporting" flag, which in turn is supposed to be set automatically any time the user's mailhosts configuration is changed. Maybe there is a path through the code that doesn't do that, and is only traversed in some cases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why you're betting on things ... you basically repeated what Richard had offered as an explanation (thanks for time and attention) .. also qualified by the 'waiting for Julian" comment. There has been dialog outside this Forum, but as Julian is "the guy with the code" ... it's hard to guess on the original poster's actual situation since (he's even admitted that) there were a number of failed steps in the process of his MailHost configuration process ...

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  

×