Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vanguard

Does unmunging e-mail address unmunge it to all?

Recommended Posts

When submitting a spam report, some of the contacts may be listed as not accepting munged e-mail addresses for the spam reporter. Okay, but does that mean just one copy of the e-mail goes out with my unmunged e-mail address so all recipients of the spam report can see it? Or does a separate copy go out munged to some contacts and another separate copy go out with my unmunged e-mail address to only those contacts that won't accept munged e-mail addresses?

If I chose to send my unmunged e-mail address in a spam report to, say, a known ISP so they get it, that does NOT mean that I want every other recipient to get my unmunged e-mail address. It is possible that one of the contacts is the spammer themself and I really don't want to energize more spam at my mailbox by revealing my unmunged e-mail address to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "easy" answer .... isn't there a "Preview" button accessible on your report screen? In general, if you set your Preferences to mung details, then details should remain munged for those other reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have munging (obfuscation) enabled in preferences. I must've missed there was a Preview button. But when using it, which version of the e-mail will it show me?

When I send the spam report, it may go to several recipients. Some are recorded as refusing munged reports. If you elect to send to them anyway, your information is no longer munged. But is it just for the copy sent to that particular recipient or do all recipients get the same copy with the unmunged data? The Preview may only show me one view of the spam report. If there is only one view of it to see then my unmunged data is going to all recipients.

I'll have to wait until the next spam gets reported to see what is presented when looking at the Preview display (and also have to wait until I happen to send to a recipient that refuses munged reports to see if the Preview shows 2 separate versions of my spam report).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Preview Reports screen shows all the reports that will be sent, one after the other. I have my preferences set to mung, and the reports I just previewed do mung most of the appearances of my recipient address. Other clearly identifiable identifiers do not get munged -- my full name, my phone number, city name, whatever else the particular spam might have added. Could be to facilitate listwashing, could be to make the spam seem more "legitimate".

If those un-munged identifiers are bothersome, see Mike Easter's discussions of "uber-munging" in the SpamCop newsgroups. I couldn't find any similar references here in the forum. Basically, it comes down to being impossible to completely remove any trace of which spam is being reported (and therefore which email address it was sent to). Even the number of spaces between words can be used to encode your identity for the spammer. Those garbage apparently-random letters might be an attempt to fool Bayesian filters, or they might encode an identifier. There's really no way for you to know for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The subject of munging data exists all over the place, but to point to a single spot, try the FAQ ... look for "What is "mole" reporting?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[this comment probably should move over to the FAQ Under Construction forum]

The subject of munging data exists all over the place, but to point to a single spot, try the FAQ ... look for "What is "mole" reporting?"

27769[/snapback]

True enough, but the subject of uber-munging is not found by the Forum search function (until my original post in this topic/thread). Even the word "uber" only appeared twice, and not in the context of munging.

In fact, if I click on the "Forum FAQ" link at the top of the page, and use my browser to search for the word "mung", it shows up only once in the whole FAQ page, in what turns out to be an answer to an ISP's question, not a typical SC user's question.

A search for the word "mung" using the Forum search feature returns way too many results to be useful.

The FAQ topic you suggested, about "mole" reporting, does not itself contain the word "mung". It is necessary to know to search the FAQ for one word or another, and if you don't know the magic word, you can't readily find the answer. That FAQ really seems to be intended to answer the question posed by someone who saw that term and doesn't know what it means. What I hear a need for many times is kind of the inverse, where the questioner knows some words which describe a concept, but don't know the correct term for it.

I know just how hard this can be, since for my company web site search engine I have to try to come up with all the possible words someone might use to describe something they are looking for, when they don't know the correct "magic" word to use. Kind of like going into a hardware store to find a part when you don't know its proper name (and can't bring in a sample). Drives hardware store people crazy trying to figure out exactly which "doohickey" is the right one!

It seems like there have been numerous posts here by someone asking a question, the answer given is "see the FAQ", but even a simple text search of the FAQ using words used in the question comes up empty.

In this specific case, please consider these suggestions for the FAQ:

- change the title of 'what is "mole" reporting' to something like 'what is "mole" reporting (see also "hiding your identity when reporting spam")

- I gather that the original FAQ entries, of which the "mole" reporting is an example, are not easily edited because the individuals who have authorization are overloaded with other more important work. Otherwise, it would be good to add some "see also xx" cross-links. A good one here would be for the "mole reporting" FAQ to have a link to a new FAQ describing the spam Munging preferences option (which does not appear to be described in any FAQ, old or new, that I can find today).

- add a new entry "hiding your identity when reporting spam" which describes the built-in munging options in the reporting User Preferences (namely "Obscure identifying information", "Leave spam copies intact", and "Become a "mole" - Don't even send reports (mostly pointless)". Good place to have cross-links to the above-mentioned 'what is "mole" reporting' FAQ, and to the proposed new "what is uber-munging?" entry

- add a new entry "what is uber-munging" which might be derived from one of Mike Easter's descriptions. Unfortunately, I did not save any of them, and they seem to have expired off the NNTP server. Perhaps Mike can cons one up from his archive?

Anyway, this is all meant as constructive suggestions to help people who come in here not knowing what they are looking for. For my company search engine, I try to ask as many "non-experts" as possible for the words they would use to describe something I'm holding in front of them; then I try to embed those words into my description. Sometimes it goes into an HTML comment, so it is searchable but doesn't clutter up the screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[this comment probably should move over to the FAQ Under Construction forum]

Agreed ... noting that as described, that section is available for all to post in (noting the request to limit those posts to just something like this)

True enough, but the subject of uber-munging is not found by the Forum search function (until my original post in this topic/thread).  Even the word "uber" only appeared twice, and not in the context of munging.

Going back to some of Miss Betsy's words. part of the discussion (war) over the creation of this Forum as a support vehicle, and reading the majority of the requests 'here' ... "uber-munging" isn't the typical modus operandi of web-forum users (those that do apply this are also wise enough not to admit it in public)

In fact, if I click on the "Forum FAQ" link at the top of the page,

Thanks for noticing .... still playing with that <g>

The FAQ topic you suggested, about "mole" reporting, does not itself contain the word "mung".  <snip> That FAQ really seems to be intended to answer the question posed by someone who saw that term and doesn't know what it means.

That was Julian's explanation/definition of the 'new' capability.

What I hear a need for many times is kind of the inverse, where the questioner knows some words which describe a concept, but don't know the correct term for it.

Man, I've got a stack of dictionaries here with that same problem ... heck I can't even look a word to see how it's spelled unless I already know how it's spelled <g>

It seems like there have been numerous posts here by someone asking a question, the answer given is "see the FAQ", but even a simple text search of the FAQ using words used in the question comes up empty.

I'm not sure I understand this complaint completely ... neither version of the FAQ is a stand-alone document ... maybe I missed a reference to the Google links that "we" got added to the www.spamcop.net Help page ????

In this specific case, please consider these suggestions for the FAQ:

  - change the title of 'what is "mole" reporting' to something like 'what is "mole" reporting (see also "hiding your identity when reporting spam")

  - I gather that the original FAQ entries, of which the "mole" reporting is an example, are not easily edited because the individuals who have authorization are overloaded with other more important work.

Easily added, but I believe I've addressed this a number of times elsewhere ... RW's last indicated that he's only doing typo fixes and such these days ... with IronPort in the mix, actual additions/modifications/etc. require scrutiny of many more folks, to include the legal side of the house. (That said, he's not ignored any request I've sent his way.) Yes, the server that this 'original' FAQ resides on is only accessible by a few folks ...

Otherwise, it would be good to add some "see also xx" cross-links.

<snip some good suggestions>

Anyway, this is all meant as constructive suggestions to help people who come in here not knowing what they are looking for.  For my company search engine, I try to ask as many "non-experts" as possible for the words they would use to describe something I'm holding in front of them; then I try to embed those words into my description.  Sometimes it goes into an HTML comment, so it is searchable but doesn't clutter up the screen.

I can only point to the traffic in the "FAQ under contruction" and ask ....

OK, I'll point to the "How to use ..." Forum section also ....

Oh yeah, there's the Glossary that I should get back to ....

Then there's the link at ....

I'm sure you get the picture <g>

(probably will split this out and move it "over there" in a bit <g>)

Input is appreciated .. just so there's no misunderstanding ...

I'm sure if you've followed Mike E.'s postings, he's no fan of this Forum thing ... discussion on spamcop.mail today finds that he's not even happy at the "newsgroup" link addition 'here' ... was thinking that this just might address his latest remarks about (me for the most part) pointing folks with "SpamCop e-mail account" issues to this Forum ...

silly me <g>

there are periodic 'forays' into the secret nntp groups to drag participants to the webforum kicking and screaming whether they want to go or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally got a spam that when reported has SpamCop say that one of the recipients won't accept munged reports. The recipient is not selected by default and you get a popup warning when you select that recipient. So I selected the receipient (along with others that were already selected) and used the Preview button. The version of the e-mail that will get sent unmunged was NOT shown. I got the following:

##############################################

(Recipient:default_selected_recipient)

Received: from [my_IP_address] by spamcop.net

with HTTP; Wed, 11 May 2005 17:11:51 GMT

From: "myname" <preview[at]reports.spamcop.net>

To: default_selected_recipient

Subject: spamcop_tag orig_subject_text

more_headers

message_body

##############################################

For each recipient that SpamCop selected by default (i.e., they were already selected when I got to the submit web page), there was the above item listed showing what the recipient would receive. However, none of the other recipients that I selected were included, so those that I had to manually select who refuse munged reports were not shown in the preview. So I really don't know what they get.

The Preview will not show each recipient selected by the user. It only shows the default selections already made by SpamCop. Presumably the same report gets sent to the munge-refusing recipient but with my e-mail address in the From header. However, that would be the e-mail address under which I logged into SpamCop, and might not be the e-mail address to which the spam was actually delivered. I have 2 SpamCop accounts but the login with cookies only remembers the last login. So typically I end up reporting spams received in Outlook (for one set of 3 accounts) and spams received in Outlook Express (for 2 accounts solely for newsgroups and forums) through the same SpamCop account. What e-mail address actually gets put in the From header for the unmunged report? Since the e-mail address to which the spam was sent and received might not even include my e-mail address, I have to assume that my SpamCop account's e-mail address gets used. That means I could be sending an unmunged report which claims it was for an e-mail address but which was not the one where the spam was actually received. Yeah, it's a small point and probably doesn't alter the fact that spam is getting reported regardless of which e-mail address it hit, but if it is to be unmunged then I don't want to be lying about to which account the spam got received.

I would have to logout and log back in under the appropriate SpamCop account to get the correct e-mail address listed. I change the e-mail address for returning SpamCop reports but I don't know if that is also the same e-mail address used in unmunged reports sent out from SpamCop (since I can't see what the unmunged report will look like using Preview). I could abandon my current SpamCop account and create a new one where I use an alias, like through Sneakemail and then kill that alias (after changing the e-mail in the Preference setting) to eliminate divulging my true e-mail address. I might leave the alias alive simply to see if it ever starts getting spammed as a result of sending unmunged spam reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may be some mis-understanding still yet going on ....

The line "Received: from [my_IP_address] by spamcop.net" has been in place for a number of years. An additional tracking bit for any research requred during a dispute / accusaton of bad reporting .. secondary is evidence that SpamCop is not "spamming someone with 1000 copies of the same e-mail" as this line would be different in (assumedly) almost every complaint/report .... This doesn't technically identify "you" beyond being a "user of some IPS" (though in some cases, having a static IP with an identifiable/distinctive domain associated with that IP could allow someone to connect some dots, but very few folks post anything from an IP that handles 'everything' in-house on the same IP) {your posting here shows you as customer of a high-speed cable service provider, such that your [my IP address] would only indicate that you are one of many thousands of customers from a rather large geographic area}

The line 'From: "myname"' cannot be discussed without seing the entire spam (hint, Tracking URL of the specific item in question)

What I believe I'm noting is that you may not have scrolled that entire displayed page, possibly stopping at what appeared to be the 'end' of the first complaint/report ...???? For example, a 'different' report goes out each 'class/type' of recipient based on what's being complained about, the spew source gets one construct, the spamvertised-site gets some different wording, and in this case, the "unmunged" reports would be yet an additional copy ... in my experience, that "Preview" can be a rather long page to scroll, seeing as each item contained the specific header block for each type of report and the 'entire' spam itself (those that hadn't been truncated by the 50k limit) .....

I am at a loss about the "which e-mail address gets placed in the headers" .... the words "will not be munged" pretty much states that the e-mail address found within the spam is what "won't be munged" ...??? There are no "extra" insertions of SpamCop account data.

Unfortunately, a few assumptions had to be made here, as the Tracking URL of the specific item isn't available such that "we" can all actually talk about the same specific data ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"However, none of the other recipients that I selected were included, so those that I had to manually select who refuse munged reports were not shown in the preview. So I really don't know what they get.

Still don't know the answer, but stumbled onto a way to find out what is sent to each when you have an un-munge one.

when logged in to spamcop.net, <preferences>, <report handling options> <personal copies of outgoing reports> will get you a Bcc copy of every report sent.

To avoid a real flood of reports, wait untill you submit an email that gets the "refuses munge ...", canx the report, change the option, and resubmit, get copies and change option back. Let us know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stumbled onto a way to find out what is sent to each when you have an un-munge one.

when logged in to spamcop.net, <preferences>, <report handling options> <personal copies of outgoing reports>  will get you a Bcc copy of every report sent.

To avoid a real flood of reports, wait untill you submit an email that gets the "refuses munge ...",  canx the report, change the option, and resubmit, get copies and change option back.  Let us know.

27910[/snapback]

Sorry, that doesn't work any more. Please see my most recent Post on the subject of "Personal copies of outgoing reports".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not concernced about my IP address being in the Received header. That only identifies me as a customer of my ISP, not my e-mail address. If they want to go to the effort of filing charges, submitting a request and getting a court order, and making my ISP divulge who I am then let them do that. I'm not trying to hide in order to eliminate responsibility for my actions. I don't want them to get my true e-mail address in case the spam report hits the spammer; i.e., I'm not interested in ever qualifying my e-mail address to the spammer to get even more spam from them or to whomever they sell their "active" list of e-mail addresses. As I understand it, it they want to contact me, even for a munged report, they can still do that.

The From line in the munged reports is no biggie, either. That is my moniker as defined under Preferences and I can change that so it doesn't reflect my name, or just uses my firstname (and maybe a lastname initial).

The list of e-mails shown in the Preview window is, as you say, quite long. I scrolled all the way to the bottom. Each e-mail is separated by a double row of number characters ("#") so it is easy to find the start of each message. I only showed one instance of the e-mail (a munged one) because that was the format for each message. They all looked the same except for the difference of who was the recipient. That's why I showed a template of each e-mail. I didn't see the point of repeatedly showing the same munged report going to 5 recipients. However, although I selected the recipient which will not accept munged reports, I couldn't find an e-mail version that would be going to them. In fact, I don't recall seeing a version of the e-mail shown for any *extra* recipients that I selected. The Preview list showed only the list of recipients that SpamCop had already pre-selected for me.

When I view my past reports, it only shows me a copy of each e-mail that got sent to each recipient. In this case, and because I couldn't see what the unmunged report looked like, and because I then chose to not send an unmunged report, none of those e-mails were for that recipient. Also, the Past Reports list only shows the content of the spam that I originally reported to SpamCop. Its does NOT show me the headers and message that get added in the actual report sent from SpamCop that the recipient will actually receive. What I see is the spam that I reported, not what the recipient gets. Also, the Past Reports list does NOT show the SpamCop reporting number. Although the first page when selecting the Past Reports page shows a "Report ID" input textbox to jump directly to that report, going to the "View recent reports" page doesn't list any of those report identifiers. I can't give you a report ID because it won't even tell me what it is.

I did scroll through the entire list of e-mails shown in the Preview list. None of them were for the extra recipients that I selected. The only recipients listed were those that were already selected when SpamCop presented its page where I complete the submission. That is, only the default recipients already pre-selected by SpamCop would show up in the Preview list. The other recipients that I have to select were not included in the Preview list.

Does the Preview still work *after* the submission has completed (i.e., after I complete the submission and the reports go out)? Otherwise, I'm not sure what good is knowing the report ID if the Preview function is no longer available for a submission already completed. Also, how do I get a list of the report IDs rather than a grouped listing which only shows the originally reported spam for Past Reports?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, I don't recall seeing a version of the e-mail shown for any *extra* recipients that I selected.  The Preview list showed only the list of recipients that SpamCop had already pre-selected for me.

27912[/snapback]

This is contrary to my experience and testing today. Search the Preview for "(Recipient:" without quotes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does the Preview still work *after* the submission has completed (i.e., after I complete the submission and the reports go out)?

27912[/snapback]

No, not unless you resubmit the spam for reporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how do I get a list of the report IDs rather than a grouped listing which only shows the originally reported spam for Past Reports?

27912[/snapback]

The Report IDs are listed as they are sent as part of on the results of the "Send spam Report(s) Now" Button, and they are also listed in "Past Reports". The Reports themselves are not listed anywhere that you can access, but they are occasionally returned by the recipients of those Reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Report IDs are ... listed in "Past Reports".  The Reports themselves are not listed anywhere that you can access, but they are occasionally returned by the recipients of those Reports.

27915[/snapback]

Okay, clue me in. I click the link for Past Reports. That presents me with a page where I can enter a report ID (but I don't have one) or a link for "View past reports". I click on "View past reports" and what I see are groupings of recipients where each group is for a spam report. The link for each recipient listed there (the numeric link on the leftside, not the e-mail link on the rightside) just shows me the original spam that I reported to SpamCop. It is NOT a copy of the report that actually got sent to that recipient. If the numeric link in the list of past reports is the report ID, why is it different for each recipient? How would I use that numeric value in a URL to actually get back to the report ID? Since the content shown by each numeric link is simply what I originally submitted to SpamCop as the spam message, there is no report ID or anything else added by SpamCop in there.

What I see when I visit the past reports page is:

Submitted: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 11:53:57 AM -0500:

**spam BAYESIAN_PLUGIN BODY** light Bretylium Tosylate In Dextrose

1422523481 ( Forwarded spam ) To: spam[at]uce.gov

1422523465 ( 80.119.97.20 ) To: postmaster#gaoland.net[at]devnull.spamcop.net

1422523446 ( 80.119.97.20 ) To: spamcop[at]imaphost.com

1422523411 ( 80.119.97.20 ) To: missed-spam[at]comcast.net

1422523402 ( 80.119.97.20 ) To: dom_tech[at]gaoland.net

1422523338 ( 80.119.97.20 ) To: abuse[at]teleglobe.com

(The "**spam BAYESIAN_PLUGIN BODY" was a prefex tag added by SpamPal. I use it in my rules to differentiate that spam and handle it differently from other spam detected by DNSBLs or other plug-ins from SpamPal.) The recipient that would not accept munged reports was for one of the contacts listed for gaoland.net. I think there were 2, or more, listed for Gaoland and only one would accept munged reports. Selecting the other one resulted in the popup warning about sending an unmunged report to them. I okayed that dialog to select that recipient and used Preview to see what they would get but that recipient's e-mail copy was not included in the preview listing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After looking at datestamps in some logfiles and using them to see which SpamCop reply got delivered close to then, and then digging around in my e-mail clients (good thing it was in Outlook since I configure OE to flush the Deleted Items folder on exit), I think I found the URL to the submission page where I select the recicpients for the spam report. It was:

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z762328415z59...a8a1eabd4b5d54z

I don't see a means of resubmitting the report in order to get the checkboxes again regarding which recipient gets a copy so I could then select the one that wouldn't accept unmunged reports, okay the warning prompt, and then use Preview to see if their unmunged e-mail were shown in the list.

Also, and this is from memory, after looking at the preview listing and returning to the screen with the checkboxes for recipients and when I complete the submission, those extra checkboxes that I had selected (and were NOT pre-selected by SpamCop) were cleared, so I had to select them again. However, since I couldn't see the unmunged e-mail copy in the preview listing that would go to the picky Gaoland address (one Gaoland address refuses, the other Gaoland addresses accept), I chose not to send them the unmunged version of the e-mail. I couldn't see it so I didn't include that recipient. I did, however, have to reselect the missed-spam[at]comcast.net and spam[at]uce.gov recipients.

The order in which I performed the actions were:

- Send the spam as an attachment in an e-mail sent to my "submit" e-mail address at SpamCop.

- Get back a reply from SpamCop with the URL to the submission web page.

- Select some extra recipients beyond those already pre-selected by SpamCop.

- When selecting the first recipient that doesn't accept munged reports, a popup appears saying such and I have to okay the selection. I okay it so the extra no-munge recipient gets selected.

- Click on Preview and scan through each e-mail copy to find where the no-munge recipient's version of the report is shown. It isn't shown. None of the e-mails for the extra recipients are shown, munged or not.

- Exit the preview and return to the submission page. All the extra recipients have been cleared. I have to reselect them (except for the no-munge recipient since I won't be sending an unknown message to them).

- Submit.

- I can look in Past Reports but none of them show the report ID and they all just show the originally reported spam instead of the e-mail that actually got sent to that recipient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Providing a Tracking URL would allow me to see what you are seeing (or not seeing as the case may be) .... I seem to recall a FAQ entry on how to get a Report number from a Report ID, but .. I'd have to go look also ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Providing a Tracking URL would allow me to see what you are seeing (or not seeing as the case may be)

27922[/snapback]

Isn't that http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z762328415z59...a8a1eabd4b5d54z in Linear Post #18 above?

I seem to recall a FAQ entry on how to get a Report number from a Report ID, but .. I'd have to go look also ...

27922[/snapback]

Please see FAQ Entry: Getting Tracking URL From Report ID and/or new FAQ Entry: Resubmitting to Get New Tracking URL. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, that doesn't work any more.  Please see my most recent Post on the subject of "Personal copies of outgoing reports".

27911[/snapback]

Right you are Jeff. I checked it out a while a go to see how every thing worked, then turned it off. Dumb me I assumed the comment line would still tell the truth <g>.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right you are Jeff.  I checked it out a while a go to see how every thing worked, then turned it off.  Dumb me I assumed the comment line would still tell the truth <g>.

27929[/snapback]

Well, you know what happens when you AssUMe. :)

I have reported this discrepancy in the past, and have not gotten a reply. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Timing is everything. Guess I hit my "Submit" button a few seconds late ..

I know I've got some PM traffic to attend to .. will get to updating the FAQ in a bit. Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vanguard, used your provided Tracking URL of http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z762328415z59...a8a1eabd4b5d54z ... selected the "View entire message" link ... copied off the spam submittal from that screen .. used that to paste into a new form submittal ... (small note - it appears to me that you have pre-munged your submittal)

First of all is a note provided:

Report spam to:

Using postmaster#gaoland.net[at]devnull.spamcop.net for statistical tracking.

This adds to the SCBL data .. and as seen in the results of your Tacking URL;

Reports regarding this spam have already been sent:

Re: 80.119.97.20 (Administrator of network where email originates)

   Reportid: 1422523338 To: abuse[at]teleglobe.com

   Reportid: 1422523402 To: dom_tech[at]gaoland.net

   Reportid: 1422523465 To: postmaster#gaoland.net[at]devnull.spamcop.net

Scrolling down the page of my new submittal, I hit the Preview button. The particular addresses of note in that view include;

(Recipient:postmaster#gaoland.net[at]devnull.spamcop.net)

(Recipient:dom_tech[at]gaoland.net)

I "go back" to the parsing engine output page, click on the empty checkbox, agree to the pop-up warning, hit Preview again .... in addition to the two addresses above, there is also the one you say is missing;

(Recipient:postmaster[at]gaoland.net)

From this side of the screen, everything works as designed. From what I see, you might be confused when looking at the results because you pre-munged your submittal, such that there isn't a "plain" copy with "your address" available to send an "unmunged" report (tested/verified again by submitting the last e-mail I had, a PM notification) . should note that this is in violation of a few rules and guidelines, especially the one about use of the "send unmunged" action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
said:

I'm not concernced about my IP address being in the Received header. That only identifies me as a customer of my ISP, not my e-mail address. etc....The From line in the munged reports is no biggie, either.

___

I previewed a report that was "unmunged" and when you read the message details on the "spam message" you're reporting you'll see who the senders and receivers are. When I previewed the report that was going out via SC it had my actual e-mail address all through the report, showing just as the spammers info shows in the initial e-mail details you're attempting to report. I decided to NOT send the report on this spammer simply because of the number of times my actual e-mail address was shown. I don't mind either if my ISP # is showing; let them go to the trouble of tracking me, but having me name and whole e-mail address there for them was just too much.

Just my opinion1 (< :,

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  

×