Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Wazoo

Graphic & Link added

Recommended Posts

I know, dial-up folks are liable to complain, but ....

Due to the recent history of the up/down status of the Parsing & Reporting system, the troubles caused by folks trying to report around these times, all the traffic caused by these issues .... I added a link to go dierctly to the "24-hour" link on the SpamCop.net Statistics page into the banner area of the Forum. Although the "current" image is grabbed at the time these pages are "built" to display on your browser, that grabbed image is re-sized, re-shaped, etc., so the details are a bit messy, but basically, green is good <g> Clicking on the picture or "Server Status Report" words will pull up the actual page, full-size ...

Based on some dialog at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5229 ... image was played with, layout went through some changes, then had to mess with the .CSS to get both Internet Explorer 6 and FireFox 1.0.7 to display properly .... you folks with other browsers are on your own <g>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. but should note, as Jeff G. pointed out, on top of that mound of recent e-mail traffic ... guess I should have added ... this was not an "official/authorized" modification <g> just another one of those hacks thrown into place ...

This came to mind within the last day or two during yet another 'interesting' newsgroup thread, in which I referenced yet another ancient newsgroup thread (which also mentioned a few Forum Topics) .... the funny part of all that is that I "would" send a query upstream and ask permission, but as noted in those threads, it's obvious that I don't talk to anyone involved with SpamCop.net operations <g>

http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...ead.html#105724

Though I have to admit, I'm actually more astounded at all the effort expended on complaining about a couple of FAQ entries, yet, as usual, not a one of those participants wants to step up and offer a "replacement" entry .. seen at http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...ead.html#105735 ... and this is "after" all the traffic on yet again opening the door for input to populate the KnowledgeBase thing, add to the Forum version of the SpamCop.net FAQ, on and on .... again, I just can't believe the energy expended on some of those posts, yet nothing "offered" ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks. but should note, as Jeff G. pointed out, on top of that mound of recent e-mail traffic ... guess I should have added ... this was not an "official/authorized" modification <g> just another one of those hacks thrown into place ...

34978[/snapback]

But is it not also true that the entire FAQ(s) in the forum are also "not an "official/authorized" modification" so whats the difference.

Keep up the good work. We are standing behind you. (I am taking the liberty of speaking for my fellow moderators and major contributors.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From conversation held elswhere, but seen as good for "everyone's" knowledge ...

Yes, I'm seeing what you're seeing.  I don't care for the text being below the graphic (because it messes up the display in my Firefox, putting the border that's supposed to be below the text actually through the text).

.CSS numbers to extend the background down to a level 'below' the text was done with a 'default' install of Firefox 1.0.7 .... the difference you're seeing is due to the line in your (custom) settings of;

Minimum font size: 18 .. which technically has increased the font size on your screen ....

  I actually like a wider version of the graphic (the wider, the better), so that I can see the shortest dips and drops more easily.

Quick solution under FieFox ... right-click on the graphic, pick your Zoom level ...

However, I don't think that alpha.cesmail.net is performing very well for me at the moment in delivering that graphic, which is currently 71,192 bytes and could definitely burden our low-bandwidth, high-latency, and high-bandwidth-cost users.

Yes, technically the whole / actual graphic image (720x500) is delivered to your browser, the HTML code then reduces the displayed size. Option would be pulling the graphic over to this server, run it through a reduction routine here, then pass it on to your browser ... not really wanting to get into that level of coding right now <g> (or go back to the first thought of just tossing up an icon, but I thought the "real" data would be more interesting.)

  In addition, why do you even need the text in the first place?

To hopefully head off the "what/where is it" questions .... ????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From conversation held elswhere, but seen as good for "everyone's" knowledge

34992[/snapback]

I guess the person that wrote that wanted to hide the development process and its discussion (to make for a cleaner public environment), but I guess it's OK for the Members to participate in the development as well.
To hopefully head off the "what/where is it" questions .... ????

34992[/snapback]

That's what "alt" and "a" tags are for. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Please see my reply in thread "IPB 2.0.4 and Invision Blog 1.1.2 Released".
Sorry, I can't, it appears broken. Or maybe I just don't have access to it.

34998[/snapback]

...*BLUSH* Oops, sorry about that, it is a restricted thread. Here's what I wrote there:
<snip>

why do you even need the text in the first place?

<snip>

To hopefully head off the "what/where is it" questions ....
...Absolutely, that text is, IMHO, essential. I'd rather not have the graphic than have it without the text!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To hopefully head off the "what/where is it" questions .... ????
That's what "alt" and "a" tags are for. :)

34997[/snapback]

...Which, of course, we all know that everybody reads carefully -- NOT! :) <g>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, took some time off, drove out and wandered around a Wal-mart .. not much else open at these hours .... came back home, fired things up .. guess what, the graphic link is working, but the physical URL link doesn't fly .. hint, SpamCop.net is down hard ...... interesting this is that one can "see" that from the Forum front page quite clearly <g>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the SpamCop Parsing and Reporting System appears to have been "down hard" from about 03:00 to about 04:50 EDT -0400 (about 07:00 to about 08:50 UTC -0000). Of course, there has not been any official acknowledgement yet, 11 hours later. Typical. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might want to link to SpamCop.net - Total spam report volume mock-up instead.

35081[/snapback]

An interesting thought ... a custom 404 page ... hmmmmm .... although rather common on other web-sites I maintain, not exactly clear on just where to place the code in this application ... and then tie it to just this one 'failure' ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5247 is dynamic - its advantage is that it is on a different server (owned by a different company, in a different datacenter, and in a different state) from www.spamcop.net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5247 is dynamic - its advantage is that it is on a different server (owned by a different company, in a different datacenter, and in a different state) from www.spamcop.net.

35116[/snapback]

...Then, FWIW, my vote is for http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5247!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One major problem is that the code should not be to the static file. That is a worthless entry. The displayed gif can be static, but when I click on the link, I want to go to the dynamic site, not to the static file.

PLEASE CHANGE IT BACK or delete it. As it is now it is totally worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears we've had two more drops, only one of which is visible on the small graphic because it's so small, about from 21:10 to 21:20 and from 23:00 to 23:10 overnight EDT -0400, about from 01:10 to 01:20 and from 03:00 to 03:10 UTC -0000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought, What is the possibility that the small drops on the graph simply represent a period of inactivity in the system, no spam being submitted to the parser; rather than a problem with the system not functioning. Then again it is hard to know exactly how to read it when you consider the following quote:

These graphs show the number of messages submitted as spam along with the number of reports consumated regarding those messages. This data reflects more about SpamCop's usage patterns than it does about the spam. These numbers now reflect only a small fraction of total spam being processed by SpamCop, but they are still representative of the total.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that possibility is quite low - I don't think I've ever seen the quantity between 0.2 and 2.0 messages per minute average over a 5 minute interval (between 1 and 10 messages total over that 5 minute interval).

Edited by Jeff G.

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  

×