Lking Posted December 17, 2005 Author Share Posted December 17, 2005 Don, I guess I'm glad to know I'm not the only one confused. My ISP is not seeing anything that I don't receive so their at a loss. From your post, did I not mention that I received notice from news.spamcop.net of your PM? I also got notice of your last post. Its time stamp is 1449 -0500. Assume news.spamcop.net is -0600 Today of 9 reports sent, I have received 1 AutoRespond and 3 thru reports.spamcop.net. The 1 AR is not related to the 3 reports. Lou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lking Posted December 18, 2005 Author Share Posted December 18, 2005 What is Quick Reporting? WARNING: Like its counterpart of normal Reporting, Quick Reporting also allows the reporting of you to your ISP or of your ISP to your ISP's ISP (both Very Bad Things), but in a more dangerous manner because it is faster and there is no verification step. 37986[/snapback] Wazoo just reviewing the thread to see if I missed something. If I did report myself, my ISP, etc. wouldn't that block my out going not incoming? All Submit and Quick reports are accounted for in the Past Reports tab. In the beginning I did the MailHost thing and have not noted any self-reports resulting from Submits. I think the AutoRespond messages went missing before any Quick reports. I know the two emails from Don vanished before any Quick reports. Starting a DB of out going and incoming messages to see if I can spot a pattern in this mess. Any suggestions on what I should look for? Lou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 All is not well. Submit reports now do get back to me, but Quick reports do not. 37982[/snapback] The there is no verification step warning was in response to your post that contained the remark above. If I did report myself, my ISP, etc. wouldn't that block my out going not incoming? If one goes worst case, you reporting yourself (own ISP) could lead to your ISP (e-mail server) getting onto the SpamCopDNSBL ... which would normally only then show up as a problem with outgoing e-mail from your ISP e-mail server not being well received at some other ISP. None of this 'bad reporting' should have any dorect effect on your e-mail to/from the SpamCo system (unless, as documented in some other cases, the ISP saw it easier to nlock traffic to/from SpamCop rather than deal with complaints coming frm SpamCop [usually caused by some bad configuration of a server, a change in some server set-up / arrangement that was then causing some users not paying atention to end up doing that self-reporting]) All Submit and Quick reports are accounted for in the Past Reports tab. In the beginning I did the MailHost thing and have not noted any self-reports resulting from Submits. I think the AutoRespond messages went missing before any Quick reports. I know the two emails from Don vanished before any Quick reports. Just so there is no confusion, part of the Quick-Report thing is that there is no follow-up e-mail traffic beyond your submittal. Starting a DB of out going and incoming messages to see if I can spot a pattern in this mess. Any suggestions on what I should look for? 38092[/snapback] The appearance to me is that you aren't getting to talk to the right people, i.e., the people you are talking to are telling you the truth as far as they know it, but someone else has made some changes. Examples; A local ISP here installed SpamAssassin ... read that as "a technician" installed SpamAssassin. I ran into this trying to install AVG on a client's computer, using "her" address to receive the Registration e-mail (usually arriving witin seconds of submitting the Refistration screen data. Several hours waiting, several attempts, finally saif heck with it and used on og my web-amil addresses .. Registration e-mail arrived within seconds ... apparent to me that incoming e-mail was being filtered, but it took me three days to talk to "the technician" that actually installed it to get the "truth" that they (he) had actually performed this action. My follow-up phone call to the actual owner of that ISP was he first he had heard of the e-mail filtering action (or at least that's what he told me) My ISP is Mediacom, but they 'lease' services from AT&T ... it has been noted that AT&T runs several BLs on their e-mail system, but .... AT&T won't talk to me because I'm a Mediacom customer, and I'm up to over 20 e-mails to various Mediacom offices asking for some documentation on the filtering that's in place .. once again, I know it's happening, have even documented it, but .... no one that 'should' know has actually responded to my queries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 The there is no verification step warning was in response to your post that contained the remark above. I always received an email that listed the reports that were made. In fact, Don said that those emails could not be turned off. That might be what lking is referring to not getting. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 It appears to me that Lou is not getting email messages that are routed through vmx2. Hopefully his ISP's techs and Don can isolate and fix the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lking Posted December 19, 2005 Author Share Posted December 19, 2005 The following is a summary of my traffic with spamcop. What I mean by the in/out entries is; looking at the message headers the "in" count is below ironpost and the "out" count is above the ironpost entry. "Reports" are responses from ISPs forwarded through SpamCop. On the 18th I sent a Quick report without an attachment, thus the Q error. The Q reports are the summary of reports sent that I understand I should be receiving. Wish I knew if this was data or information. 16 Dec Submit 3 AutoResponder 3 In vmx1 2 vmx2 1, Out vmx1 3 reports 1 in and Out vmx1 1 Quick 5 Q reports 0 17 Dec Submit 10 AutoResponder 4 In vmx1 2 vmx2 1, Out vmx1 3 reports 4 in vmx1 3 vmx2 1, out vmx1 4 Quick 8 Q reports 0 18 Dec Submit 13 AutoResponder 12 in and out vmx1 Quick 7 Q error 1 in vmx2 out vmx1 Q reorts 0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 That's strange, ALL 54 of my "SpamCop Quick reporting data" email messages received in the same time period were received through vmx1.spamcop.net, but that may be because they were sent to my spamcop.net account or because they were processed in bulk as a result of the "Report as spam" button in SpamCop Webmail. The odds of that being a random occurrance are extremely slim, 1:(2^54) or 1:(1.23*(10^260)). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 The Q reports are the summary of reports sent that I understand I should be receiving. Wish I knew if this was data or information. 38111[/snapback] The Q Reports are a list of where each spam report was sent. I found them just as tedious to read as hitting the 'send' button for each spam. Many people ignore them entirely, but I don't think that is a good idea. I guess now that mailhosts is required for quick reporting that there is little chance that you will report your own ISP, but still there are other glitches or even a source that you know should be rerouted. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lking Posted December 19, 2005 Author Share Posted December 19, 2005 The Q reports are the summary of reports sent that I understand I should be receiving. Wish I knew if this was data or information. 38111[/snapback] What I meant was I "wish I knew if this following table was data or information." How did that bit from the '60s go -- I know you think you understand what I said, but I don't think you understand what I meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 What I meant was I "wish I knew if this following table was data or information." How did that bit from the '60s go -- I know you think you understand what I said, but I don't think you understand what I meant. 38128[/snapback] It looks like both to me. Did you mean that you hoped it was meaningful data? I also hope that it was meaningful data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lking Posted December 19, 2005 Author Share Posted December 19, 2005 Yes information theory draws fine lines. It sure gets muddled when I try to translate it into english. As an aside, so far today 7 Submits, 7 AutoRespond all in and out of vmx1, 6 Quicks, no quick summaries returned. Do we know if vmx1 and vmx2 are randomly assigned with a uniform distribution (1:2^54)? Or is a more deterministic assignment used as you suggested? Still a small sample size compared to the 5-6 spam/sec processed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 Do we know if vmx1 and vmx2 are randomly assigned with a uniform distribution (1:2^54)? Or is a more deterministic assignment used as you suggested? Still a small sample size compared to the 5-6 spam/sec processed. 38133[/snapback] Another small sample, since yesterday but all 3 quick report summaries were from vmx1: Received: from vmx1.spamcop.net (204.15.82.27) by mx53.cesmail.net with SMTP; 18 Dec 2005 19:43:43 -0000 From: SpamCop <spamcop[at]devnull.spamcop.net> To: Steven P. Underwood (Home) <x> Subject: SpamCop Quick reporting data Received: from vmx1.spamcop.net (204.15.82.27) by mx53.cesmail.net with SMTP; 18 Dec 2005 19:51:56 -0000 From: SpamCop <spamcop[at]devnull.spamcop.net> To: Steven P. Underwood (Home) <underwood[at]spamcop.net> Subject: SpamCop Quick reporting data Received: from vmx1.spamcop.net (204.15.82.27) by mx53.cesmail.net with SMTP; 19 Dec 2005 11:29:04 -0000 From: SpamCop <spamcop[at]devnull.spamcop.net> To: Steven P. Underwood (Home) <x> Subject: SpamCop Quick reporting data Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lking Posted December 19, 2005 Author Share Posted December 19, 2005 Steven, at least you get your reports. I'm still batting 0 on Quick reports. The Submit AutoResponder is 8 for 9 so far today. Looking at what Wazoo suggested I see only 1 report (14 Nov) for my ISP (207.192.128.31). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lking Posted December 20, 2005 Author Share Posted December 20, 2005 The appearance to me is that you aren't getting to talk to the right people, i.e., the people you are talking to are telling you the truth as far as they know it, but someone else has made some changes. 38097[/snapback] Wazoo hit the nail on the head. After talking to the right guy I received my first "SpamCop Quick reporting data." I started telling my story from the beginning again (you always have to start over). He interrupted me and ask if the header/subject/beginning of the message were all the same? Yes. "Our new filter thinks they are spam." It has a learning algorithm (slow learner as in retarded). When I started missing messages I started sending more which increased the number of returns, increasing the blockage. And of course no reporting what was block! So now we know. If I had included date stamps in the data, I would have had some information. sorry Jeff had to say it. Thanks All Lou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Congrats on working it through to a successful resolution. Tagginh this Topic as Resolved (pretty sure that's the right way of reading this last poast <g>) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.