Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Freddie

Error message : This email contains no date

Recommended Posts

I am having the same problem. Over the past two weeks virtually every one of my atttempts to report spam have failed with the annotation "This email contains no date." I'm handling five to 15 spam emails a day.

Here is an example that failed moments ago:

From: - Sun Aug 20 09:55:58 2006

X-UIDL: <02d401c6c3df$317c0c00$0200a8c0[at]haguey>

X-Mozilla-Status: 1001

X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000

Return-Path: <rbrooks5[at]carolina.net>

Received: from eastrmimpi02.cox.net ([68.1.16.118]) by eastrmmtai07.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060820004458.GDIE24294.eastrmmtai07.cox.net[at]eastrmimpi02.cox.net>; Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:44:58 -0400

Received: from ip216-239-76-42.vif.net ([216.239.76.42]) by eastrmimpi02.cox.net with IMP id C0ex1V0270ulamo0000100 Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:40:21 -0400

Received: from xdprecipicefcom ([216.239.76.42]) by ioffsett.uf.oz.thenetmyway.com with SMTP id 9a4lX650b7K490g3 for <nightowl49[at]cox.net>; Sat, 19 Aug 2006 17:44:26 -0800

Message-ID: <02d401c6c3df$317c0c00$0200a8c0[at]haguey>

From: Herschel.Mcguire <RBrooks5[at]carolina.net>

To: <nightowl49[at]cox.net>

Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 17:44:26 -0800

MIME-Version: 1.0

X-Priority: 3

X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.83.9197.7959

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.83.9197.7959

X-NAS-BWL: No match found for 'RBrooks5[at]carolina.net', blocking in white-list only mode (44 addresses, 0 domains)

Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Notice

X-NAS-Classification: 1

X-NAS-MessageID: 337

X-NAS-Validation: {D494327C-2F41-4304-AA14-E3DDEE71148E}

If it is a question of manually adding a semicolon, I will gladly do that but I have not been able to decipher where it goes from the previous notes in this thread.

I am using Netscape 7.2 as my email client.

I'm dead in the water on spam reporting until I can get around this hurdle. Any hints on where the semicolon could be manually inserted would be greatly appreciated if that will help me continue reporting.

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it is a question of manually adding a semicolon, I will gladly do that but I have not been able to decipher where it goes from the previous notes in this thread.

I'd be much more inclined to answer if you had provided a Tracking URL.

It has to be assumed that you are using a MailHost Configured account, but it would have been noice to know that for sure.

Had you provided that data, the exact line is identified in the parse output.

There is no one here advising you to "materially alter" your spam, as that is against the reporting rules.

As far as finding the spot for the missing semi-colon ... gee whiz .... the issue is the Date/Time stamps in the Received: lines. The line that your MailHost Configured account parse chose to use is missing a semi-colon. Not sure how much more obvious to make it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it is a question of manually adding a semicolon, I will gladly do that but I have not been able to decipher where it goes from the previous notes in this thread.

I am using Netscape 7.2 as my email client.

I'm dead in the water on spam reporting until I can get around this hurdle. Any hints on where the semicolon could be manually inserted would be greatly appreciated if that will help me continue reporting.

If you modify the source, you have agreed not to use spamcop to send the reports. You can report manually, however, using the information spamcop finds during the parse of the modified source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you modify the source, you have agreed not to use spamcop to send the reports. You can report manually, however, using the information spamcop finds during the parse of the modified source.

That would be ok if I didnt receive 50 to 100 a day... however, I do receive that many so I just started deleting them.

If submit a few everyday to see if the issue has been resloved but as of yet, it has not.

I have been working 70 to 80 hours a week the last 3 weeks or so, so deleting them just saves me time, time I really dont have time to waste.

Nearly every single one I submit now is coming up with this error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you modify the source, you have agreed not to use spamcop to send the reports. You can report manually, however, using the information spamcop finds during the parse of the modified source.
That would be ok if I didnt receive 50 to 100 a day...
...And why is that a problem?
however, I do receive that many so I just started deleting them.

If submit a few everyday to see if the issue has been resloved but as of yet, it has not.

<snip>

...Yep, not a problem, you found a good solution (although I would submit a few a day, as my available time and inclination permitted). :) <g>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all...

Here's something to check; it seems that all the Cox accounts that I monitor where I try and report spam, give the "no date" error message. My work emails, with our web site's domain name, do =not= give the "no date" message. I will admit up front, that I have not paid attention to the return messages SpamCop has been giving, and posted here, to see if they are all from Cox accounts. This is what I'm seeing on my own accounts and a couple Cox accounts that I monitor at work. I =have= noticed that if I forward multiple spams as attachments to the submit email address, SpamCop won't accept most of them for processing and I have to manually cut-and-paste them into the form. =Very= slow when you're dealing with dozens per day.

Lyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's something to check; it seems that all the Cox accounts that I monitor where I try and report spam, give the "no date" error message. My work emails, with our web site's domain name, do =not= give the "no date" message. I will admit up front, that I have not paid attention to the return messages SpamCop has been giving, and posted here, to see if they are all from Cox accounts. This is what I'm seeing on my own accounts and a couple Cox accounts that I monitor at work. I =have= noticed that if I forward multiple spams as attachments to the submit email address, SpamCop won't accept most of them for processing and I have to manually cut-and-paste them into the form. =Very= slow when you're dealing with dozens per day.

I am a cox user and all my spam come to my cox accounts. I tried the cut and paste and it too shows no date... I usually submit, as attachment, to spamcop through my gmail account because if I send it through cox, it never arrives at spamcop because cox blocks it.

Cox has made many changes over the months and it is just annoying. I need the speed I get so I can work from home but I am tired of their mail mess. I used to have a spamcop account which filtered my email until cox changed their spam processing and do not allow users to op-out of their spam filtering. So they block it and then I have to move it to get spamcop to pick it up. :( Too much time and work for spam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's something to check; it seems that all the Cox accounts that I monitor where I try and report spam, give the "no date" error message. My work emails, with our web site's domain name, do =not= give the "no date" message.

Struggling a bit with the "To all .. check this ..." introduction. I'm having to assume that you've ignored the "primarily a user-to-user" venue here .... how are "we" supposed to check "your" submittals without Tracking URLs provided????

I will admit up front, that I have not paid attention to the return messages SpamCop has been giving, and posted here, to see if they are all from Cox accounts. This is what I'm seeing on my own accounts and a couple Cox accounts that I monitor at work. I =have= noticed that if I forward multiple spams as attachments to the submit email address, SpamCop won't accept most of them for processing and I have to manually cut-and-paste them into the form. =Very= slow when you're dealing with dozens per day.

I also don't follow the "won't accept" comment with no definition.

MailHost Configuration of your Reporting account was not mentioned.

What tools are in use that you use the "forward multiple spams as attachments" were not defined.

"Not paying attention to return messages" doesn't sound like a "good thing" ....

And yes, Cox is on the list of the FAQ entry titled E-Mail spam submittals blocked by your ISP?

Not sure if you are just adding your complaint or were trying to be helpful .... the helpful part missed the mark due to the lack of specific data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a trouble ticket open with the engineers about this. I updated it with the latest information and asked them to take another look at things.

Hopefully, they can figure out what's going on now.

- Don -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an example of a notice I received today. When I went to the link, the "This email contains no date " was displayed. I see several dates in the headers.

SpamCop is now ready to process your spam.

Use links to finish spam reporting (members use cookie-login please!):

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

The email which triggered this auto-response had the following headers:

Return-Path: <xxxxxxxxx[at]xxx.xxxt>

Received: from sc-smtp3-bulkmx.soma.ironport.com (sc-smtp3-bulkmx.soma.ironport.com [204.15.82.124])

by sc-app3.soma.ironport.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B24B314364

for <submit.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[at]spam.spamcop.net>; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:13:13 -0700 (PDT)

Received: from fed1rmmtao01.cox.net ([68.230.241.38])

by sc-smtp3-bulkmx.soma.ironport.com with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2006 20:13:14 -0700

Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71])

by fed1rmmtao01.cox.net

(InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP

id <20060901031312.TOOA6077.fed1rmmtao01.cox.net[at]fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>

for <submit.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[at]spam.spamcop.net>;

Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:13:12 -0400

Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([68.231.147.235])

by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp

id GrD71V01654xrsc0000000

Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:13:08 -0400

Message-ID: <44F7A54B.6040500[at]cox.net>

Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:13:15 -0700

From: xxxxxxxxxxxx <xxxxxxxxxxxx[at]xxx.xxx>

Reply-To: xxxxxxxxx[at]spamcop.net

User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719)

MIME-Version: 1.0

To: Submit spam <submit.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[at]spam.spamcop.net>

Subject: [Fwd: Mt Hood Hosting Recurring Update Confirmation]

Content-Type: multipart/mixed;

boundary="------------090300020401000907080009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's an example of a notice I received today. When I went to the link, the "This email contains no date " was displayed. I see several dates in the headers. ...
Thanks Bill. It is best when you show an example if you use a Tracking URL (link). You will see differences between the appearance of the text in your post and that in the SpamCop page referenced by a tracking URL. These differences can make it difficult to diagnose the actual problem. However in your case it seems another instance of the "missing semi-colon" (see earlier posts this topic) which happens to be at the critical date chosen by the parser and with Cox once again implicated. I don't recall if Thunderbird was implicated in previous observations of this problem - I suspect not, the application is probably "innocent", I think the problem would go away if Cox just fixed their date/time in the header they add and/or if SC changed parser behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note also that without the Tracking URL being provided and the lack of the parse data, it can only be assumed that Bill's reporting account has been MailHost configured .. the other part of the equation ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like others here I have been receiving the "no date" response for a couple months. I have COX as my ISP and use Outlook Express with XP Home.

The following are tracking IDs I received with this error this afternoon.

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1063469697z7...a6fdda3dd30d7dz

and

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1063469159z9...d264c21ea20774z

I have previously reported regularly, but this "no date" problem has been on essentially, if not all, attempted submissions in the past couple months.

Thanks for any help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for any help.

A copy of my e-mail is at Linear post #48 .... Don's last reply is at Linear post #60 ....

per the user-to-user notice, there isn't much anyone 'here' can do other than wait for either the ISPs involved to solve their side of the issue or the software engineers involved with the Parsing & Reporting codebase get things hashed out.

What "you can do" has already been described within this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, here's a tracking link that shows the problem:

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1065547017zd...f70921e9372ea3z

Hi, Bill!

...Thanks for the Tracking URL.

...When I use it, I see the following (in part):

<snip>

0: Received: from fed1rmimpi02.cox.net ([70.169.32.69]) by fed1rmmtai20.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060914224318.IUYT20677.fed1rmmtai20.cox.net[at]fed1rmimpi02.cox.net>; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:43:18 -0400

Hostname verified: fed1rmimpi02.cox.net

Cox received mail from Cox ( 70.169.32.69 )

1: Received: from 208-117-174-80.libre.auna.net ([80.174.117.208]) by fed1rmimpi02.cox.net with IMP id NNbB1V02E4VrYaQ0000000 Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:36:01 -0400

No unique hostname found for source: 80.174.117.208

Cox received mail from sending system 80.174.117.208

2: Received: from [80.174.117.208] (helo=fsvd) by ua9-mailrelay.omnicity.net with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <BSummerq[at]omnicity.net>) id 1DMPFK-0002L5-1p

No unique hostname found for source: 80.174.117.208

Possible forgery. Supposed receiving system not associated with any of your mailhosts

Will not trust anything beyond this header

Tracking message source: 80.174.117.208:

Routing details for 80.174.117.208

[refresh/show] Cached whois for 80.174.117.208 : abuse[at]auna.es

Using abuse net on abuse[at]auna.es

abuse net auna.es = abuse[at]auna.es

Using best contacts abuse[at]auna.es

This email contains no date

<snip>

From this I conclude that:
  • The first two "From" header lines (labeled 0 and 1) are from servers that the parser has determined are not the source of the spam
  • The parser has determined that the third "From" header line (labeled 2) is the source of the spam
  • There is no date associated with this third "From" header line, so the parser gives up

Do I seem to have this right? If so, it would seem your only recourse is to manually report to abuse[at]auna.es.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, here's a tracking link that shows the problem:

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1065547017zd...f70921e9372ea3z

Agreed .... top to bottom;

Received: from fed1rmimpi02.cox.net places a 'correct' timestamp

Received: from 208-117-174-80.libre.auna.net ([80.174.117.208]) - missing semi-colon

Received: from [80.174.117.208] (helo=fsvd) - no timestamp at all

as stated in previous dialog, a non-malhosted reporting account results in "no problem"

<http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1065598735z25b91b9b1d65a7db826bb5debaa60b9dz>

As in my last .. Cox needs to fix the 'second' server and the engineers involved need to fix the MailHosted parsing part of the codebase ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have a trouble ticket open with the engineers about this. I updated it with the latest information and asked them to take another look at things.

Hopefully, they can figure out what's going on now.

- Don -

It seems the parser's behavior has been modified, noting that some or all of the "missing semicolon" (Cox-related) still give the error but the "non-standard" date stamp issue (the Uruguay "UYT" sepecifically) certainly seems to be fixed. Carted over from the NGs
Path: news.spamcop.net!not-for-mail

From: "Jeff G." <jeffg[at]spamcop.net>

Newsgroups: spamcop

Subject: Re: More spam with unparseable dates

Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 22:20:07 -0400

Organization: SpamCop

Message-ID: <ef4q1n$fmu$1[at]news.spamcop.net>

References: <ebd2dm$o08$1[at]news.spamcop.net> <ebd3tv$ph7$1[at]news.spamcop.net> <ebqnvu$vgh$1[at]news.spamcop.net> <90hse2dv2lq9faf0e5ahlrplre6e4ei2ml[at]4ax.com>

SpamCop Admin wrote:

> We have a trouble ticket open with the engineers about this. I

> updated it with the latest information and asked them to take another

> look at things.

>

> Hopefully, they can figure out what's going on now.

That seems to have fixed it. Thanks, Don and the Engineers!

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1025695131z0...b67d8549dcee93z

now sez:

6: Received: from [165.228.133.11] by www.adinet.com.uy via http; Wed

Aug 09 09:40:32 UYT 2006

Hostname verified: wel-cache1-1.cache.telstra.net

Trusted site 200.40.30.223 received mail from 165.228.133.11

Sender relay: 200.40.30.223

...

Sorry, this email is too old to file a spam report. You must report spam

within 2 days of receipt. This mail was received on Wed Aug 09 09:40:32

UYT 2006

Message is 45.6 days old

--

Best Regards, Jeff G.

http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...t&pid=37585

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems the parser's behavior has been modified, noting that some or all of the "missing semicolon" (Cox-related) still give the error but the "non-standard" date stamp issue (the Uruguay "UYT" sepecifically) certainly seems to be fixed. Carted over from the NGs

I've been following this cox problem for some time. When it 1st started for me, it was about 4 months after this thread started. I've been under the delusion it was the IMP software being used by cox, but that is just a speculation. At first, all of my email was missiing that semi-colon. Lately, an increasing number have been coming through properly punctuated.

Contacting cox and getting a carbon based lifeform who understands the issue would be a waste of time.

Is SC working on this at all?

Is this a race betweeen cox and SC?

Does anyone know?

All I know is that I can't report without that semi-colon and this seems to be a pretty stupid reason for the inability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been following this cox problem for some time. When it 1st started for me, it was about 4 months after this thread started.

Most could point out that this specific Topic is a few days shy of being four months old yet.

I've been under the delusion it was the IMP software being used by cox, but that is just a speculation. At first, all of my email was missiing that semi-colon. Lately, an increasing number have been coming through properly punctuated.

Different servers, new ones addd, old ones fixed .... as you're the one receiving them, you're the one with the answers ... maybe you could fill in the gaps here ..

Is SC working on this at all?

strange question to ask just after a posting where "change has been noted" in the code and results.

overlooking the user-to-user indicators here, 'we' are a few layers away from anyone involved in the coding.

Is this a race betweeen cox and SC?

I can't come up with the logic of the question, much less a response ...

Does anyone know?

Please see the above .... "all" of the above ....

All I know is that I can't report without that semi-colon and this seems to be a pretty stupid reason for the inability.
stupid to you perhaps, but .... the definition of software written with a certain data-set in mind and the results of data submitted not quite in that format has to result in 'problems' .... at this point, all complaint examples of this issue seem to involve Cox .. so of course, it's up to the software engineers at IronPort to "fix" ot so that one ISP's users can submit their bad-header stuff to SpamCop.net ....????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I scrape away the sarcasm and find out - what?

Did cox suddenly become anti SC?

Did I ask Ironport for anything?

I've read in NANAE that the SC parser is broken on this and won't fix it - I haven't a clue, personally. I'm just trying to report spam and getting shut out for a semi-colon.

Thanks for your concern - and this forum format sucks as bad as the FAQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I scrape away the sarcasm and find out - what?

??? I'm just another user .. you want "official" stuff, talk to 'them' ...

Did cox suddenly become anti SC?

???? countless thousands of reports going out every day, yet one ISP has some kind of issue with the format of some header lines ... not for me ti judge the reasons why ....

Did I ask Ironport for anything?

Not a clue as to what this means .. you asked questions, best answers were offered ... IronPort signs the paychecks of the people involved .... talk to them if you want more ...

I've read in NANAE that the SC parser is broken on this and won't fix it - I haven't a clue, personally. I'm just trying to report spam and getting shut out for a semi-colon.

NANAE is awash with thoughts, philosophies, oddities, bad data, good data, fantasies, etc. ....

Previous posts within this very Topic suggest one work-around for this issue, yet ... I guess that means you'd have to read all that stuff to find it ...????

Thanks for your concern - and this forum format sucks as bad as the FAQ

And yet .... the FAQ 'here' is open to improvements, input, etc. The Forum itself is but one venue for your ranting, support issues, whatever .... try one of the others .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate Don's SpamCopAdmin post saying that the engineers are looking at this problem. It would be great to hear updates or news with regard to any progress. I carefully read through this entire thread.

I'm in the same boat with dhanna in many ways... I simply don't have time to devote to this issue (and in my case, lack the technical know-how to do so). I report as much spam as my frazzled life allows, delete the rest, and move on to making a living. No time to fiddle with missing semicolons, etc., or risk altering the original headers. Like most SC users, my determination to help SC fight spam is a volunteer effort. While I'm happy to do what I can to help, I simply must use my time for billable work. I won't be able to report any spam at all if I can't pay my bills... I'll end up living on the street, mumbling and babbling about the death of the Internet and asking for spare change - heh.

An increasing volume of my spam reports bang in to the same "This email contains no date" wall. It's disturbing and frustrating to take the time to file a report only to find the effort apparently wasted. I'm sure the engineers can appreciate this. Here's hoping they can solve the "no date" problem. Here's hoping that the following is useful...

1) Received a typical "pump-n-dump" stock spam this morning (one of over 50) containing text salad and an embedded GIF. It arrived in our "real" inbox, not our SpamCop account held mail folder, defeating all filters we have in place. Our ISP is Comcast and our mail goes to a POP account via our web hosting and mail service, Webmasters.com.

2) Opened the spam with Eudora the usual way to reveal full headers. Forwarded the spam to our regular SC reporting address.

3) Received the normal "[spamCop] has accepted 1 email for processing" message, enabled cookies, and followed the link to the tracking URL:

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1211407019zc...231530bf4d7293z

4) Briefly considered making a double vodka martini but quit my browser and started doing billable work instead.

If I can provide any other info the engineers need to dig through this, I'll be happy to do so. If it makes any sense to do so, I'll take the time to write directly to the SC deputies address with additional details and a copy of the original spam exactly as I received it. Thanks and good luck.

- Paul

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  

×