Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ashocka

Spamcop Rejecting Mail Generated by Fantastico

Recommended Posts

Hi,

In trying to work out why I was not getting Fantastico reports on my installs (http://netenberg.com/fantastico.php), with the help of their support I took a look at the Exim logs and found out that Spamcop is rejecting their mail because

there is no valid sender in any header line

2007-02-11 11:14:28 1HG2Mk-0006M9-Nq ashocka[at]spamcop.net R=lookuphost T=remot e_smtp H=mx.spamcop.net [216.154.195.36]
2007-02-11 11:14:29 1HG2Mk-0006M9-Nq Completed
2007-02-11 11:14:29 1HG2Ml-0006MI-QP H=(c60.cesmail.net) [216.154.195.49] F= rejected after DATA: there is no valid sender in any header line
2007-02-11 11:14:30 1HG2Mm-0006MN-7e cognitiv R=localuser T=local_delivery
2007-02-11 11:14:30 1HG2Mm-0006MN-7e Completed

Netenberg support says they do write valid headers, but I don't think SC would reject their mail if this was the case. Here's there sample header. Anyone enlighten me on this?

Delivered-To: **********
Received: by ***.***.***.*** with SMTP id **********;
		***, ** *** **** **:**:** -**** (***)
Received: by ***.***.***.*** with SMTP id **********;
		***, ** *** **** **:**:** -**** (***)
Return-Path: **********
Received: from ********** ([***.***.***.***])
		by mx.google.com with ESMTP id **********;
		***, ** *** **** **:**:** -**** (***)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: ********** is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of **********)
Received: from code by ********** with local (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <**********>)
	id **********
	for **********; ***, ** *** **** **:**:** -****
To: **********
Subject: ********** installation on http://**********
From: **********
X-Sender: <**********>
X-Mailer: PHP
X-Priority: 1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Message-Id: <**********>
Date: ***, ** *** **** **:**:** -****
X-Alpha-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-Alpha-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Alpha-MailScanner-SpamCheck:
X-Alpha-MailScanner-From: **********
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - **********
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - gmail.com
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [***** *****] / [** **]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - **********
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:

An instance of ********** was installed on http://**********
Full installation path: **********
Public URL: **********
Admin URL: **********
Username: **********
Password: **********
MySQL database: **********
MySQL user: **********
Time of installation: *******, **** ********, **** [at] **:**:** **

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In trying to work out why I was not getting Fantastico reports on my installs (http://netenberg.com/fantastico.php)

Thanks for your enquiry...

You are wise to anonymise your report but I wonder if you have hidden so much information that it has hard to read the headers and see what might be the cause.

One set of ******* looks like another set of ******* but may actually represent very different information. So I'm not sure anyone will be able to give you very much advice. Perhaps you could anonymise by replacing the various addresses with a description such as: <myaddress[at]domain1> or <myotheraddress[at]googlemail.com>.

That may make the headers easier to interpret.

Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with agsteele ... I glanced at the data provided, but that's all I'm going to do. The only thing 'interesting' to me is that it has the appearance of a "system" generated e-mail, rather than a typical e-mail from one human to another ... so that takes it even further from anything usable for diagnosis for me ... wondering why an e-mail like that would be reported in the first place .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... wondering why an e-mail like that would be reported in the first place .....

Who said anything about reporting? I thought that the issue had to do with them not being accepted for delivery at a SC email account?

We do need more details. It's not clear to me where you're having these messages delivered. They seem to involve your SpamCop email account (which you've exposed unnecessarily in one of the "CODE" sections in your message, but I can't tell how messages are arriving at your SC address or whether they're then trying to forward on elsewhere. The presence of "c60.cesmail.net" above is puzzling, in that it's not one of the mail exchangers for SpamCop, but it sometimes shows up as an internal hop in my SC emails. It's possible that you're having the SpamCop system "pop" these messages using the "popgate" method, and if so, that could be your problem. Please clarify the routing of these messages.

DT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply.

The email header was what Netenburg sent me when I asked for a copy of an email header their software would generate. So all I got was a template. I don't know enough to know if that is enough information to decipher the problem or not.

And I'm sorry I don't know how much I am exposing myself or not when I post information here. I didn't think I was exposing anything that could be exploited. If you can point out what I have overlooked I'd appreciate it.

I can post a real email header here if you want as I can get fantastico to send to an email address that bypasses SC. Would that help? Would it expost my system if I posted it here? Is there anything I can do to modify the information in the header so that I don't expose my system and still convery the essential information?

Thanks for your help

Interestingly I have

You are currently receiving email notification of replies
turned on but am not receiving anything from SC forums.

.................

Geoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't think I was exposing anything that could be exploited. If you can point out what I have overlooked I'd appreciate it.

You might want to edit the "CODE" portion of your orignal post above and remove the reference to your actual SpamCop.net address. It's not posted an a format that spammers/bots could actually harvest, due to the replacement of the "[at]" with "[at]" but it's still a good idea to keep your email address private in public forums.

I can post a real email header here if you want as I can get fantastico to send to an email address that bypasses SC.

Yes, that would probably help, because we could check to see if there's anything unusual about the headers, but be sure to XXX out the userid portion of any email addresses included in the message. We don't need the actual "body" of the message (which would contain some sensitive information). As for altering (aka "munging") anything else in the message, I don't think that will be necessary, unless you'd like to keep any of the domain names private, in which case you could replace them with "mydomain" or "myclientsdomain" or whatever.

However, you didn't clarify the other issues I raised. Specifically, were the messages being sent directly to your actual spamcop.net address, or forwarded there through another intermediate address? Also, do you access the messages in your SpamCop mailbox (via "pop" or IMAP perhaps) or do you have them forwarded on to yet another system/address?

DT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the header

From - Wed Feb 14 08:13:16 2007
X-Account-Key: account2
X-UIDL: 207b0cd81924ef82292e121567d51efc
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: &lt;xxx[at]xxx.com&gt;
Envelope-to: xxx[at]xxx.com
Delivery-date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 08:03:37 +1100
Received: from cognitiv by xxx.com with local (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from &lt;xxx[at]xxx.com&gt;)
	id 1HH4oh-00011u-Qt
	for xxx[at]xxx.com; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 08:03:37 +1100
To: xxx[at]xxx.com
Subject: WordPress installation on http://xxx.org
From: xxx[at]xxx.org
X-Sender: &lt;xxx[at]xxx.org&gt;
X-Mailer: PHP
X-Priority: 1
Message-Id: &lt;E1HH4oh-00011u-Qt[at]xxx.com&gt;
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 08:03:37 +1100
X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 7.5.441 [268.17.37/682]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Thanks for all the help

...............

Geoff

However, you didn't clarify the other issues I raised. Specifically, were the messages being sent directly to your actual spamcop.net address, or forwarded there through another intermediate address? Also, do you access the messages in your SpamCop mailbox (via "pop" or IMAP perhaps) or do you have them forwarded on to yet another system/address?

DT

Both. I have sent them to both my spamcop address directly and also to my other email addresses which are then forwarded to the spamcop address.

After going into my SC account my messages are then forwarded to another address which I never declare or use (but which I just did now to avoid having to go through SC)

..............

Geoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who said anything about reporting?

Wow! ... I knew that, but repetition/memory effect seems to have been in place ...

Even the 'admin type of e-mail' was actually mentioned, but by the time I'd scrolled through all the edited out stuff two or three times, that data just dropped out of my view.

Interestingly I have
You are currently receiving email notification of replies
turned on but am not receiving anything from SC forums.

Database shows that you are signed up for two Topic susbscriptions - as 'Delayed'

Per data seen at Forum FAQ I'd suggest trying to change that setting .. "Immediate" seems like what you are wanting ...

The e-mail account showing in your Registration data was searched for in all the e-mail logs .. errors, sent, info, etc. .. does not exist, indicating that 'the Forum' has never tried to send you mail (again, from this server, and I only went back to the timeframe of this Topic)

As a test, I sent you an e-mail via the Forum ... it appears to have been successfully sent, data is showing in all the appropriate log files, no sign of a bounce yet ... so that part of the function seems to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geoff,

I didn't find the new headers to be very enlightening. I'm a bit puzzled why there's no evidence of a single IP address in those headers, even XXXd out. Any email that leaves one system and travels to another system will have at least one IP address, and usually more than one in the headers present at the point that the message is delivered. Maybe you edited any IP addresses out of the headers, but I'm not seeing that.

On the other issue....here's my point.....I'm perhaps not the best to comment on this problem, in that I have all of my messages *terminate* at my SpamCop mailbox, rather than having them "pass through" on their way to delivery somewhere else. I also only have the SpamCop system "pop" mail from systems where I can't set up forwarding (such as AOL, Yahoo, and Hotmail), and yet some people have SpamCop pop their messages from conventional pop servers, and I don't think that's a very good idea. I'd suggest trying to simpify the delivery process of these messages, having the hosting site send them straight to your SpamCop address and then *not* having them forwarded on to another account. If there are problems with that method, then you could work with JT on solving them.

DT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi David,

Thanks,

So there is no clear reason why SC is rejecting this mail, from what I can gather, even though they aren't putting in the IP data? I didn't edit anything other than domain information.

I could configure to pop into SC, but I would rather have an inbox that does not have the downtime and accessibility problems associated with SC. I can understand the load on the servers, but I think I prefer to not be caught with such frustrations. If I am away from my mail for a few hours, and I come back, sometimes I just have 10 minutes to address mail. If SC just happens to shut down for one of it's many maintainance cycles during that 10 minutes, I'm render unproductive, whereas, if it had been forwarding the mail for those few hours, I still have access to it. Also, I'm in AU, in a rural area, still on dialup (BB coming soon... or what is called BB in Oz).

Thanks

Geoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So there is no clear reason why SC is rejecting this mail,

From this side of the screen, no way to tell from information provided thus far.

Any feedback on the second issue you brought up, or was that another 20-30+ minutes wasted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So there is no clear reason why SC is rejecting this mail, from what I can gather, even though they aren't putting in the IP data? I didn't edit anything other than domain information.

The headers presented above don't seem possible for a message that was transmitted between different providers, specifically due to the lack of an IP address. But I'm a musician, and not a server admin, so take that FWIW. Hopefully someone with more expertise will happen by, but there seems to be a reduction in activity here.

I could configure to pop into SC, but I would rather have an inbox that does not have the downtime and accessibility problems associated with SC.

(snip)

If SC just happens to shut down for one of it's many maintainance cycles during that 10 minutes, I'm render unproductive, whereas, if it had been forwarding the mail for those few hours, I still have access to it.

I've not had many issues accessing my SC mailboxes, unless I've simply put such unpleasant experiences out of my mind. However, I checked the previous reports on the email "News" page:

http://mail.spamcop.net/news.php

and didn't see much in the way of actual outages, and I also browsed through the last six months of this forum and didn't find actual outages mentioned. I think you might be confusing the mentions of downtime/service/etc. found when logging in to the reporting system. Those have nothing to do with the email servers, which are separate physically and technically.

In order to diagnose the issue that you mentioned in the first post of this topic, I'd suggest that you try allowing your mail to collect in your SpamCop mailbox, download them (or view them using an IMAP connection...words well on dialup) and see if the headers don't look a bit different. Looks to me that your mail client is doing some odd things to the headers as well, but then I use Pegasus (from New Zealand) and most people don't. :-)

DT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This time I didn't get any email notifications that there were any replies (I haven't changed my preferences).

Sorry if I have been wasting your time Wazoo. I have been as polite and appreciative as possible, I'm sorry it is perceived as wasting your time. I'll avoid doing this in the future. I was only trying to work out why SC was rejecting mail.

Thanks DavidT for your time and help.

That email was sent from one domain to another on the same machine, so the IPs would have been the same (if they had have been included in the headers).

Thanks for clarifying the issue of directly fetching mail from SC. I will take your advice and reconfig it that way... it makes more sense.

Thanks

Geoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This time I didn't get any email notifications that there were any replies (I haven't changed my preferences).

If this is an answer to one of the secondary issues, then "not changing anything" seems kind of self-defeating ....

Sorry if I have been wasting your time Wazoo. I have been as polite and appreciative as possible, I'm sorry it is perceived as wasting your time. I'll avoid doing this in the future. I was only trying to work out why SC was rejecting mail.

You brought up a Forum issue. I ran checks on the database. I ran checks against several log files. I sent a test e-mail via the Forum to your account. I posted all that data 'here' ..... The "waste of time" comment was based on that a lack of a 'real' e-mail with sufficient data has not been provided, and that no response had been made towards the Forum notification issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That email was sent from one domain to another on the same machine, so the IPs would have been the same (if they had have been included in the headers).

Ah, that clarifies that issue.

Thanks for clarifying the issue of directly fetching mail from SC. I will take your advice and reconfig it that way... it makes more sense.

I hope it helps. There are some folks who argue that they think it's better to do things differently, but I think it might be good for you to experiment and then if the messages are still not reaching you, to report it to JT.

DT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this is an answer to one of the secondary issues, then "not changing abything" seems kind of self-defeating ....

I did change my preferences to get immediate emails, and that did happen for a while, I made no other changes, and they stopped for no reason.

The "waste of time" comment was based on that a lack of a 'real' e-mail with sufficient data has not been provided, and that no response had been made towards the Forum notification issue.

As far as I'm concerned I did provide a real email. God Wazoo, you really have some personal issues because you seem to be such a grump you can't realise when people are trying to work with the situation and they are grateful for the help. As you say in your sidebar (what life). I feel sorry for you. But I'll help you out and not bother posting here again or bothering you. I'm sorry you can't perceive others gratitude.

DavidT, thanks for your help.

Thanks to all.

Geoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<snip>
The "waste of time" comment was based on that a lack of a 'real' e-mail with sufficient data has not been provided, and that no response had been made towards the Forum notification issue.
As far as I'm concerned I did provide a real email. God Wazoo, you really have some personal issues because you seem to be such a grump you can't realise when people are trying to work with the situation and they are grateful for the help. As you say in your sidebar (what life). I feel sorry for you. But I'll help you out and not bother posting here again or bothering you. I'm sorry you can't perceive others gratitude.

<snip>

...Sorry, Geoff, I don't get where this came from at all, from the above exchange.

...History:

<snip>

Interestingly I have

You are currently receiving email notification of replies
turned on but am not receiving anything from SC forums.

<snip>

<snip>

Database shows that you are signed up for two Topic susbscriptions - as 'Delayed'

Per data seen at Forum FAQ I'd suggest trying to change that setting .. "Immediate" seems like what you are wanting ...

The e-mail account showing in your Registration data was searched for in all the e-mail logs .. errors, sent, info, etc. .. does not exist, indicating that 'the Forum' has never tried to send you mail (again, from this server, and I only went back to the timeframe of this Topic)

As a test, I sent you an e-mail via the Forum ... it appears to have been successfully sent, data is showing in all the appropriate log files, no sign of a bounce yet ... so that part of the function seems to work.

<snip>
[No answer at all to Wazoo's prompt for a reply]
<snip>

Any feedback on the second issue you brought up, or was that another 20-30+ minutes wasted?

Followed by your attack on Wazoo. Seems to me Wazoo had no way to tell you were grateful to him for his efforts on your behalf. Did I miss something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could configure to pop into SC, but I would rather have an inbox that does not have the downtime and accessibility problems associated with SC.

Thanks

Geoff

I'm in OZ myself (Sydney) been using SpamCop email since 80's last century NEVER had problems with getting email delivered to my inbox and that's from ALL parts of world, to ALL parts in the world (I travel) including Antarctica?

The (IMO) largest goof-up in Australia is the unemployable formally Government owned Telstra and their copper wire connection (I now understand your email losses)

pen_seals.jpg

Edited by petzl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To turetzer;

Thanks for the post. I think everyone one of us that helps out anywhere on any forum or list often get frustrated because we think we are helping someone out and it seems they don't have the basic intelligence to follow even the simplest advice. We've all had this. And we all have the feeling to want to grab the person by the scruff of their collar and give them a shake to wake them up. It doesn't help at all being condesending or making people feel they have wasted your time. We don't need a study on this, it is pretty obvious when you trawl through discussion lists that those who really take the time and have the patience are mostly very much appreciated.

I get the feeling this is part of Wazoos job and that can become taxing. I'm not into the glass half full/ half empty analogy, but in this case it is relevant, it really does help to see if the user is at least half there.

The other thing is some of us are so busy, multitasking on so many issues, that we only have a little brain space to address these side issues, that's why we come here for help, and not go reading reams of documents to become experts on the issue, just gain enough understanding to be able to learn enough to handle the situation with knowledge and competence.

It's really amazing what happens sometimes, I had a ticket openned on this issue with Netenburg and they decided to close it on Sunday. I think that is a statement in itself that IT personal are given no life, it's expected they have a borg like interface to the net. I was at a friends place on Sunday and they asked if I need to check my mail, and I said, no, day off... I guess that's very unprofessional of me:-(

And back to the main issue, I did provide an exact email of what Netenburg was generating and what SC was rejecting, and given whatever Wazoo had a problem with, there has been no answer why SC rejects this email (at least none that I have understood).

petzl

Thanks for that, for some reason this whole issue of popping into SC direct hasn't occured to me, but from what I see people saying I'll change this (far more practical).

FYI - I'm still not receiving email notifications of replies even though the system says I am.

Regards and thanks

Geoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And back to the main issue, I did provide an exact email of what Netenburg was generating and what SC was rejecting, and given whatever Wazoo had a problem with, there has been no answer why SC rejects this email (at least none that I have understood).
Hi Geoff, I'm confused. You've provided a heavily munged header "template" and you've provided a lightly munged actual header which bears no apparent connection to the template (since it was not sent out of the local network). SC was refusing acceptance on account of inadequate headers. We have yet to see any actual evidence of Netenburg providing valid headers and until that happens the answer would seem to be that it is very likely Netenburg don't provide the expected address and ID in their headers.

They do seem to have some defects which would prevent acceptance of mail from their server 69.16.203.64 by some networks:

No PTR records exist for 69.16.203.64 (no rDNS). RFC1912 2.1 says you should have a reverse DNS for all your mail servers. It is strongly urged that you have them, as many mailservers will not accept mail from mailservers with no reverse DNS entry.

ERROR: One or more of your mailservers does not accept mail to postmaster[at]netenberg.com. Mailservers are required (RFC822 6.3, RFC1123 5.2.7, and RFC2821 4.5.1) to accept mail to postmaster.

WARNING: One or more of your mailservers does not accept mail to abuse[at]netenberg.com. Mailservers are expected by RFC2142 to accept mail to abuse.

WARNING: One or more of your mailservers does not accept mail in the domain literal format (user[at][0.0.0.0]). Mailservers are technically required RFC1123 5.2.17 to accept mail to domain literals for any of its IP addresses. Not accepting domain literals can make it more difficult to test your mailserver, and can prevent you from receiving E-mail from people reporting problems with your mailserver. However, it is unlikely that any problems will occur if the domain literals are not accepted (mailservers at many common large domains have this problem).

I don't believe SC would reject on any of the above but goes to the point that Netenburg are simply not configured as a competent email sender. I wouldn't trust that their emails have adequately constructed headers (in the circumstance that their service attempted to send your email to an external service - that facility should be denied unless they stamp the headers and I think they're neither doing that nor denying the facility).

...I get the feeling this is part of Wazoos job and that can become taxing. I'm not into the glass half full/ half empty analogy, but in this case it is relevant, it really does help to see if the user is at least half there. ...
Let it go Geoff - your reaction was not proportionate to what Wazoo said. You've been around a while, maybe you think you know him. You don't, but you've judged him. And you know what you're actually doing when you attempt to judge someone you don't know, don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

petzl

Thanks for that, for some reason this whole issue of popping into SC direct hasn't occured to me, but from what I see people saying I'll change this (far more practical).

FYI - I'm still not receiving email notifications of replies even though the system says I am.

Regards and thanks

Geoff

The settings for sending/receiving SpamCop email

recieving POP3 pop.spamcop.net

sending SMTP smtp.cesmail.net (do not use PORT 25 USE PORT 587 )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farelf:

I'm confused too, because their example header template shows little or no resemblance to what their system actually generated, given the email that I did provide later.

Regarding Wazoo:

That glass half empty/half full was a reference to users looking for support (not Wazoo). I think you misunderstood who the quote was applying too. It was applying to users like myself and the perception of those assisting those looking for help. What I was saying is that if you regard users as such a bunch of moroons that they are catagoried as glass half empty sydrome, that's negative, whereas, if the user is not quite there and needs a bit of gentle assistance then they are percieved as glass half full.

It's good that most of you support Wazoo, but you should also look at his posts here. He completely misunderstood my initial post and DavidT had to correct him, shooting off without correctly asssessing the request. There's little softness or gentleness in his manner. This is a sign to me of someone who needs help, or at least assistance. I do hope there are people here who do have real day to day contact with him and can assist him, because I certainly won't be coming back here if that's the type of responses I get, and the type of manner that is accepted on these forums... maybe that is the intention, to drive moroons away.

Also, I'm sorry to say this, but even if someone like myself wants to try and help themselves the Wiki doesn't provide much beyond basic information. You have to come here to solve problems. And even then no one has been able to tell me what it is that is in this email header that is causing SC to reject it.

I'm sorry to be critical, I'm trying to be constructive and help out, I'm certainly not trying to slag off. I really do appreciate the work and contribution that is being made.

Thanks (and sorry)

Regards

Geoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And even then no one has been able to tell me what it is that is in this email header that is causing SC to reject it.

You can not get ANY definitive answers in this forum as we are all simply other users here as has been pointed out, including at the top of every page. You need to co-ordiate a test with your sending server and JT, the administrator of the spamcop email server to see what both sides are seeing.

Also, I don't believe you have provided enough evidence for anyone to make a solid gues as to what is happening. You have provided 2 completely different sets of headers and a very limited set of server logs.

IF the second set of headers is what is causing the error message in the server logs from the first post, my best guess is the line: "From - Wed Feb 14 08:13:16 2007" causing the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I get the feeling this is part of Wazoos job

Oh how nifty .... now I've got a job ...?????

The other thing is some of us are so busy, multitasking on so many issues,

Yeah .. since this Topic was started ....

27 computers in the door, 34 out the door

seven automobiles fixed for their respective owners

a dozen or so e-bay auction items won, money orders sent for things that other folks that can't understand the technical stuff, how to use e-bay, etc.

annual flood of folks wanting their taxes done has started

still providing health care, errand-running, meds/prescription handling for folks in four different homes

(stuff that comes to mind at the time of this posting)

amd then there's this SpamCop stuff .....

Oh yeah, while we're talking "job" .... I had exactly one of the above folks actually "pay" me for 'services rendered' .. in that case, an XP Recovery gone horrible wrong (see http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=7924 ) ... a couple of days trying to work around the PC Angel Recovery tool issues, a dozen hours after using the CDs that worked, bringing all the software up to date, installing (my favorites suite of) anti-virus, malware, trojan, etc. diagnostic tools, e-mail accounts, IM accounts, etc., etc., etc. ..... not exactly bowled over by her $40 U.S. offering, but again ... hardly any of this looking like "a job" .. oh wait, I forgot the $0.20 left over from the guy wanting a wired hub, cpu cooling fan & heat sink, and 128M of RAM .. (at least I'm thinking I'll get to keep the 20 cents left over from his $20 ..????) .. on the other hand, burned out yet another 12-volt air compressor, had to repair my battery charger, busted another two sockets that I'll need to replace, on and on ... yeah, trying to answer questions here based on no data provided is definitely "part of my job" .....

And back to the main issue, I did provide an exact email of what Netenburg was generating and what SC was rejecting, and given whatever Wazoo had a problem with, there has been no answer why SC rejects this email (at least none that I have understood).

Heh! .... I have a few dictionaries floating around, there's a slew of them on-line ... not a one offers a definition of "exact" that comes close to what you actually offered as a 'sample' .... noting that the lack of data has been mentioned by several other folks, not "just wazoo" .....

but you should also look at his posts here.

All 9,000+ of them?

He completely misunderstood my initial post and DavidT had to correct him, shooting off without correctly asssessing the request.

No, I added some additional thoughts after making my primary statement ... later noting that the "additional" thought was from so many of the previous replies to such munged 'samples' being a query about Reporting issues .. as stated, only coming into mind after scanning up/down/all-around that "exact" copy, trying to find something to work with ... the primary thought and remarks still stand .. there is no way to analyze anything based on the lack of data left in your provided sample.

There's little softness or gentleness in his manner.

You really need 20 paragraphs of gentle hand-holding crap to hear "you munged out too much stuff .. there's nothing to work with here .." ????

Also, I'm sorry to say this, but even if someone like myself wants to try and help themselves the Wiki doesn't provide much beyond basic information.

obviously another part of Wazoo's "Job" that isn't getting handled, huh? Geeze, something ought to be done ....

You have to come here to solve problems. And even then no one has been able to tell me what it is that is in this email header that is causing SC to reject it.

I said it first, others have repeated it .. your 'exact' copy is useless on the first instance. Your second sample doesn't seem to relate at all, even if it hadn't been munged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did change my preferences to get immediate emails, and that did happen for a while, I made no other changes, and they stopped for no reason.

As per my PM and posted reply. OK, you made the change, notifications were sent/received. Good.

FYI - I'm still not receiving email notifications of replies even though the system says I am.

Hmmmm, database check does not support your previous quoted statement .,....

SELECT * FROM ipb_tracker where member_id='2025'
trid member_id topic_id start_date last_sent topic_track_type 
4660 2025 7927 1171352783 0 delayed 

It is now showing "delayed" again.

As far as I'm concerned I did provide a real email.

And as this was in the posting I quoted .... "real" e-mal with necessary data completely munged out .. there is quite a bit of a difference there, expecially when the query is for someone to analyze the problem.

Anyway, munged log entries from the forum showing out-going traffic:

grep ashocka mail.log.0

Feb 13 18:55:15 xxxxxx postfix/smtp[2201]: 89E30DC8054: to=<xxxxx[at]xxxxxx.xxx>, relay=mx.spamcop.net[xxx.xxx.xxx.xx], delay=17, status=sent (250 ok 1171410915 qp 4503)

Feb 13 19:18:19 xxxxxx postfix/smtp[2673]: 5AA86DC8054: to=<xxxxx[at]xxxxxx.xxx>, relay=mx.spamcop.net[xxx.xxx.xxx.xx], delay=8, status=sent (250 ok 1171412299 qp 11312)

Feb 14 10:28:30 xxxxxx postfix/smtp[18995]: 6082CDC8054: to=<xxxxx[at]xxxxxx.xxx>, relay=mx.spamcop.net[xxx.xxx.xxx.xx], delay=1, status=sent (250 ok 1171466910 qp 18882)

grep ashocka mail.log

Feb 19 21:43:34 xxxxxx postfix/smtp[23817]: B9AA2DC8054: to=<xxxxx[at]xxxxxx.xxx>, relay=mx.spamcop.net[xxx.xxx.xxx.xx], delay=1, status=sent (250 ok 1171939414 qp 31444)

As in your provided sample, the munging here makes it mext to impossible (well, not really, I left some signficant bits in place) to actually use the data provided, say by your ISP to check the corresponding logs, but ... as you seem to feel ... trust me, these are 'your' log entries 'here' ...

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  

×