robrub Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Hi, I'm using MailWasher Pro and started using SpamCop for reporting. In fact, I just check the SpamCop colon in MailWasher for each spam and MW reports the mail to SC. Great for me... BUT, then I receive a mail for each spam report sent. Then, I have to login to SpamCopp, click on the link to show the message report and click to validate the reporting. It takes about 5 - 10 seconds for each report and I get about 4 - 5000 spam messages per week! I stopped reporting to SC after 1 week as I got more annoyed waiting SC then receiving spam! Is there a way (now or in the futur) to report without having to do it twice (once in MW, and 2nd on the SC site? Regards RR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Is there a way (now or in the futur) to report without having to do it twice (once in MW, and 2nd on the SC site? That's the thing, you are NOT reporting it twice. You are SUBMITTING the spam to spamcop with MW and only sending YOUR REPORTS after you confirm in SpamCop. MailWasher is offering the submit as an option, but is not related to spamcop at all, 2 seperate processes. That being said, please search the FAQ for the phrase "quick reporting", what it includes (and doesn't) and how to go about getting it working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 ...Is there a way (now or in the futur) to report without having to do it twice (once in MW, and 2nd on the SC site? ...Hi robrub. There are many more streamlined ways to use SpamCop - here is a sampling gathered for consideration of intending reporters and those who are finding their present methods leave something to be desired: http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2385 As to whether something more elegant might be developed for MW - I would think that is a matter for MW development, but then I don't know anything about MW (apart from the fake 'bounces' I used to get from one of my correspondents when he neglected to whitelist my new address ). Maybe another MW user would care to comment but I don't think that MW is really intended for the volumes of spam you are talking about. You don't have to report it all, of course - "as much as you are comfortable with" is the usual advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryNZ Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 The MailWasher Wiki gives good guidance on how to set up Quick Reporting. Remember that quick reporting does not do any spmavertized site reporting. ht tp://wiki.castlecops.com/SpamCop_Report_Considerations Moderator Edit: Referenced URL / web-site no longer exists. A possible alternate site is suggested below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 If you don't have the 'bounce' feature turned off in MW, then it wouldn't be just the correspondents you forgot to whitelist that would get irritating bounces. It would be all 5000 of those spams with forged addresses! That kind of fake 'bounce' can also get your IP address listed in spamcop. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrub Posted October 20, 2006 Author Share Posted October 20, 2006 The MailWasher Wiki gives good guidance on how to set up Quick Reporting. Remember that quick reporting does not do any spmavertized site reporting. Hi Terry, That is the exact info I was searching for Great. Thanks a lot and best regard to the other side of the globe (you are still all upside down right ? Robby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maryann Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 I am new to this and very confused - can someone tell me how to access the MailWasher Wiki for guidance on how to set up Quick Reporting. Also, can someone confirm whether the 'bounce' feature should be on or off in mailwasher. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Removed unnecessary quote. DO NOT USE THE BOUNCE feature!!! All it does is send spam to the forged FROM addresses and you become part of the problem sending all the spam you get to someone else on the spammer's list. I don't know where the Mailwasher wiki is, but if you go to the Mailwasher site and then to Support, there is a user forum there. The wiki apparently was at castlecops which shut down, I think. If you are confused about this, it is probably not a good idea to use Quick Reporting until you understand how spamcop parses. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 ... - can someone tell me how to access the MailWasher Wiki for guidance on how to set up Quick Reporting. ...Hi maryann. AlphaCentauri's post at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...ost&p=68584 indicates that some of the CastleCops wiki stuff is being re-created at http://wiki.battlespam.info/index.php/Special:AllPages and I see some Mailwasher stuff there. As Miss Betsy has said - NEVER bounce to the "From:" address in spam (or "Reply to:", "Return path:" etc.) If you can decipher the headers you will realize these are almost always forged - some innocent is at the other end, in some instances that will even be you. If you can't understand the headers then I question the wisdom of leaping straight into Quick Reporting. Perhaps it would be prudent to submit and complete a few "full" reports first, until you gain some confidence about the process. You're okay with the mailhosting setup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Balance of discussion moved to http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10154 as it no longer deals with the requested feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.