Freddie Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Thanks for the update, Don. Has this problem now recurred ? I am getting the same error message since a few days now for reports like this http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1298503325z1...ea3b572b276a2dz Please help Moderator Edit: extracted from http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=7755 as there is no direct relationship to that subject matter .... made into it's own 'new' Topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Has this problem now recurred ? I am getting the same error message since a few days now for reports like this First look .. parsing codebase has changed .... per my little bit of record-keeping; 15 Nov 2006 - SpamCop v 1.603 Copyright © 1998-2006 07 Dec 2006 - SpamCop v #612 Copyright © 1998-2006 18 Jan 2007 - SpamCop v 620 Copyright © 1998-2006 04 Mar 2007 - SpamCop v 630 Copyright © 1998-2006 (noted after a week of me not having power) 10 May 2007 - SpamCop v 640 Copyright © 1998-2006 Second item, the results I see in your provided Tracking URL ... didn't see the typical line numbers as normally seen in a MailHost Configured parse result; Parsing header: Received: from 86.138.149.142 by (LogSat Software SMTP Server); Thu, 10 May 2007 10:43:28 +0200 Invalid "received by" No source IP address found, cannot proceed. Looking at the spam submitted itself, this turns out to be the "only" Received: line in the header ... Nothing 'wrong' seen from the parsing results ... the issue is the content of your spam submittal ... Split this out from the Topic it was posted into as the subject matter is different ... Also moved ir to the Reporting Help section, as the MailHost Condiguration is the least of the problems with this spam submittal .. PM sent to advise of all this activity ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddie Posted May 10, 2007 Author Share Posted May 10, 2007 I don't understand one single word of that - what is wrong with the submission ? It is all the information which is provided in the message Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Compare the only Received: line in your submittal to a 'correctlu formatted' line snagged from elsewhere ... yours, bad; Received: from 86.138.149.142 by (LogSat Software SMTP Server); Thu, 10 May 2007 10:43:28 +0200 other, good; Received: from zeta.cesmail.net (64.88.168.67) by mx53.cesmail.net with SMTP; 10 May 2007 12:54:12 -0000 Initial suggestion would be to talk to your e-mail hosting ISP about configuration issues with their server ... but this is also not to rule out some possible issues in your reporting tools/process ... as that is undefined at this point also .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpamCopAdmin Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 I am getting the same error message since a few days now for reports like this http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1298503325z1...ea3b572b276a2dz The problem is that the server that got the email from outside your network doesn't identify itself. Received: from 86.138.149.142 by (LogSat Software SMTP Server); Thu, 10 May 2007 Notice that the "Received" line in the headers shows where the mail came from (86.138.149.142), but it doesn't say who it was received by. We know that the receiving server is a "LogSat Software SMTP Server" but we don't know the server's name. That won't work. SpamCop needs to know the name of the server that got the email from outside. That line should read something like this: Received: from 86.138.149.142 by incomingserver.myisp.com (LogSat Software SMTP Server); Thu, 10 May 2007 Please ask your service provider to configure its incoming mail server to identify itself with its true name when it gets email. - Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Please ask your service provider to configure its incoming mail server to identify itself with its true name when it gets email. Excellent repeat of what I said ...???? Didn't point to the FAQ, offered examples, straight answer provided .... and yet ... geeze .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Freddie, do understand any better now? I am not sure I do. I think what it says is that your ISP made a boo-boo in how it records how your email is received. Since, from your initial post, you have been reporting spam without problems before, it seems unlikely that your ISP has changed the way it is doing things. Of course, if /all/ your spam reports turn out this way, it could be that someone at your ISP has made a major blunder in configuration for some reason (new employee?). Wazoo mentioned 'mailhosts' - if you have a spamcop email account and report that way, you may want to register with mailhosts. But, first, copy the 'answers' you got to your ISP and see what they say. But don't give up! Someone, somewhere has the answer! Copy your ISPs answers back here. Someone will explain what they say. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddie Posted May 11, 2007 Author Share Posted May 11, 2007 Thanks Betsy - I think it is clear now what happened, thanks to SpamCopAdmin and your post. I wish Wazoo would stop posting replies here because it is obvious that he hates to do it and that he hates people who ask questions I have regularly been submitting spam to Spamcop for quite a lot of year now and I was seriously considering quitting doing it if I have to read replies like that. maybe he should also take some lessons in expressing himself clearly - see SpamCopAdmin's explanation compared with Wazoo's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 Initial suggestion would be to talk to your e-mail hosting ISP about configuration issues with their server ... Please ask your service provider to configure its incoming mail server to identify itself with its true name when it gets email. see SpamCopAdmin's explanation compared with Wazoo's Both state that you should talk to your e-mail hosting ISP .... in theory, those running an e-mail server are supposed to have a clue. I even gave you examples of bad versus good, yet you complain about that? I also offered up the possibility that it might not be your ISP, but again, you don't like that possibility being noted? Yeah, I took time out of doing "my" stuff so I could research your query and offer up an answer .... obviously, I hate doing that ... get a clue .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpamCopAdmin Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 Excellent repeat of what I said ...???? Didn't point to the FAQ, offered examples, straight answer provided .... and yet ... geeze .... You showed him a bad example and a good example of a "Received" line and expected him to figure out what the difference is. Then you made some vague reference to ISP "configuration issues." I told him exactly what was wrong using plain English, and then I told him precisely what his ISP needed to do to fix the problem, again using straight talk. - Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 You showed him a bad example and a good example of a "Received" line and expected him to figure out what the difference is. Then you made some vague reference to ISP "configuration issues." Yep .... my calculations were that if headers could be read, this query would not have been posted into the wrong Forum section, into a [Resolved] Topic that had no relationship at all to this specific issue ... in fact, the query itself wouldn't have been necessary, as the 'problen' is self-evident. If the issue was not due to the reporter's handling, tool-set, etc. then the only available option would be that the ISP's configuration was at fault. If the poster had already made obvious that reading headers was outside of his/her realm, none of the FAQs had not been looked at at all, I pulled data from the examples offered, dig out data to offer a 'good' example, posted the quick answer such that this user had something concrete to "show" the ISP involved without having to go into detail. I told him exactly what was wrong using plain English, and then I told him precisely what his ISP needed to do to fix the problem, again using straight talk. Whatever .. I did it with "pictures" .. you dd it with words .. again, if the user wanted to "learn how to read headers" there is data available in the SpamCop FAQ 'here' .. with links to the 'original/official FAQ, links internal to this Forum, links to the Wiki, links to other sites .... the ISP involved with the e-mail server should be able to recognize exactly what my post demonstrated, and that 'make contact' suggestion was in that response .... and noting, I've answered a whole raft of other queries here, other support Forum queries on other applications, worked on the next release of this Forum app to be 'running' here in a bit, worked on the next release of the Wiki used here, handled some spam issues with the newsgroup archiving tool on yet another server, made posts over in the newsgroups on other issues (funnily enough, some of that was about the 'Official FAQ' yet again ....), three other 'client' computers out the door, four of 'my' systems now torn apart, trying to sort out how to resurrect 'one' that just might resemble my 'primary' development/work system .. having to do all this current work on systems that were simply junk yesterday, forcing myself to learn the Win-XP,IE7 with no power tools way to do things that I had my ancient 98SE system doing with just a mouse-click here, there .... finding out that Ubuntu 7.0.4 has issues (the hard way) .... oh, and here's the obvious ... I have not made a dime for any of this effort .... On the other hand, where is your input on subject matter that 'more demands' "your" attention? For example; Adding ASSP apparently causes reporting to fail Just pointing out that I try to make sure everyone gets an answer here .. as compared to the "let's pick one query for the day and call it good" scenario .... there is a thought process behind one query only getting 30 seconds of my time, yet another might take over an hour to research, also impacted by just what else I have going on at that moment ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 As I said before, neither explanation made much sense to me - though I now can make a good guess since I have studied headers and if they are simple ones, sometimes can understand them. If I had been Freddy, I would have copied Wazoo's examples to my ISP and said, "What does he mean?" If Don's post had been the only one I saw, I would have copied it to my ISP and said, "Do you know what to do so that I can report via spamcop?" One thing about Wazoo's posts is that he often tells more than you want to know. When you are trying to fix something, that's irritating. Who cares how many versions of spamcop there are unless it answers my question? OTOH, after the immediate problem is fixed, an inquiring mind thinks "why are mailhosts important?" and looks for information. If it is me, I find nothing or can't understand what I do find, so then I ask, "what are mailhosts and why are they important?" and I learn something. And, I also know there are different versions of spamcop which might explain something, sometime. If it weren't for the characters like Wazoo and some others - particularly the smart alecky ones, I probably would not have kept looking at the ngs (and now the forum) after I found the answer to my immediate question. And that's why both places are sources of information about anti-spam efforts which is good, IMHO. So, in spite of the fact, that a fairly large percentage of newbies find Wazoo's answers incomprehensible and irritating, my viewpoint is that they usually do contain the answer (if he doesn't just point to the FAQ), and if the OP doesn't understand, there will be someone else along to explain it differently or suggest a different course of action (I don't know why the OP credited me with help except that I suggested that he 'copy' the answers to his ISP, as a for instance to a different course of action). There is no way that forum or ng posts are going to be 'professional' and IMHO, would be entirely detrimental since no one enjoys having 'chats' with professionals who have obvious scripts and act more like robots than not. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddie Posted May 12, 2007 Author Share Posted May 12, 2007 Yep .... my calculations were that if headers could be read, this query would not have been posted into the wrong Forum section, into a [Resolved] Topic that had no relationship at all to this specific issue ... in fact, the query itself wouldn't have been necessary, as the 'problen' is self-evident. Obviously it wasn't resolved and the thread I posted in was EXACTLY the same error messages Whatever .. I did it with "pictures" .. you dd it with words .. again, if the user wanted to "learn how to read headers" there is data available in the SpamCop FAQ 'here' .. with links to the 'original/official FAQ, links internal to this Forum, links to the Wiki, links to other sites .... the ISP involved with the e-mail server should be able to recognize exactly what my post demonstrated, and that 'make contact' suggestion was in that response .... I don't want to learn more about reading mail headers - I just wanted to keep contributing my spam because it is my understanding that this is what SpamCop needs to be running. I didn't change anything at all - you changed the way the spam is being handled and all of a sudden it didn't work anymore I would prefer that if I EVER shoudl post a question here again that you (Wazoo) NEVER respond to my queries again. I don't like you attitude at all - I don't want to become a mail header expert. If that is what I need to use SpamCop then I will stop. Period. If that is what you want then OK I don't understand at all why Don lets you be forum admin here at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 I didn't change anything at all - you changed the way the spam is being handled and all of a sudden it didn't work anymoreIt was NOT SpamCop that changed something, but your ISP. The header you posted could NEVER had been parsed. That is where you have been directed by several people now. I don't understand at all why Don lets you be forum admin here at all. That is not Don's choice. JT (Email Admin) setup the forums and "hired" Wazoo to run them. JT has never had (to my knowledge) any problem with the way Wazoo runs the forums. For the history of the forums, it has been posted many times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 ...I would prefer that if I EVER shoudl post a question here again that you (Wazoo) NEVER respond to my queries again.I hope you have no hesitation in coming back with problems, should they occur, or try the newgroups if you prefer, or just browse the FAQs and other resources "here" (that's what they're for). Just be aware when you post that you don't get to dictate who reponds. Fixing the problem is what counts, diversions about perceived attitude and spirited defences of your dignity are unproductive to that end - your call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 <snip>I didn't change anything at all - you changed the way the spam is being handled and all of a sudden it didn't work anymore<snip> From what has been posted by those who really do understand headers, the problem was not with spamcop, but with your ISP. StevenUnderwood is assuming that you did talk to your ISP and he did correct the header configuration so that spamcop would accept it. However, you have not said that you have done anything to resolve the problem. That could mean that the ISP discovered the problem on his own without your help and corrected it so that now you can continue to report via spamcop. It probably does not mean that spamcop did anything to correct the problem (with the exception that Don had some extra time and contacted your ISP himself - I don't know what the policy is about contacting ISPs about reporter problems, but my impression is that it is not something to be expected on an ordinary basis - particularly a problem that is posted in the forum). While reporting spam is a valuable activity, it is more valuable if the reporter has some idea about how email works. In another topic, a poster (arguing for the use of another tool to stop spam) compares spammers to drunken drivers. I, also, like the comparison to driving on the highway - especially since the internet is sometimes called 'the information highway' Responsible drivers have a little bit of knowledge about how automobiles work. They may not be able to get under the hood and fix things or even to add oil or to change a tire, but they generally know the basic concepts of how an automobile works and why it needs oil and water, etc. The discussion in the other topic centers around the fact that while blocklists would work to stop spam from being such a large nuisance and so would SPF which is a way of determining that the sending computer really is a legitimate email server, I believe - like you, I am not very interested in delving too far into the whys and wherefores - neither one of them are particularly effective because so few server admins actually use them. And the reason so many server admins don't use them is because end users like you and me don't want to bother with explanations of why they work and why both of them may block legitimate email. End users now just don't get email because server admins are trying to filter for dozens of people who don't understand. Email has become very unreliable for me because I never know when something is not going to get delivered. With the other two systems, there is a definite reason which is correctable by the sender. The end user on the receiving end has no chance to keep up with all the possible reasons to tag spam and so either receives a lot of spam or doesn't receive legitimate email. In other words, if your car stopped running and you were parked on the shoulder, and another driver stopped and said, "This is your problem and you need to call your mechanic" using terms that only car mechanics understand, would you be ungrateful or would you write down what he said and tell it to the mechanic that the wrecker takes you to? It is not a perfect analogy. And other posters would want to know whether you did contact your ISP or whether this problem was resolved magically. As you point out, other people get the same error message. Others may be able to find out by reading this topic how to fix it without having to post a question and wait for an answer. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Yep .... my calculations were that if headers could be read, this query would not have been posted into the wrong Forum section, into a [Resolved] Topic that had no relationship at all to this specific issue ... in fact, the query itself wouldn't have been necessary, as the 'problen' is self-evident. Obviously it wasn't resolved and the thread I posted in was EXACTLY the same error messages The "same error message" is certainly valid, but there's only 100 different things you can do to end up with the "same error message" .... It boils down to "something is wrong with the spam submittal" .. it is "the something" that seems to need the analysis and identification for each case. Whatever .. I did it with "pictures" .. you dd it with words .. again, if the user wanted to "learn how to read headers" there is data available in the SpamCop FAQ 'here' .. with links to the 'original/official FAQ, links internal to this Forum, links to the Wiki, links to other sites .... the ISP involved with the e-mail server should be able to recognize exactly what my post demonstrated, and that 'make contact' suggestion was in that response .... I don't want to learn more about reading mail headers - I just wanted to keep contributing my spam because it is my understanding that this is what SpamCop needs to be running. Thanks for validating my thought process on not boring you with details in my initial post. I didn't change anything at all - you changed the way the spam is being handled and all of a sudden it didn't work anymore You started with "ISP had problems" ... then your submittals had problems ... I pointed out the exact issue in the spam submittal headers ... please connect the dots .... your ISP changed something in a bad way ... you can't fix that, only your ISP can .... I did also offer that there were some other possibilities .. the 'new' parsing code put into place, and the possibility that you were not reporting the full headers for some reason ... just to suggest that the reply was based on just the data seen .... I would prefer that if I EVER shoudl post a question here again that you (Wazoo) NEVER respond to my queries again. I don't have time to track this kind of stuff .... you apparently ddn't read my Just pointing out that I try to make sure everyone gets an answer here comment in a previous post .... when I check in here and see a question, there needs to be a reply, hopefully an answer right after .... I don't like you attitude at all - I don't want to become a mail header expert. If that is what I need to use SpamCop then I will stop. Period. If that is what you want then OK Again, thanks for validating my thoughts about not going into detail about your specific issue in this query. I don't understand at all why Don lets you be forum admin here at all. You really need to look at Section 8 - SpamCop's System & Active Staff User Guide Another way to look at it ... part of Don's paycheck is 'justified' by the number of e-mails he sends out answering questions .... story goes that spending time in this Forum doesn't fit any of the blocks on the time-card .. so perhaps one could say that even Don is a 'volunteer' here .... (at the time of this posting, you'll note that the 'invitation' to get involved in another Topic hasn't happened ....) I don't get paid, and my prime focus is that this support forum not be like so many others I have to use when researching issues elsewhere .... questions dated years prior but having zero replies, Topics/threads full of nothing but the inital question and 20 "me too" replies .... My secondary objective is to not have to answer the same questions over and over and over, thus the continued efforts on building FAQ lists, forms, and venues such that the answer exists before 'you' have to ask. BTW: answering questions asked is but a small portion of what I do to keep this thing up-to-date and running. Typically, it's when taking a break from code-bashing that I will check to see if there are any new queries that need answers. and that's only when my 'focus' is on SpamCop.net issues .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 <snip> BTW: answering questions asked is but a small portion of what I do to keep this thing up-to-date and running. Typically, it's when taking a break from code-bashing that I will check to see if there are any new queries that need answers. and that's only when my 'focus' is on SpamCop.net issues .... ...IMHO, Wazoo is being far too modest here (and far too patient in trying to soothe Freddie's ruffled feathers and justifying to Don the way he chose to answer) -- just look at how many first answers to postings are provided by him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddie Posted May 15, 2007 Author Share Posted May 15, 2007 It was NOT SpamCop that changed something, but your ISP. The header you posted could NEVER had been parsed. That is where you have been directed by several people now. That is not Don's choice. JT (Email Admin) setup the forums and "hired" Wazoo to run them. JT has never had (to my knowledge) any problem with the way Wazoo runs the forums. For the history of the forums, it has been posted many times. I did NOT change anything and the headers were parsed perfectly up to the day when they suddenly were no longer accepted ! And I will never ever use this stupid forum again And if I ever have any problems again, I will stop using SpamCop - my choice indeed ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 I did NOT change anything and the headers were parsed perfectly up to the day when they suddenly were no longer accepted ! And I will never ever use this stupid forum again And if I ever have any problems again, I will stop using SpamCop - my choice indeed ! I do not understand your reaction here? I did not say you changed anything. Don, Wazoo and now myself have all said that the change was by your ISP. And it is your choice to use SpamCop or not. Nobody here is begging you to stay or asking you to leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 I am feeling ignored here. IIUC Freddie's last post, his problem was 'magically' resolved. My bet is that his ISP discovered the error some other way - perhaps a more knowledgable user; perhaps reports by less knowledgable users that showed the error or, at least, pointed the ISP in the direction of a server admin who would explain the bounce. And Freddie's attitude is exactly why ISPs won't try to explain things to customers - they don't want to lose customers. IMHO, Freddie is part of the spam problem so it doesn't matter whether or not he continues to use spamcop. He is not going to take the measures necessary to insist on reliable email service - and that's the only way that the spam problem is going to go away. End users have to be responsible consumers. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.