Wazoo

There's that scare factor again. No edits made to forum code today ... the last several hours as been spent going through IPB forums, collecting notes, some code bits, etc. A check before hitting Reply showed me both fill and quick editing in a drop down ... The difference really shows up based on just wht you're going to edit. If it's just a word, extra paragragh, add a line, the the "quick" thing is based on not having to repaint the entire screen with the whole editing box .... whereas, if you want to use the icon tools to add a link, change formatting, etc, then "full" edit would be the way to go ... On the flip side, more people crying about their updated / patched / whatever 2.1.6 forums getting hacked ... Started out be reading (what I consider a pretty strange) post some guy granted Moderator powers based on ???? (guessing code contributions .. but perhaps just on bfarber's decision) ... anyway, here we go with a week-end thing again ... Yet, as per the norm, the new Topics continue .... however, no real data provided, other than the results of the hacks ....

some status updates made

If you had http://forum.spamcop.net bookmarked, yoi may have been very confused upon hitting the (under work) Portal page. Assumedly, you followed one of the links to the Forum to get here ..... In addition, the SpamCop.net logo link has been changed to also bring up the Portal page ... To jump back to the Forum 'front' page .... use your browser's Back button use the 'Navigation Breadcrumbs' provided towards the top of this screen by SpamCop Discussion > Discussions & Observations > How to use ... Clicking ^^^^^^^ here

Page heading bars with links added back in Navigation bar modified to include links to working stuff Logo changed SpellCheck modification applied (not a button this time, look for the icon at the top of the edit box) Save sent PM to your Sent Folder as default modification made again Sort issue with posts shown on the Portal page made Upgraded version of a Custom Page Mod installed ... problem is that old posts need revision to the URL .. working through that .. Missing in action: SCKB - alternate view of the SpamCop FAQ Start Here link now broken ... missing the above Mod .... fixed by building a new page, using the latest Custom Page Mod .... .... same 'fix' applied to the first entry in the SpamCop FAQ here .... Member bar "View Your Posts" modification Server status link in the logo bar - layout issues I'll have to work through for starters .... In place and working link on the Portal Page ... either hit the spamcop.net logo at the top of the screen or enter at http://www.forum.spamcop.net/ ..... Save copy of Warn PM to Sent Folder Need to do: Forum FAQ needs some updating in places Complete check of links floating around ... most internal links should work fine, but ... as above, some tools not present now .... Explanation: Cookie information was changed, the old cookie data doesn't match the database stuff at the first login to this install This just a quick scan though a couple of files here on things done, todo, need to figure out, etc. any updates, oversights would be appreciated.

Apparently, much of the information in even the last batch of posts in this Topic have yet to be made clear enough. How about giving Miss Betsy's last attempt at explaining / offering some data that was posted as and into the Announcements section a read ... Welcome to the SpamCop Forum. Please then follow the links provided.

Thanks again. Tagged this as Resolved.

Thanks Don .. Pinned this so it won't "sink" .....

updated to use tags to pull in the graphic ..... appled strike-out codes to the word "new" .... added the [Quick Report] identification ... there should be a note that MailHost configuration is now a requirement for Quick Reporting approval ..????

The existing Glossary I started way back when has been much re-worked by dbiel and some fellow Moderators (even some plain old users joined in at times!) ... Last check, it was showing over 8300 views (though having to admit that it's unknown how many of those were due to the editing involved) ... also noting that the 'original' is also showing over 8200 views ... one would have to think that a lot of thanks and credit need to go out to those that spent the time to build those documents as it sure looks as if someone is actually looking at them. An issue came up in that the existing Glossary simply outgrew the limits of some database configurations. While dbiel came up with a way to work around that issue in this application, I found a 'new' tool, worked through the mechanics of getting it installed, even got it to run, changed a few specific items, put the word out to the Moderators, a couple of other folks, and once again, dbiel lost a lot of quality family time while bringing the words and definitions over to this new tool. And just so folks know, this wasn't a simple task .. the formatting is different, the programming / coding is different .... some items were relatively easy, others took some major effort in getting it to even 'look' right on screen, other things still haven't been figured out <g> (actually funny, while looking for help, I ended up answering so many questions in the support forum for this tool, I was asked if I was the programmer .... so what you see is what's been worked out "here") Once again, thanks to all involved .... consider this the official announcement that there's a 'new' SpamCop-oriented Dictionary / Glossary available to you all ... please take a look at this new SpamCop Glossary We think that the (major?) bugs are worked out.

Section 5 updated to match current configuration for Members ....

Due to the often repeated (and sometimes dramatic) complaints from folks that don't have the time, inclination, or knowledge of the information required to actually answer/resolve a problem and then get upset at the inital response to their first post about the fact that sufficient data was not provided in that first post, this Forum section has been created. As time allows, it will be 'fully' populated. At that time, there may even be a new procedure involved in the way one interacts with the rest of the Forum .. example, a new Forum registrant may be limited to only posting in this (or a yet to be created) Forum section. Only after sufficient data has been provided would the post then be moved into the actual Forum area for actual discussion. The downside of course is all the extra work involved from this side of the screen and the probability of even further angering more folks. The penalty for folks that have a general clue, or even are attempting to ask a question that is not yet addressed here may also be an issue, but .... after playing games like taking 8 to 20 posts to get a simple answer that should have been included in the very first post, and then that Topic/Discussion gets shifted over to the perceived rudeness of other users / volunteers that were attempting to get the original poster to simply provide the missing data must simply come to an end. The SpamCop.net system has various components, some free, some paid, some technical .... add in the various methods of and tools used to interact with those tools and the resulting data, the many software applications involved, the ever-changing codebase of the many applications involved, that spammers work around the clock/world in their efforts to defeat things like filters, blocks, and analysis tools, the range of knowledge and background of computer users, etc. etc. etc. .. it should be obvious that there is no single answer available to a posting that only states "it doesn't work" .... So here's an attempt at laying out the data needed (not necessarily all inclusive) such that someone else can possibly jump in and start with some possible answers, rather than trying to play a guessing game or wasting everyone's time by re-asking for the data that should have been provided as part of the original request for help. To set the tone for this Forum section, its creation was caused by folks that ignored the Start Here - before you make your first Post and the instructions/guidance offered in that linked item. Those that even then also apprently ignored the [How-to] Post a Question (and prevent stupid/rude answers) made as an Announcemnet in every Forum section, and also seemed to ignore the notice The primary mode of support here is peer-to-peer, meaning users helping other users. (please remember this at all times!) also placed into each Forum entry screen .... then add in those that didn't see the need to look at a Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) list to see if the question they decided to post had not already had answers developed and made available such that more folks didn't have to waste time reading the same question for the millionth time and then make a call as to whther to type up the same answer for the millionth time or simply point the poster to (one of) the FAQs created for just that purpose. That these folks then got upset because all these resources and the lack of effort on the part of the user to even look at those resources get pointed out, that little to none of the needed data was provided in the original query, yet it was still expected/demanded that "the answer" be provided .... well .. here we are .... If you see your "problem" identified in the list of items showing below and you still fail to make an attempt at providing the data identified, you may find nothing but references to "read the FAQ" responses.

Oh nice, leaving me as the only one who complains? <g> There is no known IronPort staffer currently posting here, the last was during a bit of changes taking place on the www.spamcop.net web-site and that was a long, long time ago. Julian hasn't posted publically in any of the SpamCop.net venues in ages. I have provided links that state the current 'logic' of posting "inside information" as expressed by one of the "official" staff members. There's no intent to give you a hard time, but you are scratching on a point of known frustration. I once again point to an item found in the Announcements section, started off by a posting from Don about a "fix" that was made .. that eventually got tracked down "here" to the original query/report/complaint on that issue .... but the "time passed" is the best that anyone "here" can offer to answer the "when will it get fixed" questions of late.

Over and above the "The primary mode of support here is peer-to-peer, meaning users helping other users. (please remember this at all times!)" placed at the top of the pages here, please see Section 8 - SpamCop's System & Active Staff

http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...ber/106401.html Though I'd really suggest reading the whole thread. The "one can assume" thing has been the 'norm' for years.

Under SpamCop Discussion > Discussions & Observations > How to use .... > Moderator Functions http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=4748

Thanks to farelf for finding what turned out to be a Topic I started in here, data taken from a newsgroup thread .... this "change" is in fact a "fix" for the issues raised at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...indpost&p=31432

Per a posting found at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5250 ... To be honest, I've read this a number of times and am not sure I see what "the change" is ... beyond a different type of 'warning/request" ...??? just passing it on .... *EDIT* Updated per Don's correction

geodosch's post was moved from the E-Mail Account forum to this "New Feature Request" forum section .. then Merged into this existing Topic/Discussion ... PM sent to advise of this Moderator action.

Rumours are that one could simply add the "[at]" sign into a Banned filter and that would prevent someone from trying to sign up with an e-mail address, but ... as mentioned (somewhere) some folks 'want' that extra (spammer) attention ... I started sending out PMs to those non-SpamCop addressed people that basically haven't shown up since (or shortly after) registering ... quit when my PM storage got (back) to 80% full ... see if there's any/much response (or how many of these get reported <g>)

Title change made for possibly more attention grabbing ..????

No clue on passwords ... am thinking that the validation process stops most .. but will admit that I've pressed the Delete link on a couple of entries seen in the "Users awaiting authorisation" queue.

Section 1 edited as a new user registering today demonstrated that the posting code modification (to mung posted e-mail addresses) doesn't impact the Registration code bits at all.

Added to Sections 1 and 6.

It appears that the attempt at munging of user posting of e-mail addresses does not have an affect on currently register users, but have to note that it may cause some issues for future folks trying to register and attempting to use an e-mail address for their account name.

In the interest of trying to protect users from themselves, I've made an attempt at having this application code replace the [at] character with [at] when an e-mail address is posted. The thought is to minimize exposure of our users' addresses to the bots, scrapers, and even infected systems that may be perusing this Forum. The initial attempt at setting this up replaces every instance of the [at] character, but I don't really recall postings that would normally use this character in another instance, and even if used, the replacement should be self-explanatory (?) Thus far, the Moderators have made an attempt to edit these posts, but ... getting to be a lot of extra work that shouldn't be required. It would appear that the method I've tried here is not retroactive, only impacting a post when it gets submitted or edited. Edit: results of testing by dbiel (thanks!)