Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

chrislott's Achievements


Member (2/6)



  1. Good point about trying IE. I tried IE. Here are the results 1. First link is the filename of the attachment. IE opens a new window with no address bar; eventually the window says "cannot find server" in the title bar, "The page cannot be displayed" in the document render area. This is baffling, because it seems to be accessing webmail.spamcop.net, which is perfectly reachable in other IE panes. 2. Second link is "download all attachments as zip file". IE attempts to load the page in the same window (no new window). Eventually the window changes to say "cannot find server" in the title bar, and "The page cannot be displayed" in the document render area. 3. Third link is a picture of an arrow pointing down towards a picture of a harddisk enclosure. After I click that, ". IE attempts to load the page in the same window (no new window). Eventually I get the same result as #2. I think it's safe to say this is not a Firefox issue. I don't know how to judge whether the file was mangled. The email certainly is intact enough for SC webmail to recognize that it as a valid message, to notice that it has an attachment, and to offer the attachment for download in various forms. I don't know how to verify, without getting the file, its status.
  2. I have seen this problem in Firefox also: an image is attached to an email I view with SC webmail, I click on one of the attachment links so I can see the pic, and then get the error. I'm all for defending myself against nasty images, but in this case, I have taken an action to see the image -- I had to click on it. The browser does not load or show that image without this positive confirming action on my part. So it's my own fault if it turns out to be something I actually didn't want to see, let's not confuse issues. If the image can be loaded in IE but not firefox, then very possibly it's a odd MIME type being sent in these cases -- anyone know what type is sent? I'm puzzled by the suggestion to send email (picture?) as a rich-text file. If someone sends a jpg file as an attachment, how does it matter whether the email is text, rich text, or html? chris...
  3. No, have not tried IMAP. While I agree a 20Mb attachment is a bit large (and the person sending it made some questionable choices in doing so), webmail flat-out let me down. There are bugs here, and I would like someone to acknowledge there are bugs here. I would really like to see the maintainer(s) start using Bugzilla, gnats, or some kind of bug-tracking system. Then those of us who depend on webmail to run a small business know that our requests are in the queue and have a chance of getting fixed.
  4. I am using firefox to access Spamcop webmail, and to read a message with a 20Mb attachment. I would like to download this attachment. I have tried all three links in the message: 1. First link is the filename of the attachment. When I click on this, a blank firefox window opens, it quickly finishes loading and remains empty. 2. Second link is "download all attachments as zip file". When I click on this, the firefox progress indicator runs for a few seconds, then simply stops. 3. Third link is a picture of an arrow pointing down towards a picture of a harddisk enclosure. When I click on this, the firefox progress indicator runs for a few seconds, then simply stops. In all cases, I receive no error message, no dialog, etc. I also clicked on the "Save as" link in the header. This does absolutely nothing; the firefox progress indicator doesn't even start moving. I tried to redirect the email to another account. The redirect dialog doesn't disappear. Please help. I need to get this file. Thanks in advance. chris...
  5. I use SC's webmail heavily, and usually have it open on my computer. The browser refreshes itself periodically to notice new mail as directed by the webmail feature. I have tried the webmail option that opens a java scri_pt dialog when it notices new mail but find that really annoying. Instead, I'd like to suggest a modest new feature: optionally show the count of new messages in the page title. With this feature turned on, the title "Mail :: INBOX" would instead be "Mail :: INBOX [3 New]". If no new mail is there, it could either show "0 New" or simply leave it off entirely. Please consider it, and thanks for listening. chris...
  6. When Wazoo wrote "search on it" I went to google and found quite a bit. Didn't quite see any hints in the first follow up about SC forums, so didn't think of that. For anyone who is still following, here is a thread from a SC forum about mailhost config and greylisting: http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1852 The connection to the MailHost issue is as follows: apparently as part of establishing a MailHost, SC sends a probe email, and if that probe email is not immediately accepted, the MailHost is not set up properly. Greylisting causes the first attempt to fail. I don't know if the comments in that thread are relevant to the behavior of email accepted by SC's webmail system for delivery to the wide world. But "bottom line" as Wazoo says, with many ISPs greylisting, I hope Spamcop honors the intent of the email RFCs, and if it receives a 450 response on an outbound delivery attempt, tries again later. Not interested in debating.
  7. I'm quite certain that greylisting is not a challenge-response scheme at the user level. I think instead it's a mailer-daemon to mailer-daemon thing. What impact does greylisting have on Spamcop mail host config?? How does greylisting have an impact on the SpamCop system? Very curious. Thanks.
  8. My ISP offers greylisting for coping with spam. The way they describe this, it sounds like their SMTP server simply responds to every first delivery attempt with some kind of "too busy, try again later" status, and accepts every second attempt. This presumes that spammers ignore the return codes, and valid email comes from store-and-forward systems that will keep trying. It seems like a great idea but I bet there's a catch, and I don't just mean waiting the extra 10 min or whatever the delay is. Any one have comments or experience with this? If it's a solid approach, has Spamcop ever tried it? Please advise, thanks.
  9. To toss in my $0.02 -- I don't know what percentage of users are like me, but I use spamcop to *save my time*. I simply don't want to see spam or spend even one extra minute to deal with spam. This means I basically ignore my trash and held-mail folders. I never report as spam anything in the held-mail folder. So if the trash and held-mail empty themselves automatically, that's great; if not, I don't care as long as regular email keeps working. To me, it's not acceptable for my email to break (due to timeouts or whatever) because some folder accumulated too much email of whatever kind. Perhaps a warning email would be appropriate for an account that crosses some threshold. I don't know how the owner would receive that email if the system is timing out, though, so maybe not the best suggestion. Thanks for listening.
  10. This happens fairly regularly to me also. I don't mind the "error" message too much, but returning the focus to the wrong folder drives me nuts. When I asked about it some time ago, the answer I got was that it was probably due to a timeout - some server was not answering quickly enough, and the web server would give up on it.
  11. Would someone please give a few more details about "new webmail"? Is there a ChangeLog somewhere for reading? Does this correspond to a Horde release, or is it purely homegrown? Will it include performance enhancements (hw or sw or db or whatever) so my held mail folder doesn't take 20--40 seconds to open? Will it fix the "There was an error in trying to access that message" problem that crops up at random because some back-end system doesn't reply quickly enough? Will it just reorganize the buttons? Or to state it more bluntly, will it be anywhere near enough to keep up with all the great stuff that gmail offers for free? TIA
  12. Just want to ask whether this mail-authentication system is on your radar. Might make a big difference, or at least prevent good mail from going to held-mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys chris...
  13. I'm sorry to repeat, but let's not get sidetracked with my feeble attempts at testing. Never mind those. Here it is again: this morning I composed an email to 10 people (yahoo, aol, optonline, etc) using Webmail. I did not include myself on the recipient list. I clicked send in webmail. About 15 minutes later I received the bounce message that I posted earlier. Why is cesmail sending to itself over and over? That's the tough question to answer; it looks like a mail configuration problem. Maybe it was a transient problem and fixed now.
  14. I use webmail as my primary email read-write system, that's it. Absolutely no tricky pop-ing or forwarding out of spamcop. The original mail that bounced went to about 10 email addresses, and my spamcop email was not among them, nor was any other email of mine. No reason for the email to come back to spamcop. One of the test messages went to my work which has its own email system, it arrived ok. One of the test messages went to a domain I control, which forwards back to spamcop. It never arrived, nor was it bounced. I'll be happy to conduct another test, anyway you like. Thanks. chris...
  • Create New...