Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ANGEL

  1. Hello Lking, Thank you for your comprehensive response & I'm sorry for the late reply. Yes. I was trying to circumvent anyone getting confused, given there's 2 "User Notification" fields, ended up confusing you, big fail me! Re [SpamCop.net screen layout and options is a legacy from "before time"], I like [SC.net/parser format]: it works & is very functional without a lot of unnecessary bells & whistles. Re [In the beginning [analysis][Bcc copy of report was added], I'm glad, I like this and combined with all the SCF information/help & tips & tricks, I've finally been able to get on top of endless spam floods. Re [many SpamCop users do analysis of the source of the spam they receive and want to send report to destinations other than/ in addition to those identified by the parser] Their analysis methodology/work/results has been hugely beneficial for me. Re [user can un-check where spam Reports are sent] I'm not clear why a user would choose to un-check a check-box that SC has defined, speaking for myself, I trust SC to know better than me... Re [forwarding original spam to ALL other parties] you & other SCF members have guided me on this before, I do get it, I just get cranky with scum. Re [Only once in this time have I identifiably been the target of retaliation] The irony for me was, after 20 yrs of endless spam I stumbled onto SC, after a mth I hit a week with NO spam, initially, I thought they're may have been something wrong with my mail, then miffed, there's a certain satisfaction seeing the parser pump out its results & hitting "Send spam Report/s Now" Thanks again.
  2. Hey Lking, Thank you for answering. Sometimes I find it difficult to write posts in a way that clearly define the issue/s... Not wishing/suggesting or desiring to link to adding another address to [personal preferences][Personal copies of outgoing reports] page, just put that in there so possible convo participants were clear about which [User_Notification (User defined recipient)] field I was referring to. ❌ Pre-defined in preferences (User defined recipient)= Bcc to reporter of spam = (me)❌ Online Parser, more of these fields: ✔️z_User_Notification (User defined recipient)✔️ = field I can add another email address or more to before I hit "send".... Re [Sending all reports to a third party could open SpamCop to charges of abuse clogging the email system] I hear you; I certainly do not wish to be counterproductive to SC in any way, it is by far & away the most effect tool I've used to reduce spam. The reason I'd like to do "reporting to other interested parties" is, the parser mungs my email address; I learnt some brill info from Robibue & you to I think, to perform a little pre-SC-Parser-submission-surgery: find & manually mung every instance of my email address the spammer has used, being fairly new to "fighting back" I initially though the parser would automatically do this... I'm not so comfortable forwarding original spam to ALL other parties I think would like to know/should know the spammer is using ; always concerned I'll give my email address to a spammer or source for spammers... Re [I also address my email to several US gov actives and a group in Australia} I do this to, as in "forward" original spam to ACMA & FTC... If there are additional "gov agencies" I'd be keen to add them to my tool kit: would you mind kindly sharing the addresses/info of the authorities you report to please? Cheers.
  3. Does anyone know why there's only one "z_User_Notification (User defined recipient)" field? (Not the pre-defined Bcc [ https://www.spamcop.net/mcgi?action=showadvanced, Personal copies of outgoing reports] field). 🤔Curious🤔 Cheers.
  4. What's new in v5? The important stuff, a full suite of emojis,😀 yeah!!!
  5. RobiBue, Thank you so much for taking super care and investing time and energy to provide comprehensive explanation. As I'm still on my SCLplates logical/comprehensive responses aid my learning & understanding. I'm really grateful! I do understand why MS is in such a state, SCAdmin have previously advised MS made some "errors" when trying to fix other MS errors, SCA also advised the time frame for MS fix is likely to be years; so I'm cool with still modifying any source data I submit to SC. Rome wasn't built in a day, MS architects don't seem to often refer to their building sketches so, fix years away, may happen after I'm dead in which case I don't expect to be worrying about scum🤥🦹‍♂️🦹‍♀🤥s. Back to your excellent information, dunno what your day job is but you could easily/successfully be writing tech training doco. Don't answer this by telling me you make a quid by being a 🤥🦹‍♂️🦹‍♀🤥r! Thanks a bunch
  6. Thank you Lisati There's a bunch of us asking this ❔. As a SC🔰🚗🔰, info from experienced SCF members & other SC posters is invaluable; has helped me understand some of the 🦹logic/motivation & how to effectively☠️🦹☠️as many as possible The (v4/v5) difference (I observe) is v5 is now providing: Message source: 2603:10c6:1:0:0:0:0:25:; Routing details for 2603:10c6:1:0:0:0:0:25 whois for 2603:10c6:1:0:0:0:0:25 : abuse@microsoft.com; abuse@hotmail.com redirects to report_spam@hotmail.com That's a good thing, as, previously, when I forwarded ANY [source data spam] to MS, they'd always refuse to accept. I'm waiting to hear from MS now that I provided msg source/routing details (from a spam today)... Additionally, it'll be good if SC let us know what the v5 changes are (unless of course those changes are not for publication) Thanks again & cheers!
  7. Hello Borgholio, I think I've found/struck same issue/s [http://forum.spamcop.net/topic/30224-something-wrong-with-outlook-reporting/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-129011], hoping the SCF experts/experienced team members will clarify.... It's certainly interesting having [SC distribution] choices, I'd just like to know which parsing method to choose for the most accurate report... Tracking your post in case the answers appearand hoping, SCAdmin will publish a V5 "features" guide when they recover from the update-long-haul
  8. RobiBue, you may be able to answer my question please (specific to SCv5)(IPv6 624) With V5, do we no longer have to "cut" 1st [Received: from PU1APC01HT007.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com(2603:10a6:800:92::20) blah, blah, blah, Mon, 14 Jan 2019 06:08:02 +0000] ? instead post to parser ENTIRE source data? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And, anyone who's game may be able to answer: if the answer's "yes"; why parsing the entire source data would result in different [Reports sent to] distributions? https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6513483714z596b7c076a2121c3ce82e632cf6e31a3z as opposed to parsing modified source data [Reports sent to] distributions https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6513484404zf0c78fe42b97237ee395ad8a37facc9cz Thanks in advance!
  9. Once again Gnarleymarley, thank you, clarification and logical explanation is very helpful. I thought I was providing "a" tracking url. Did not understand the distinction. Many thanks & cheers.
  10. Thank you Gnarleymarly, however, I'm a tad confused: a) you responded to my original post (& I took from your reply) you interrogated the url I posted - no? b) when I go to [ https://www.spamcop.net/w3m?i=z6898801339z8c25e92a12dc86c774a950d737412c13z ] & select [Show how SpamCop traced this message] redirects to https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6512755812z8ee73d74322c131f8ca885cc287a03fcz, imo, gets to the same result, therefore, not much difference. But, I'm happy to take on the learning, thank you😊
  11. Am I missing something? This is what I posted: "Not sure if an example is needed, posting just in case:" https://www.spamcop.net/w3m?i=z6898801339z8c25e92a12dc86c774a950d737412c13z
  12. Thanks Lking, that adds to the helpful info posted by Gnarleymarley. Not that it's welcome info. (imo) It means they are: rich, dumb, business owners🤢
  13. Like the url I referenced when I submitted the issue Petzl? Please refer to attached image - ✔️ URL ✔️
  14. Re [There have been a number of spammers that appear to purchase a whole entire network range just so they can be the abuse contact listed in the whois] Are they really: - that rich? - that dumb? -
  15. Hi Petzl, what does "Help if you sent a tracking URL" mean please?
  16. Thank you Gnarlymarley, Your answer is exactly the information I needed & clarifies the issue Re [As soon as those are found out..], is there anything we [SC] users can do/need to do, to facilitate [action by SC deputies](apart from submitting spam to SC)?
  17. Question re: SC report auto-distribution; not any address manually entered in [User Notification] field. Are SC reports ever directed to the "source" of the spam? Not sure if an example is needed, posting just in case: https://www.spamcop.net/w3m?i=z6898801339z8c25e92a12dc86c774a950d737412c13z Cheers.
  18. Thank you Lking!!, Re "I do not forward one account to another", me neither, however, I have setup the other MH's/email addresses, just to get some "actual" experience with the process, it all fits together better, in my brain, if I can do it as well as read it. And, I've dug out my cuisenaire rods to assist Back to your elaborate explanation, you sure are creative, busboy at greasyspoon indeed! I wonder if there is such a place? I wonder if I'd eat there? Probably 2015 - the bit that confused me "soon, all SpamCop users will be required to use this new system", as a newbie, I created a SC account, no prob, after some days I read the help, MH config etc, and at that stage could not work out how I'd been able to sign in/setup so easily, if the MHC was required, given it is way past 2015. As you've probably concluded, I get confused easily, I failed Comp Sci, well not failed technically, just sent my teachers spare in the process of getting thru...That's why patient, specific, analytical folks such as yourself are gold. Thanks again!
  19. Hello LKing, Thank you! I did read "one host covered more than 1 email address..", got a bit confused, that's when I tried to register the 2nd email address - the doco that references: Example 1: A, B, C & Example 2: A, B, C, lead to some of the confusion... Secondly, the date (2015 ?) of the "Configure Mail Hosts" "SpamCop is undergoing a major renovation... etc", " Soon, all SpamCop users will be required to use this new system", added to confusion... For this exercise, as you twigged, I do have 1 host & 3 mail addresses, my mistake was assuming I had to add each email address. 3 hosts, 3 emails addresses. I always do check the parser before sending/submitting, not sure tho what your advice is suggesting I will find specific to the mail host issue, may I ask please if you'd elaborate on that point please? As always, very appreciative of your helpful advice, many thanks😊
  20. Setup - Mailhost for 1 email account, 1st problem - no field to add 2nd email address (for same host), so > Setup Mailhost for 2nd email account - got the following "information" https://www.spamcop.net/mcgi host xxxx:xxxx:x:xx:0:0:0:xx (getting name) no name Test email processed succesfully. xxxx's replaced actual "Relaying IPsv6" Help please - what an I missing? (be nice)😉
  21. Sorted, used the split form submission & removed the first "Received: from... etc" statement. Dogged determination = monkeys can be trained!
  22. Sorted, used the split form submission & removed the first "Received: from... etc" statement. See, monkeys can be trained!
  23. Microsoft Outlook (all versions) Outlook does not properly forward mail with the headers and message body intact. It is not possible to use SpamCop's email submission system with Outlook unless you use one of the below add-on programs or similar macro. This is not making sense, up until today I've successfully submitted spam received by https://outlook.live.com/mail/ have always been able to extract source & no issues with formatting, empty spaces, nor have I had to use add-on programmes/macros... ? This doco - https://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/122.html - Microsoft Outlook (all versions) doesn't seem to cover OL Live or OL 2016 app... Tad confused...
  • Create New...