Jump to content

fredfighter

Members
  • Posts

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by fredfighter

  1. I can move mail from the inbox to the "Held Mail" folder. But when I go through the sequence: 1) from the inbox folder click on "Report spam" 2) from the "Report spam" page click on "Held Mail" The "held Mail" page says there is no held mail. BUT, if I 'open'"Held Mail" folder the mail in question appears there and can be "quick reported". I do NOT use the "quick report" feature for several reasons including that it does not allow me to see the header analysis before submitting and does not allow me to add my own comments. This has been a problem for at least a week now, maybe more. I have used the "repost Problem" button to report it, but have received no reply. What's up? -- FF
  2. Surely you jest. I get up to 200 spams per day, most sent directly to my SpamCop account. The blacklists and Spamassassin catch about 90% of those, though often the filters 'stall' for anywhere from a couple of minutes to several hours. By 'stall' I mean that the email is properly tagged, but the filters are not automatically applied when I log in and also nothing happens when I click on the inverted triangle icon that is supposed to actuate filtering. Then sometime later, they work and those emails get filtered. I don't know what would happen if I reconfigured to block, instead of to tag, but since I don't want to block instead of tagging, that issue is moot. -- FF No. Also the expansion happens that way regardless of whether I use the address book or simply type the address in manually in the "Compose" window. The problem is also present using IE6.x, there does not appear to be a more recent IE update for W2kP. I haven't tried replying to a "plussed" address. How about if send to me at fredfighter[at]spamcop.net, from a plussed address, with "PLUSSED ADDRESS TEST" in the subject line and I will try that. -- FF
  3. Thanks. I did ask, and the answer is still no. Evidently "Quick Reporting" is now a standard part of the webmail interface. IMHO, a bad idea, As I would expect a LOT of new users will use it without setting up their mailhosts. Even when those are set up, their ISP may reconfigure invalidating the established mailhosts list. But, it's not my call. Thanks. -- FF
  4. Oh, sorry, I should have been more specific. I actually have two accounts, a pre-paid reporting account and a separate webmail account but seldom use the reporting-only account any more. I would like to disable all of the quick report options from the webmail interface, including the pages that one uses to report spam which apparently are the "VER". I asked a deputy about this some time ago and was told it was not possible. However, since he also said that quick reporting was the only way to report spam, and there was no point to having a SpamCop webmail account without the quick reporting option I tend to think he may not have been correct.
  5. I'm using Firefox 5.0, under Windows 2000 Pro. I do NOT have the problem using the Gmail webmail interface. I haven't tried any others besides SpamCop and Gmail.
  6. I have decided that I will not use the "Quick" report feature. So, the only way I well send a Quick report is by accidentally clicking on the wrong button. I'd liek to have the option of disabling the Quick report feature. When the "quick" report feature was first introduced, a user had to ask to have it enabled. Is it automatically enabled for all (including new) users now?
  7. "Me too!" (and I don't have an AOL account.)
  8. Using the SpamCop webmail interface I've been unable to send to accounts with a username tagged using "+" as in "fredfighter+usenet(atsign)spamcop.net". The webmail interface 'expands' the address to "fredfighter, usenet(atsign)spamcop.net". More details can be read here: http://groups.google.com/group/news.admin....91m8W&hl=en starting with this article: http://groups.google.com/group/news.admin....IrlbI7s34U2h_Jh and continuing on for several more. It shouldn't be a hard bug to fix, but I don't know how to contact anyone who could address the matter.
  9. Agreed. By above I meant not (1) above, but hte paragraph preceding (1). If I submit to the queue I have to work through everything else in the queue to get to it. -- FF
  10. Are you sure it is possible to disable "Quick Reporting" ? -- FF
  11. VER = "Very Easy Reporting", OK that makes sense now but really, did you think I'd guess that on my own. There are three ways to submit from the Held Mail directory. 1) Quick reporting -- I do not get to see how it parses. 2) Submitting to the queue -- See above 3) Cutting and pasting from the View Source window. At this point, honesty requires that I confess that some of these otpions are not available to me as I have accidently quick reported too may of spamcops automated replies. Differential prescriptions in my left and right eye, compounded by gross carelessness is why. Thanks. -- FF
  12. Clicking on that link was the first thing I did. That took me to a long page with fine type. Rather than reading through the page from top to bottom in the hope of finding that subject heading I used the browsers search feature and the browser's search feature did not find that string on that page. Maybe it is on that page but obscured from the bowser search feature by soem HTML feature. I have read the SpamCop FAQ that is hyperlinked from somwhere near the SpamCop 'homepage" it is pretty sparse. Oddly enough, you didn;t include a hyperlink to it in your reply. Do you have touble finding it yourself? :-) No worries. My SpamCop email account will expire soon. -- FF Edited by Moderator to fix broken quote
  13. Well I did that and then used the webbrowser search for "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way" and didn't find anything on that page. The Google search at the top of the page resulted in about a hunderd hits, including this thread, but none looked particularly promising. So, I have no idea how to find it, which perhpas explains why I' not asking these questions very smartly. I think most users, upon finding themselves among the fora, will assume they have gotten lost and go back. Should they realize they have not made a msitake they are then faced with trying to figure out how to use these fora and that's a PITA. From what I have read in other articles, this is neither your fault, nor under your control so please do not take this to be criticism of yourselves. Personally, I am grateful for your replies. In people's articles I keep seeing "Pinned:" prior to a topic. Of what significance is "Pinned:"? -- FF
  14. If I submit the spam to queue by any method then to see how it parses I have to work through all the other spam in the queue to get to the spam of interest. Cutting and pasting allows me to quickly deal with spam I personally consider to deserve a higher priority. Quick reporting does not allow me to see how it parses and does not give me any control over how the complaints are directed. What is the "VEN interface"? When SpamCop added the MailHosts feature users were (mis) informed that it was not necessary to add the SpamCop mailhosts temselves. That was supposed to be done automagically by SpamCop Admin. I have added mine manually and things seem to work OK now. Concerns about line-wrap etc appear to have been spurious. -- FF
  15. I see. They don't care, they don't have to care, they have volunteers to mitigate the problem for them. -- FF
  16. Indeed, that has taken care of the problem, thanks. -- FF
  17. On what link in the SpamCop Webmail Menu does one click in order to find that information? How does one get to that information starting at the SpamCop sitemap? http://www.spamcop.net/sitemap.shtml -- FF EDIT: once again, fixed the quote tags .. removed oh so much extra white-space
  18. else ... is the web-browser window sizeable? The SpamCop "Report spam" window is not resizeable, when you paste spam into it that is longer than the window scroll bars appear. Changing the size of the FireFox browser window does not change the size of the SpamCop "Report spam" window. -- FF
  19. Yes. I copy from the Webmail "Message Source" and paste into the "Report spam" window. -- FF
  20. OK, I checked out that thread and posted my settings. When composing in this bulletin board or whatever it is I have been putting my own carriage returns in otherwise the lines are way too long for my taste. It may be that the header problem was NOT just a whitespace/linewrap issue. The person who 'fixed' my headers to make them parse didn't actually say what was done. It just looked to me that he put each header on its own line. There is no doubt that cutting an pasting into the "report spam" window introduces a number of chnges in the way the headers are wrapped. I'm having the same problem again with another spam from the same source and have posted a tracking URL in another article. I'm using FireFox 1.0.4. -- FF
  21. I'm Usinf Windows 2000 Pro. Control Panel/Display/Settings/Screen area is 1152 by 864 pixels at the moment.
  22. OK, same problem. Here's the tracking URL: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z809689387z1e...fc8c89b11af6c1z Why can't SpamCop parse this? How do I report it, other than by looking up the sender's ISP using SamSpade for Windows, GeekTools or some such? -- FF
  23. It sure looks to me that when I cut and paste spam into that window, carriage returns are introduced that were not there in the original headers. Those carriage returns break up the headers making them unparsable. This isn't a sometimes thing, it appears to happen pretty much every time. I'd call that a bug. Maybe its a bug in FireFox, Netscape, and MSIE, but it still looks buggy to me. -- FF EDIT: wazoo fixed the quote tags
  24. I'm running the SpamCop webmail client using FireFox. I cut and paste using the default cut and paste buffer (clipboard?). -- FF
  25. If by originator you mean the spammer then that is a particularly bizarre statement because no one ponted out that it was intentionall "screwed up" by the originator. Evedently it was screwed up when I cut it from the "display message" window and pasted it into the "Report another spam" window probably due to a bug in the way the "Report another spam" window reads text that is pasted into it. Statements like what? You've lost me again. Once the headers have been "screwed up" by the uct and paste process leaving them screwed up would mean submitted a spam after making a material change to the headers, albeit na unintentional one. Surely you do not sugggest that putting the headers back the way they were before the cut and paste process "screwed them up" is making a material change to the spam. Your comments above do not seem to be germaine to the matter at hand. I've pretty much given up on trying to find a "How to Use" FAQ for Spamcop. Yes. In the instant case the other issue was fixing the changes that resulted from cutting and pasting the spam into the window for reporting it. Hopefully we are clear on this now. Digressing to the issue of blank spams, is there any good reason why SpamCop should not parse headers only? spam is unsolicited bulk email, by definition, independent of payload. -- FF EDIT: Wazoo fixed Quoting issues in this post
×
×
  • Create New...