turetzsr

...Personally, I like your reply in topic "Yahoo Headers" better. <g>

Hi, William, ...Oops, I'm sorry, I should have been more specific: you seem to have used the link labeled "Search" at the top right, under the graphic image, between the links labeled "Help" and "Members," right? I was referring to the search box tool nearer the very top of the screen, under the links in white labeled "SPAMCOP HOME" and "SPAMCOP FAQ," between the white "button" labeled "Search for -->" and the blue button labeled "GO," as described above by Steve S (Farelf).

Hi, goofy173, ...Please use the search tool at the top of any SpamCop Forum page for: Yahoo "discarded as fake" 2014 and peruse the articles whose links are returned .

...But the absolute volume of spam is not used in SpamCop's algorithm that determines whether an IP address is included in the SCBL -- see SpamCop FAQ article labeled "What is on the list?"

Hi, goofy173, ...If you are so inclined, please post a SpamCop Tracking URL so we can all see what happened and perhaps comment.

...That wouldn't necessarily be a reason to devnull. They seem to do that mostly when reports to the abuse address bounce or when the admin asks them to not send reports.

...Please forgive me if this is an entirely stupid question but, taking what you wrote at face value, I can not resist inquiring: did you insert a blank line at the end of those headers and then also paste in the spam body (or, if the actual spam body was empty, paste in some text like "[no body]")?

...Nope, that's right -- you're using Don's 84376[/snapback] Option 1. The only reason what you are doing seems different is that you just added the detail relevant to Outlook Express that Don describes more generally as "Copy/Paste the full (raw) headers and text into the SpamCop web form."

...Proposed modifications: Options 2 and 3 are not permitted for Microsoft Outlook e-mails. Ref: SpamCop FAQ entry labeled "Forwarding "As Attachment" from Outlook - no longer allowed!! 6 April 2009." Option 1: If you use the standard reporting box, leave a blank line between the headers and the spam text (body). Option 2: leave a blank line between the headers and the spam text (body). Option 3: per SpamCop FAQ entry "How do I submit spam via email?" "You should not exceed 20 spams attached to a submission. The maximum size for the overall submission must not exceed 50 KB." ...Please do not take these proposed modifications as authoritative unless validated by one of the SpamCop staff.

...83830'[/snapback] Dec 17 + "a couple of months" = Feb 17. Nevertheless, it would be nice to have an update from SpamCop as to progress and whether the fix appears to be on target for a mid-February release.

...Actually, it's only been just short of a month since the last update telling us that the new release is due "in a couple of months:"

...In that case, please just delete them. No one here (that has any sense) will think the less of you! <g> ...Probably not but since nothing can be done about it right now it's a moot point how many people are experiencing it. <frown> But, possibly good news: see SpamCopAdmin Don D'Minion's post in SpamCop Forum article "/dev/null'ing report" last sentence. <g> OTOH, we've heard that, before. <frown>

...Ah, okay, thanks for clarifying, Steve. So would you agree that the risk can be reduced by using the SpamCop parser to the degree possible to determine where to send the reports, then canceling the parse? The only thing that I can see that might negate the value of such a strategy in this case is that the IPv6 addresses would have to be removed so that the parse will work and that might remove an important part of the internet headers for the parser, causing it to find the wrong abuse address(es)!

..Yes but I don't know what Steve (Farelf) meant by that -- hopefully he'll drop by soon to explain. All I can think of that he might have meant is: Care must be taken to ensure you are manually reporting to the correct abuse address(es) for the correct source(s) of the spam. Care must be taken to avoid sending a manual report to a spammer or someone friendly to the spammer or to spamming in general.

...See my earlier reply, above 82494[/snapback] and also Farelf's 83109[/snapback].

...If you mean by SpamCop users: don't do that! For more information, please see SpamCop FAQ (links to which are available near the top left of all SpamCop Forum pages) items labeled "Material changes to spam," "Material changes to spam - Updated!" and "What if I break the rule(s)?"

...As explained by DT's detailed explanation in SpamCop Forum topic "hotmail blocking spamcop.net?", referenced by DT in his post immediately prior to yours 82946[/snapback].

...There may be those here who might have evidence from which they could speculate but if you wish an authoritative answer you'd be more likely to get one from Hotmail support. On the other hand, since I suspect you are unlikely to have a question posed to them answered by someone with real knowledge, speculation might be the best you can get. <smile>

...Ah, but you aren't (shouldn't be) asking them about a different product, you are asking them whether they tested the SpamCop parser with a third-party tool. Okay, I guess that it's conceivable that they might be testy about implicitly being expected to test with another tool. <g> ...Neither Ellen nor Wazoo is here. I'd suggest that you write to the SpamCop Deputies (FYI, Ellen used to be one but she left a while ago) at deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net.

Hi, General Lee, ...For an answer to those questions, I would suggest that you inquire of the SpamCop Deputies by writing to deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net.

...The assumption is, from what I understand, correct. What we don't know is whether that fact allows us to conclude that it is necessarily feasible and "easy" for the parser to ignore all IPv6 addresses that appear prior to the point it decides that it has found the location at which it can stop trusting the headers. I think that is not an unreasonable conclusion but it is, nevertheless, a conclusion the validity of which we will never know because the SpamCop engineers won't ever reveal the answer to us. And since it's their product, they get to define the rules, so I for one feel unworthy to challenge it and can't imagine that anyone else outside the SpamCop staff circle is able to do so for certain, either.

Hi, Sven, ...Seems that for now you'll have to either just delete them or manually report them.

...Bad news, folks! Steve's (Farelf) latest post in SpamCop Forum topic "Scheduled Service Outage - Tuesday August 7, 2012."

...Latest announcement: Scheduled Service Outage - Tuesday August 7, 2012.

...Might it be appropriate to add that the poster should not assume that readers will visit their link to see the image (since clicking on unsolicited links from someone you don't know is, generally, not a good idea)?