Jump to content

DavidT

Memberp
  • Posts

    2,395
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DavidT

  1. Martello, you should probably use the contact form to get in touch with JT and Trevor about this: http://mail.spamcop.net/contact.php DT
  2. Thanks. Over a week ago, I posted notice that the old popgate was still working just fine for me and I also said: ...which is what happened today. I'm glad to hear that the situation has been addressed (thanks for sending the "page," Wazoo!), and hope that the new and improved popgate works at least as well as the old one. I still contend that the right thing to do is to notify the users whose Yahoo mail is picked up by SC....basic customer support and courtesy, IMO....YMMV. DT
  3. Here we go again, Steven....I beg to differ. I don't make adequate use of my Yahoo address to pay a dime for it. Additionally, I don't receive much spam there, either...there's only 1 item in my Yahoo Bulk folder at the moment. If JT were enabling us to "steal the POP feature," I don't think he'd be in business much longer. I get along with most people I meet, in person or online, but there's something...hmmm...you wouldn't happen to be a Republican or a Libertarian, would you? That would explain it. DT
  4. It *might*, but I shouldn't have to, nor should all the other victims of this arbitrary and unannounced admin-level goof. They should switch *everyone* back to what there were using, and then compile a list of all those customers using popgate to grab Yahoo messages and send out a message giving the *option* of going to the new popgate. Who knows how many others are now screwed up like us???? Trevor? JT? (we might need Wazoo to do his "paging" thing) DT edit: looks like Wazoo successfully paged JT....who was seen here online a few minutes ago, but didn't post. I'm guessing he's off to check on the mess with the popgate "upgrade" :-)
  5. I can beat that....I'm showing 67 errors, with "cannot contact server" in the Last Error column. PLEASE PUT ME BACK ON THE OLD POPMAIL SERVER!!!!! I had already posted several messages HERE (and HERE and HERE) explaining that my Yahoo messages were arriving just fine, despite what others were claiming. We were told that the new one would be optional....please put things back the way there were, at least for me. $#[at]^#(#^ <-- yes, I'm swearing! DT
  6. That's true if the message contains *only* HTML, doesn't have a plain text portion, and isn't coded properly. Most of the HTML email messages I receive have text portions (sometimes in less than fully "plain" format, such as "quoted-printable"), and those that don't, such as one I just checked in webmail from CostCo, should display the following: However, lots of spam and some messages from quirky MUAs might not be assembled properly, and in those cases, you might see the raw HTML in the message body portion of the SC webmail. If you're seeing that on properly-formatted messages, then maybe you should change your View settings. DT
  7. Unless that's something done after-the-fact to the headers by the popgate itself. Maybe the message wasn't actually sent there, Steven. DT
  8. Already asked an answered above...I answered: But Steven Underwood reported above that he had not upgraded, so I'm not sure about your guess. DT
  9. ...but not for me, so I hope that any "fix" doesn't break mine. I have a normal US-based free account and the two test messages I've sent to that address in the last 24 hours were picked up just fine by the current SC popgate. DT
  10. You won't see it if you use the AdBlockPlus add-on/extension, which I *highly* recommend. And my Yahoo mail is popping just fine...so what's the problem here? :-) DT
  11. When I visit it using Micro$loth's Internet Exploder, I do...yucchhhh! I rarely use that browser, however, so when I go there using FireFox with my AdBlockPlus active, I see very little of such nonsense. :-) DT
  12. My Yahoo messages are currently arriving in my SC mailbox via popgate...I just sent a test a while ago and it arrived safely. I've got a garden-variety free US-based Yahoo address. Don't know if I had a similar interruption or not, because I receive very few messages at that address, but it's possible. DT
  13. Good catch! There does seem to be something to these listings, and JT should be looking into it, because one of the things we pay him for is deliverability of our outbound mail. Take a look at this table from the bl.csma.biz site: bl.csma.biz listing info spam and removal history for 216.154.195.49 (times in UTC): Sun Mar 5 04:28:38 2006 removed from list Wed Nov 1 23:12:34 2006 removed from list Fri Jan 26 18:12:49 2007 removed from list Sat Feb 17 20:25:28 2007 Received - Re: in uganda Sat Feb 17 20:25:59 2007 Received - Re: pomona turquoise Sat Feb 17 20:26:00 2007 Received - Re: pomona turquoise Sat Feb 17 20:26:13 2007 Received - Re: pomona turquoise Thu Mar 8 14:22:58 2007 removed from list Wed Jul 4 03:24:37 2007 Received - (no subject) Tue Jul 17 21:13:37 2007 Received - (no subject) Tue Jul 17 21:16:41 2007 Received - (no subject) Tue Jul 17 21:16:42 2007 Received - (no subject) Tue Jul 17 21:16:43 2007 Received - (no subject) Wed Jul 18 06:37:50 2007 Received - (no subject) Tue Jul 31 04:17:52 2007 Received - (no subject) Tue Jul 31 16:07:48 2007 Received - (no subject) Wed Aug 1 01:42:39 2007 removed from list Wonder what all those recent "no subject" messages are? There's a contact form there with an option for System Admins, so maybe we can ask JT to try to contact them: http://bl.csma.biz/gethelp.php?showform=yes Apparently the company (McFadden Associates) has been acquired by "Infradapt" (http://www.infradapt.com). There's a different problem with c60.cesmail.net, however. If you look up the SC report history on the IP address [216.154.195.49], you shouldn't see anything, but here they are: Submitted: Sunday, July 29, 2007 7:42:34 PM -0700: Show me now * 2411010169 ( http://www.saleunit.org/ ) To: abuse[at]prodigy.net * 2411010168 ( 216.154.195.49 ) To: mailsys#admin.spamcop.net[at]devnull.spamcop.net * 2411010166 ( 209.239.39.68 ) To: abuse[at]alabanza.com Submitted: Saturday, July 28, 2007 7:10:19 AM -0700: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) * 2408456407 ( 216.154.195.49 ) To: mailsys[at]admin.spamcop.net Submitted: Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:10:11 AM -0700: Re: Hallo! * 2404736980 ( 216.154.195.49 ) To: mailsys#admin.spamcop.net[at]devnull.spamcop.net * 2404736964 ( 209.239.39.68 ) To: abuse[at]alabanza.com Submitted: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 10:39:46 AM -0700: Hi! * 2403812373 ( 216.154.195.49 ) To: mailsys#admin.spamcop.net[at]devnull.spamcop.net * 2403812361 ( 209.239.39.68 ) To: abuse[at]alabanza.com Submitted: Monday, July 23, 2007 7:14:58 AM -0700: Re: Photo * 2400178603 ( 216.154.195.49 ) To: mailsys#admin.spamcop.net[at]devnull.spamcop.net * 2400178552 ( 209.239.39.68 ) To: abuse[at]alabanza.com Submitted: Monday, July 23, 2007 6:31:03 AM -0700: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) * 2400119310 ( 216.154.195.49 ) To: mailsys[at]admin.spamcop.net Submitted: Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:39:51 PM -0700: Thanks, we accepted your refinance debt request * 2393976750 ( 216.154.195.49 ) To: mailsys#admin.spamcop.net[at]devnull.spamcop.net * 2393976716 ( 209.239.39.68 ) To: abuse[at]alabanza.com Submitted: Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:39:16 PM -0700: Interested in your product * 2393975511 ( http://www.emailbrain.com/ ) To: support[at]rackmounted.com * 2393975498 ( 216.154.195.49 ) To: mailsys#admin.spamcop.net[at]devnull.spamcop.net * 2393975443 ( 209.239.39.68 ) To: abuse[at]alabanza.com Submitted: Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:38:20 PM -0700: Fwd: Thank you, we are ready to lend some cash regardless of Credit * 2393972908 ( 216.154.195.49 ) To: mailsys#admin.spamcop.net[at]devnull.spamcop.net * 2393972868 ( 209.239.39.68 ) To: abuse[at]alabanza.com Submitted: Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:36:36 PM -0700: $59.95 50mg x 10 pills * 2393970114 ( 216.154.195.49 ) To: mailsys#admin.spamcop.net[at]devnull.spamcop.net * 2393970089 ( 209.239.39.68 ) To: abuse[at]alabanza.com There are even more if you click on "older reports." Notice how almost all involve a second IP from Alabanza.com? That's a server farm, a "host of hosts," with lots of shared hosting, so what we have here is a SC Email customer who is reporting the SC server because they haven't properly set up their Mailhosts. They probably have things set up for SC to pop their messages from their own domain on the Alabanza-based server and then they're probably using VER or the like to mass-report their Held Mail and aren't paying attention to which IPs are being reported. So, the SpamCop Admin also has something he should be doing here...he should suspend the reporting privs for the SC Email user whose domain is at that IP address, which resolves to host4.absolute-hosting.net. DT
  14. DavidT

    Test topic

    Good catch, dbiel. dt
  15. DavidT

    Test topic

    Just testing some quoting, since someone else is having some problems with it this morning. Looks as if it's working OK...
  16. The "China" entry is bogus in that Cluecentral took that RBL down almost a YEAR ago. There's at least one replacement out there that JT could probably plug in to fill the void....I've just posted elsewhere on this issue. DT
  17. Bottom line...the OP is an indirect victim of spammers and bad ISPs, but NOT of SpamCop. The server in question is spewing out all sorts of noxious crap, including not only UUBEs hitting spamtraps, but apparently also Nigerian scams. The website in question ought to be moved to a different provider who is doing a better job of controlling what goes out of their servers. On a more general level, however, it would probably be helpful if someone at IronPort could be convinced to edit the text found at: http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml so that people going to that URL from within ISP-generated rejection messages would get a better picture of what's really going on. Especially problematic is this: That sentence states that "SpamCop...use(s) the SCBL to block...unwanted email." That is incorrect. SpamCop doesn't block email, as we all know. Changing "block and filter" to "block or filter" would be more correct, but still not effectively communicate to puzzled users what's really going on. The page needs some work, and we, as active users/helpers ought to push IronPort into making some changes/additions there. DT
  18. No...it's probably a bug with the "Earthlink Virus Blocker" -- which didn't like the format of your Held Mail report and so it treated it like a virus. Whether or not the "container" was "malformed" is something you might need to address with the SpamCop administration and/or Earthlink (good luck!), but I wonder if you can "whitelist" the Held Mail reports and if that will override their "Virus Blocker" (probably not). DT
×
×
  • Create New...