Jump to content

A.J.Mechelynck

Membera
  • Content Count

    240
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by A.J.Mechelynck

  1. A.J.Mechelynck

    Hanging in nag screen

    Problem has disappeared. Let's <knock target=head /> touch wood.
  2. A.J.Mechelynck

    IPv6 Routing Support

    Hm, yes, trying to re-parse with that same tracking URL gives me the same errors, but SC also tells me that "reports have already been sent" — albeit to nomaster[at]devnull.spamcop.net — concerning that IPv6 address.
  3. A.J.Mechelynck

    IPv6 Routing Support

    Yes, and considering all the ways to abbreviate an IPv6 address, just converting the address-as-text (as found in the mail headers) to the address-as-128-bits (the unique value which can be meaningfully compared for equality, and so blacklisted or not) is an unobvious task, albeit well-defined. At least now (and unlike what happened when the first IPv6 spam appeared), when SpamCop chokes on an IPv6 spam it gives a clear message that it currently doesn't support IPv6. One could always wish for full IPv6 support; but let's not forget that even after the purchase by IronPort and the latter's purchase by Cisco, SpamCop is still cruelly understaffed and, AFAIK, the only person who more or less masters the SpamCop source is Julian, and I'm not sure how much time he can dedicate to finding (in the “mass of spaghetti†mentioned a few posts ago, and without neglecting his other duties) the relevant code for this particular problem (which probably is neither the only problem nor the most urgent one), fixing it, testing it, checking for side-effects, etc. etc. etc. I don't know about y'all, but the IPv6 spam messages that fall into my inbox are (still) few and far between; I believe that we still have several years before they become the majority, and I'm confident that the SpamCop code will be suitably modified in time to handle them satisfactorily before they become an unbearable nuisance.
  4. A.J.Mechelynck

    IPv6 Routing Support

    I just got a spam that SpamCop wouldn't even parse because there was a bogus Received line with an IPv6 address, after ("earlier than") an IPv4 Received line saying from where my Mailhost got the spam: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5130543490z0...6bdd3878493570z
  5. A.J.Mechelynck

    I am being blackmailed

    After reading this whole topic (and I'm not really sorry to "wake up" an old thread — after all, we're in the Lounge), I'm fascinated by the appropriateness of Farelf's sig on the latest post before this one: Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. However I cannot help noticing Google's strange notion of "privacy": if you're a spammer, they will protect your "privacy" by not putting proper Received headers on your mail; but to protect yourself from spying by Google, the only solution (says Google CEO) is to change your name…
  6. A.J.Mechelynck

    Spamcop does not hide multiple addresses

    Yes, OT but instructive, and useful to spamfighters with uncooperating ISPs, as I'm sure there are more than a few. What concerns incoming mail, I hate servers which will perform spam filtering (and send "suspect mail" to never-never land) without the user's consent. As far as I'm concerned, incoming spam filtering is OK provided that I get a chance to retrieve false positives, and in my experience even the best filters do stop legit mail now and then. I'll go as far as saying that "filtering by diverting" is even better than no filtering in the sense that it removes the suspicion of "filtering behind my back" without even telling me that they do.
  7. A.J.Mechelynck

    Spamcop does not hide multiple addresses

    From that URL, I can't use it, because my ISP drops "spammy-looking" outgoing email on the floor, even if the spam is only in an attachment; and I can't use another SMTP server because I'm blocked from accessing anything on port 25, other than my ISP's own SMTP servers, and anything at all on port 587 (I tried smtp.mail.yahoo.co.uk:25 and smtp.gmail.com:587 -- got timeouts on both). Anyway I don't need Quick Reporting: (full) web reporting is good enough for me. And yes, my mailhosts are set up OK, but that's not the problem.
  8. A.J.Mechelynck

    Spamcop does not hide multiple addresses

    [at]michaelanglo: I see. Well, apparently I was out of date. OTOH, Quick Reporting isn't available to everybody (AFAICT, to me it isn't).
  9. A.J.Mechelynck

    Spamcop does not hide multiple addresses

    It depends: If you want the whole spam and the full reports to be available for inspection, thenDon't report this spam, and don't cancel it (yes, SpamCop will keep telling you that you have "unreported spam") Don't send the tracking URL to anyone except a SC admin or deputy [*]If you want everyone to look at the headers (but not the body) of the message, then Report or cancel the spam Then you may post the tracking URL anywhere, but the body of the spam won't be kept in the database.
  10. A.J.Mechelynck

    Spamcop does not hide multiple addresses

    Yes it does. As noted elsewhere, http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10704# 200-300 times a day would seem a bit much. I don't want to admit that I spend that much time dealing with spam. Well, happily enough I don't have to tackle hundreds of spam emails a day anymore (though once upon a time I used to). I use several email accounts: [at]belgacom.net, [at]skynet.be, [at]yahoo.co.uk and [at]gmail.com. I handle what gets as far as my inbox, meaning everything (I hope) from the first three and only false negatives from the latter (which uses "pre-screening" for spam, so that what they think is spam isn't sent to me by the POP server, unless I fetch it back on the web interface and declare that "it is not spam after all"). Also, I report spam in "last-in-first-out" sequence in order to try catching the most recent spam sendings while still in the act if possible, and spam more than 8 hours old goes to the trashcan without reporting, because the cost-effectiveness of reporting drops when the age of spam rises. All in all, I think I report maybe 20 or so spam emails every day, which is doable even by pasting them into the SC form.
  11. Just got a spam (well, an «advertisement» mailing), this time about Spanish poetry soon to be sold in France (of all subjects) and apparently sent by the author herself. Well, email advertising is cheap, isn't it, especially when you add a link at bottom, "Send this notice to a friend". The "reporting address" found by SC happened to be abuse[at]burst.net this time -- the name sounds ominously like a spammers' (well, an «advertisers'») ISP, what do you think? So, what colour the hat? White as snow, grey as fog, grey as bad-combustion smoke, or black as India ink? Tracking URL: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z3602126962zd...bf9a26ee8021aaz
  12. A.J.Mechelynck

    Spamcop does not hide multiple addresses

    Just noticed this thread while idly "looking at the news". FWIW, I've long been using Mozilla mailers (starting at Thunderbird 1.0, currently SeaMonkey 2.0.2pre) with the spam-pasting form (because my ISP has a tendency to drop "spammy" outgoing mail on the floor, even if the spam is only an attachment) and the last time I had problems with that was many years ago. I use a maximized "View Source" window, "Select All" there, "Copy", then "Paste" into the reporting textarea. Works like a charm. My User-Agent string today is: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8pre) Gecko/20091223 Lightning/1.0b2pre SeaMonkey/2.0.2pre and the Mozilla "Build ID" (a timestamp, down to the second, California time): 20091223003609
  13. A.J.Mechelynck

    Planned Maintenance Window

    The spam I submitted a few minutes ago had variable age too, and those which didn't match the spam did match the "Order Received" (hence, "doctored" timestamps on those particular spams). So, either I was under a false impression, or whatever there was got fixed.
  14. A.J.Mechelynck

    Planned Maintenance Window

    I submit my spam through the web form, and it parses OK, but it seems that the parser always finds now that "it was sent 0 hours ago — Yum, this spam is fresh!"
  15. A.J.Mechelynck

    Planned Maintenance Window

    It went remarkably fast: hardly more than an hour according to the "daily" graph reproduced in small near top right of most forum pages.
  16. A.J.Mechelynck

    E-Mail spam submittals blocked by your ISP

    I've just been reading all 8 pages in this topic, and it's, well, instructive to say the least. Some years ago I noticed that email forward-as-attachment submissions had become erratic: mst of the time they didn't reach SpamCop anymore. I tried subscribing to a couple of free mail service (yahoo.co.uk and gmail.com) and found out that I couldn't reach their SMTP servers. Experiment shows that any connection I try to make on ports 25 and 587 is blocked (doesn't get anywhere) except if it's addressed (on port 25 only) to relay.skynet.be or relay.belgacom.net (SMTP servers operated by my own ISP). This of course blocks direct-to-MX spam but AFAICT any outgoing mail detected as containing "spam" (even in an attachment) will be dropped on the floor. I can send various kinds of attachments including .jpg, .eml, plaintext, etc., provided, I suppose, that they don't look "spammy". My final reaction was to use the HTML form at www.spamcop.net, but since reporting huge lots of spam this way is not humanly possible, I report the spam latest first (on the assumption that the freshest spam is the most important to "catch in the act") and with a cut-off time (currently anything 8 hours old or more I move to Trash without reporting) for the same reasons. I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect relation or not, but now that I report only recent spam I've seen my spam amount go down spectacularly. Maybe the fact that I mostly use a From-line in [at]gmail.com (even though for the above reasons I send such mail through relay.skynet.be), and that Gmail's true-positives I neither count nor report, has something to do with this lowered spam count. The advantage of Gmail is that even though I normally get its mail by POP, there is also a webmail interface which includes a "spam" folder where I can reclaim any "false positives" and buttons (in spam and Trash, among others) which seem to contribute to Bayesian training of the spam filters on my account. OK, maybe this post may sound like a free ad for a competitor of the SC mail service, but the main point of this post was actually that I don't like (but haven't got the stamina to fight) the way Belgacom Skynet SA/NV of Belgium filters both incoming and outgoing email and also blocks all access to SMTP servers other than its own. Note: Incoming spam at Belgacom Skynet I'm supposed to be able to filter or not to but it's all-or-nothing so for me it's "nothing": I prefer getting spam to losing any legit mail. No such setting for outgoing spam, "of course": I guess I'm just supposed to refrain from sending any, even in an .eml attachment addressed to SpamCop.
  17. A.J.Mechelynck

    [Resolved] New Glitch

    If the "Report Now" link is purple, clicking it always brings you to "This spam has already been reported", but if you just refresh the page after waiting a few seconds (or maybe a minute or so in extreme cases), SpamCop will have "realized" that the spam has already been reported, and you'll get either a blue "Report Now" link (to a different spam which isn't yet reported) or no "Report Now" link at all (if you had no other queued spam waiting to be reported).
  18. A.J.Mechelynck

    [Resolved] New Glitch

    Maybe there's nothing yet to report? (besides, of course, "we're doing our damnedest to find and fix the bug but we aren't there yet")
  19. A.J.Mechelynck

    [Resolved] New Glitch

    Sounds like I'm lucky. So far, mine have been going away as soon as I go back to the "Welcome registered user" page.
  20. A.J.Mechelynck

    [Resolved] New Glitch

    Yeah, I don't have a "Held mail" tab but by clicking the Spamcop banner the line goes away and I'm ready to paste the next spam. Maybe pasting it rightaway would even be enough, since I cannot use spam forwarding (my SMTP server drops spam-as-attachment).
  21. A.J.Mechelynck

    [Resolved] New Glitch

    Well, I had one just now on a "cancelled" report for http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z3256570999z8...1795aaeedf16aaz -- and, of course, by now the error has cured itself.
  22. A.J.Mechelynck

    [Resolved] New Glitch

    Didn't know there was any — I was just acting my usual helpful persona, always ready to give whatever answers I know (or think I know) even if someone else is better placed to answer — after all, (s)he might just have gone to bed or to work, in which case the guy/gal hollering for help (or just wondering why something is this way and not otherwise) might have to wait a further 8 hours or so. Also guessing "to the best of my knowledge" where I don't know the answer. Not aiming for any job — in fact, if I got a job it might take away my benefit for 66% invalidity (neuro-psychiatric) and possibly raise my tax level so far that my income would actually become lower. No thanks, non-profit non-mandatory mutual help is just the kind of occupation that fits me.
  23. A.J.Mechelynck

    [Resolved] New Glitch

    IIUC from one of the above posts, Wazoo seems to be "in the know but under a gag rule". By open-source standards, this would mean that if the details were known it might entail a security liability (such as, let's say, unveiling a possible hole to a DOS attack). But then OTOH maybe IronPort is, just like Microsoft-Megabucks, under the misguided impression that it's better to always keep everything hush-hush at all times.
  24. A.J.Mechelynck

    shortcut to forums from the "reporting screen"

    I also see the <!-- commented out as obsolete [...] --> section on the Help page but the forums are quite obvious and in plain sight on the Site map page... at the moment (as Miss Betsy mentioned somewhere higher in this thread). Just in case some high-handed do-gooder removes it from there too, I'm adding forum.spamcop.net to my browser's Bookmarks. And it's nice to know that not only the Spamcop NNTP forums still exist, but in addition there is a "spamcop" Google Group which has lain dormant for several years but could be revived if peer-help ceased being welcome anywhere at *.spamcop.net.
  25. A.J.Mechelynck

    [Resolved] New Glitch

    Don't kow if what I'm seeing is the same issue or not. I submit only by copy-paste, not by forward-as-attachment, because my SMTP server is likely to drop mail containing spam, even as attachment. What I'm seeing is that, since the latest "software update" a few days ago, on the "Reports have been sent" page I often see the line: "You have unreported spam - Report now" with "Report now" in the colour for "visited links". If I click that "Report now" link, I see a repeat of the latest parse, with "Reports have already been sent". OTOH, if I ignore the "Report now" link and click the "spamcop.net" banner instead, I'm brought to a "Welcome registered user" page without the "unreported spam - Report now" line. I suspect that there's a speed problem in the software - the reports-sent page is sent too fast, so to speak, before the latest spam has been cleared away. Maybe adding a small "sleep" (on the order of one second) before sending the reports-sent page would clear this issue?
×