Jump to content

MyNameHere

Membera
  • Posts

    289
  • Joined

  • Last visited

MyNameHere's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (3/6)

0

Reputation

  1. Update: For several weeks, I have been stripping off the first Received line from my Hotmail spam and including it in the "Additional notes" box. It looks like the proper sender is now being reported. Bonus: My incoming spam count has gone 'way down. Might or might not be related.
  2. Update: For several weeks, I have been stripping off the first Received line from my Hotmail spam and including it in the "Additional notes" box. It looks like the proper sender is now being reported. Bonus: My incoming spam count has gone 'way down. Might or might not be related.
  3. Hmmm... in most cases, the first Received line is just the first line, right? Thanks!
  4. Hmmm... in most cases, the first Received line is just the first line, right? That does seem to work. Interesting. Thanks!
  5. Okay, so the proper procedure for Hotmail and other Micro$oft accounts is to uncheck the report about the sending address and just report any spamvertised links? Or would it be better to flood Micro$oft with as many spam reports as possible? Maybe with a note saying what the problem is? Also, since this seems to be a universal problem, wouldn't it be a good idea to add it to the MailHosts and Reporting forums' pinned info? (I didn't see it on either one, but I didn't look carefully, either, he said sheepishly.)
  6. I just went to one I reported earlier in the week and re-parsed it. The parser, indeed, found the web links. Hooray!
  7. That works, even when the quotes are HTML quotes ("). That's what mine typically show. But it is "SpamCop-legit" to make this change?
  8. I've been away from the forums for a while. Is there no way to get a message to the SpamCop "powers that be"?
  9. Ahah! A good reason to reconsider paying for the service. Thanks!
  10. How do I add it to my report? There used to be a place for supplemental reporting addresses, but I haven't seen it for a while. Or is that available for paying users?
  11. I am running into the same phenomenon. SpamCop has failed to find links in just about all the spams I have gotten in the past week. It looks like someone (or two someones) has taken two tacks: Using Base64 to hide the links in images. Old school, but can be effective. Using "Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable" which seems to hide the URLs by encoding the HTML. For those, I see no reason the parser couldn't be modified to read the obfuscated HTML the same way it reads plain HTML. Though I could be wrong. Here is a reporting URL so you can see what I'm talking about on #2.
  12. Yep, I think you're psychic. Just this morning I went to the mailhosts and found that nothing was set up. I thought I had done that, but I did it again, and now it's finding non-Microsoft sources for most of my spam emails. Thanks!
  13. I want to raise the question again, simply because it seems so unlikely to me: How is it that the SpamCop parser always says my spam came from Microsoft? Surely, some spam is coming from somewhere else. This strikes me as being a likely parser problem. ???
  14. Tracking URL: https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6202092832z56555340852d4093f4f78c465ff19ae0z
×
×
  • Create New...