RedHeadPeter Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 I had to re-install Office (2003) so Outlook no longer gives me the full details but the page telling me what to do is empty! And I got a problem with 554 Message REfused problems! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 ...(Slightly off-topic; not intended as a flame [necessarily <g>]) This was originally posted to SpamCop Forum "How to use .... Instructions, Tutorials > SpamCop Reporting," which is described as "How to Instructions Only - Problems and issues belong in the other specific Forum sections." Since this post does not meet the definition of "How to Instructions Only," it has been moved to this SpamCop Forum ("Geek/Tech Things > Software Issues"), which seems to be a better fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 I had to re-install Office (2003) so Outlook no longer gives me the full details but the page telling me what to do is empty!...Hi RedHeadPeter - after all these years, it was discovered Outlook 2003 (and 2007) mangles the headers under certain, somewhat unpredictable circumstances so SC has an embargo on its use until a fix is found. See http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10245 and/or http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10247. I see the caution in the submission form page now just goes to a blank page, the same you have seen: Microsoft Outlook Users Please Read Yes, that does need to be fixed, will email deputies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Oh - and if you need to view full headers in Outlook 2003 anyway, your preferred search engine should give the appropriate advice. Top of my results was http://www.slipstick.com/mail1/viewheaders.htm which looks vaguely similar to the old version of the now absent SC FAQ page data. I seem to recall I used the registry key thing when I used Outlook (only do that if you know/find out how to do registry backup) and I and others here have happily used Pocketknife Peek as another way to do it. What I am not clear on at this stage is whether it is still okay to use the 2-part submission form (for Outlook & Eudora) on the members' submission page for reporting - and whether in that case only emailed submissions were problematical. I seem to recall it ended up not to use Outlook at all but I may be wrong about that. Not being an Outlook user since shortly before the whole thing blew up, I'm afraid I didn't pay close attention, assuming the now-absent FAQ page detail spelled out all of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 I had to re-install Office (2003) so Outlook no longer gives me the full details but the page telling me what to do is empty! The old Registry gack is still linked to from the SpamCop FAQ here ... look for Outlook 2003 REG hack to work around MIME issues .... towards the top in the 'unfiled' section, the part not under a specific section heading. Farelf has stated that he's notifying upstream about an issue with the Help/FAQ entry on the original/official FAQ ... it seems a bit odd in that the software used would normally identify the entry as being in the "Trash" section if it had been deleted or modified ... However, there is nothing but the 'outer frame' of that page showing now ... No 'new' FAQ pages since I last checked back on 22 Jan 2009. And I got a problem with 554 Message REfused problems! SMTP error code 554 is defined as "Transactin failed" .... however, there should be a bit nore explanation involved. What can't be guessed at from this side of the screen with so little data woild be just 'who' had the problem .. your ISP, SpamCop.net, ???? generally, start by looking at the configuration of the SMTP part of your set-up, correct spelling of your address, security settings, port assignments, etc. What I am not clear on at this stage is whether it is still okay to use the 2-part submission form (for Outlook & Eudora) on the members' submission page for reporting - and whether in that case only emailed submissions were problematical. I seem to recall it ended up not to use Outlook at all but I may be wrong about that. Correct .. the "official" word was ... do not use Outlook for submitting your spam .... However, there were many folks asking questions, some folks stating that they were still doing it, on and on, but there wasn't any (public) follow-up to all of that traffic. There was once alleged that there would be ore analysis done, but again, no (publc) follow-up. The last change to the page that used to be linked to contained the verbiage that Outlook was simply too hosed to be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 <snip><snip> What I am not clear on at this stage is whether it is still okay to use the 2-part submission form (for Outlook & Eudora) on the members' submission page for reporting - and whether in that case only emailed submissions were problematical. I seem to recall it ended up not to use Outlook at all but I may be wrong about that. Correct .. the "official" word was ... do not use Outlook for submitting your spam .... However, there were many folks asking questions, some folks stating that they were still doing it, on and on, but there wasn't any (public) follow-up to all of that traffic. There was once alleged that there would be ore analysis done, but again, no (publc) follow-up. The last change to the page that used to be linked to contained the verbiage that Outlook was simply too hosed to be used....When I asked Ellen (SpamCop Deputy) that question in early April, she indicated that the only problem was with e-mails forwarded from Outlook as an attachment, not with submission via the web form. I have continued to use the two-part web form with no apparent problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 ...Farelf has stated that he's notifying upstream about an issue with the Help/FAQ entry on the original/official FAQ ...Sent Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:47:20 +0800. Nothing back yet - I have had the occasional mail to deputies disappear/never arrive but almost all seem to get through - but if nothing happens sometime soon it might be worth someone else having a shot JIC.... it seems a bit odd in that the software used would normally identify the entry as being in the "Trash" section if it had been deleted or modified ... However, there is nothing but the 'outer frame' of that page showing now ... Yes, that page has been totally eviscerated, not at all the 'commented out' style seen with other changes. The Google cached copy is quite recent (Aug 3), it is also post evisceration, the Web.archive version is pretty ancient, long before the changes following the discovery of Outlook problems (Jan 2, 2008, they're never newer than 6 months old anyway) - http://web.archive.org/web/20080102122651/.../cache/122.html - anyway, Steve T has answered the main item of conjecture, that is the use of the two-part web form is apparently still OK. There was discussion in the forums at the time about comparison of headers before and after emailing but I had completely lost track about whether the mangling was occurring before or during e-mail forwarding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 ...Farelf has stated that he's notifying upstream about an issue with the Help/FAQ entry on the original/official FAQ ...Sent Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:47:20 +0800. Nothing back yet - I have had the occasional mail to deputies disappear/never arrive but almost all seem to get through - but if nothing happens sometime soon it might be worth someone else having a shot JIC.No acknowledgment yet, page http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/122.html / http://members.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/122.html is still 'bare'. No evidence of anything being triggered to take care of/explain the issue. Someone else care to have a shot at alerting SC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 The OP would probably have better luck in getting an answer to an email to the deputies on why the page is blank and if there is any official information for Outlook users. My interpretation of the blank page and lack of reply (either to the email or in this topic) is that there is no other information than what other users have already said, that there is no official guidance for Outlook users. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpamCopAdmin Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 As a result of a fairly lengthy and intense investigation of Outlook 2003 and 2007, we have discovered that Outlook does *not* include accurate headers when you forward spams as attachments. Outlook reorders the Received headers, which makes them untrustworthy, as well as deleting/not forwarding other headers including X-headers, which is of less importance but which may lose some valuable information needed by ISPs/hosting companies. The result of the 'scrambled" or reordered Received headers means that SpamCop does not reliably know where the injection point of the spam is. Outlook is reordering the headers, not SpamCop. I'm sorry to have to tell you that as long as you are using Outlook as your email software, you *may not* forward your spams as an attachment for processing. You can manually copy/paste the headers and text of your spam into our web form at http://www.spamcop.net/ if you want. Another option is to look into running a third-party utility or add-on such as MailWasher, but you must stop forwarding as an attachment. MailWasher http://www.mailwasher.net/ SpamSource for Outlook 2000/XP by Chris Price - FREE http://www.daesoft.com/SpamSource/index.htm Outlook spam Reported by Leon Mayne (updated 9/22/2003 for latest SpamCop changes) http://www.olspamcop.org/ SpamControl Outlook Tool by Hendrickson Software Components http://www.hendricom.com/spamcontrolforsc.htm - Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin - . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 ...Thanks, Don! This "official" word is consistent with other references: Farelf's first reply in linear post 3, above and the item labeled "Please Do Not Forward spam to Parser If You Use Microsoft Outlook! .. please see post at Outlook received header problem" on the page to which one navigates by clicking the big red link labeled "------>------> Latest and Current Announcements<------<------." ...Is anyone still unclear as to whether it is permissible for Microsoft® Outlook® users to submit via the two-part web form? IIUC, the answer is: yes, it is permitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.