UPPER/lower case issues

[harsh]

I have a slightly different issue that searching the forum hasn't turned up:

When I respond to the mailhosts challenge e-mail, there is much grousing about the fact that the recipient address hash has been converted to lower case at some point. As this is not an unreasonable thing to do, is is possible that the hashes be done in lower case only so as not to cause this confusion???

Lee Bosch

ps: I tested my SMTP server (and, coincidently, Eudora) and they do not appear to be doing the low casing of the e-mail address that got my responses rejected.

[Wazoo]

I have a slightly different issue that searching the forum hasn't turned up:

When I respond to the mailhosts challenge e-mail, there is much grousing about the fact that the recipient address hash has been converted to lower case at some point.  As this is not an unreasonable thing to do, is is possible that the hashes be done in lower case only so as not to cause this confusion???

  Lee Bosch

ps:  I tested my SMTP server (and, coincidently, Eudora) and they do not appear to be doing the low casing of the e-mail address that got my responses rejected.

answer shows up at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...topic=710&st=15 , posting by JeffT Mar 24 2004, 10:21 AM, at least that's my best guess at a possible answer. The technical side of things may be confusing, as JeffT is talking about the e-mail system, whereas I'd believe that the mail-host thing is something to do with Julian's/IronPort side of the house. Best I can try to offer ...???

[A.J.Mechelynck]

I have a slightly different issue that searching the forum hasn't turned up:

When I respond to the mailhosts challenge e-mail, there is much grousing about the fact that the recipient address hash has been converted to lower case at some point.  As this is not an unreasonable thing to do, is is possible that the hashes be done in lower case only so as not to cause this confusion???

  Lee Bosch

ps:  I tested my SMTP server (and, coincidently, Eudora) and they do not appear to be doing the low casing of the e-mail address that got my responses rejected.

1. Not an unreasonable thing? Well, apparently you and I don't see eye to eye about what is reasonable. When I mention (for instance) DuPont or SuSE in an email, I want those names to arrive exactly as I sent them, mixed-case and all.
   
2. Have you tried cc-ing yourself on the configuration email (where you send the test-email back)?
   
3. Eudora is notorious for not letting you extract the full headers and body exactly as it got them. Maybe a last-resort possibility would be to use a different client to return the configuration email? (Hint: Netscape 7, and presumably Mozilla, which are downloadable for free, have a configurable option to read mail without removing it from the server, even on POP servers. And maybe some others can to it too.)
   

[harsh]

1. Not an unreasonable thing? Well, apparently you and I don't see eye to eye about what is reasonable. When I mention (for instance) DuPont or SuSE in an email, I want those names to arrive exactly as I sent them, mixed-case and all.
   
2. Have you tried cc-ing yourself on the configuration email (where you send the test-email back)?
   
3. Eudora is notorious for not letting you extract the full headers and body exactly as it got them. Maybe a last-resort possibility would be to use a different client to return the configuration email? (Hint: Netscape 7, and presumably Mozilla, which are downloadable for free, have a configurable option to read mail without removing it from the server, even on POP servers. And maybe some others can to it too.)
   

I can understand being uppity about the non-address portions, but not the e-mail address proper. Suffice it to say that somewhere downstream, the activity that you despise so has indeed happened and apparently on the spamcop side. It should have been obvious from my p.s. that it isn't necessary to disparage my choice of clients and servers as the problem was with the To:l address (which Eudora doesn't mung), not the content of the forward.

To be certain, Eudora's conversion of messages to HTML is frustrating for the spam reporting interface, but it doesn't seem to have a damaging effect on the content of the forward.

Your suggestion about the courtesy copy is an excellent one and I will try it on the next go-around.

Lee Bosch

[A.J.Mechelynck]

1. Not an unreasonable thing? Well, apparently you and I don't see eye to eye about what is reasonable. When I mention (for instance) DuPont or SuSE in an email, I want those names to arrive exactly as I sent them, mixed-case and all.
   
2. Have you tried cc-ing yourself on the configuration email (where you send the test-email back)?
   
3. Eudora is notorious for not letting you extract the full headers and body exactly as it got them. Maybe a last-resort possibility would be to use a different client to return the configuration email? (Hint: Netscape 7, and presumably Mozilla, which are downloadable for free, have a configurable option to read mail without removing it from the server, even on POP servers. And maybe some others can to it too.)
   

I can understand being uppity about the non-address portions, but not the e-mail address proper. Suffice it to say that somewhere downstream, the activity that you despise so has indeed happened and apparently on the spamcop side. It should have been obvious from my p.s. that it isn't necessary to disparage my choice of clients and servers as the problem was with the To:l address (which Eudora doesn't mung), not the content of the forward.

I was not being uppity, I just pointed a difference of opinion. I thought you were talking about the "SpamCop-Hash" which is one of the items included in the body of the test email.

As for the address itself, "AbCdEfGh[at]DomAin.tLd" is equivalent to "abcdefgh[at]domain.tld" as per the regulations concerning the mailto protocol; it should be handled identically by all mail routers and arrive at the same end-user. The notion that some robot bitched to you about that kind of transformation in the email's destination address did not cross my mind.

To be certain, Eudora's conversion of messages to HTML is frustrating for the spam reporting interface, but it doesn't seem to have a damaging effect on the content of the forward.

If that is true, then so much the better. But double-checking (in the Cc, see below) does no harm. My suggestion about returning the test email with another mail client was meant as a "last resort", i.e., if nothing else avails.

Your suggestion about the courtesy copy is an excellent one and I will try it on the next go-around.

  Lee Bosch

Always happy to help.

[harsh]

As for the address itself, "AbCdEfGh[at]DomAin.tLd" is equivalent to "abcdefgh[at]domain.tld" as per the regulations concerning the mailto protocol; it should be handled identically by all mail routers and arrive at the same end-user. The notion that some robot bitched to you about that kind of transformation in the email's destination address did not cross my mind.

To be painfully correct, the protocol for e-mail is defined by RFC 822 (which is deferred to by the mailto protocol, RFC 2368). Interestingly, it specifies that the mailbox case be preserved, but it does not specify that the domain case be preserved. As you stated, the case is folded to facilitate delivery.

In any event, that was my issue and it appears that somewhere on the SpamCop side, the address is being handled in a manner at odds with RFC 822 and that was apparently what was munching my reply.

So, assuming I want to do battle with this again, how do I reinitiate the process?

[kfasold]

Running into a problem w/a new mailhost on my account -- submit the address, receive the email, & forward as attachment -- same thing I did on my account multiple times last week with no problem -- now I get the following error returned:

Hello SpamCop user,

Sorry, but SpamCop has encountered errors:

Sorry, confirmation codes do not match:

From recipient address: rbmfg1thozd429gu

From header: rBmfg1tHozD429Gu

From body:

Note the email is forwarded unmodified; the codes in the headers of the received message match those in the body, and the email address matches.

I've tried entering the destination email address in both all upper- and lower-case, to no avail.

Original message available if Julian wants it.

[Wazoo]

A bit confusing, you state that you've tried upper and lower case in an e-mail address, bu tthe sample text you offer shows a case difference in the confirmation code ... which of course, shouldn't be an issue if you actually "Forwarded as an attachment" ... so from this end, there's something missing in your details ...

[kfasold]

A bit confusing, you state that you've tried upper and lower case in an e-mail address, bu tthe sample text you offer shows a case difference in the confirmation code ...  which of course, shouldn't be an issue if you actually "Forwarded as an attachment" ... so from this end, there's something missing in your details ...

To clarify: I've tried submitting the destination email address on the mailhosts screen in both all UC & all LC; in each case I've received the configuration email & returned it to the appropriate address via "forward as attachment" (the same process which worked fine a week ago), and received an error return message (as posted).

The case of the email address was altered when originally submitted, not (at least by me) later in the process.

It would appear someone else is messing around with it, but from the RFC's NAME[at]DOMAIN.EXT == name[at]domain.ext ???

[Wazoo]

A bit confusing, you state that you've tried upper and lower case in an e-mail address, bu tthe sample text you offer shows a case difference in the confirmation code ...  which of course, shouldn't be an issue if you actually "Forwarded as an attachment" ... so from this end, there's something missing in your details ...

You missed what I said.

To clarify: I've tried submitting the destination email address on the mailhosts screen in both all UC & all LC; in each case I've received the configuration email & returned it to the appropriate address via "forward as attachment" (the same process which worked fine a week ago), and received an error return message (as posted).

The case of the email address was altered when originally submitted, not (at least by me) later in the process.

And once again, I pointed out something other than the "e-mail address" that you seem to be stuck on ... here's a bit from your first post, highlighting what I have said ;

From recipient address: rbmfg1thozd429gu

From header: rBmfg1tHozD429Gu

and you even went further to quote the exact error message;

Sorry, but SpamCop has encountered errors:

Sorry, confirmation codes do not match

nothing to do with an e-mail address .... it's all about the confirmation code.

[neilz]

Hi ... I have a reporting account, and was able to list all my email locations except for one, and I can't figure out why. I've tried doing this for this location a few times, but no go. Here's the latest email that returned the error message:

=======================================================

Hello SpamCop user,

Sorry, but SpamCop has encountered errors:

Sorry, confirmation codes do not match:

From recipient address: wtocwsq6oy6zt

From header: WTocwsQ6oy6ZT

From body:

Please do not respond to this email (replies are ignored). If you need

help, please consult the SpamCop website ( <http://www.spamcop.net/> ).

This email was sent in response to your email:

Received: from spf5.us4.outblaze.com ([205.158.62.27])

by prserv.net (in9) with ESMTP

id <200404071116391090d65a13e>; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 11:16:39

+0000

X-Originating-IP: [205.158.62.27]

Received: from aloha.webkahuna.com (aloha.webkahuna.com [216.89.180.1])

by spf5.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17FDC3E279

for <neilz[at]techie.com>; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 11:16:38 +0000 (GMT)

Received: from spamcop.net ([206.14.107.102])

by aloha.webkahuna.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id i37BGfC32683

for <neil-z[at]dm.net>; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 06:16:42 -0500

X-SpamCop-Conf: <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

X-SpamCop-Test1: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q

r s t u v w x y z A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Received: from [67.22.170.111] by spamcop.net

with HTTP; Wed, 07 Apr 2004 11:16:30 GMT

From: SpamCop robot <mhconf.WTocwsQrrv6oy6ZT[at]cmds.spamcop.net>

To: neil-z[at]dm.net

Subject: SpamCop account configuration email

Precedence: list

Message-ID: <<xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>[at]msgid.spamcop.net>

Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 11:16:30 GMT

X-Mailer: Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; U; Warp 4.5; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040212

Firefox/0.8

via http://www.spamcop.net/ v1.3.4

Hello SpamCop user,

This email contains special codes and tracking information to help

SpamCop

figure out your specific email configuration. Do not post this email

in

public. It contains confidential information related to the security

of

your SpamCop account.

Please return this complete email, preserving full headers and the

special

tracking codes below. Forwarding as an attachment is the preferred

method. Forward it to this address:

mhconf.<xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>[at]cmds.spamcop.net

Alternately, you may create a new message and paste this email into it.

Address the message to:

mhconf.<xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>[at]cmds.spamcop.net

Special codes follow:

################################################################

X-SpamCop-Mx: 216.89.180.17

X-SpamCop-Mx-Ip:

X-SpamCop-Mh-Name: Dueling%20Modems

X-SpamCop-Recip: neil-z[at]dm.net

X-SpamCop-Unixtime: 1081336590

X-SpamCop-Conf: <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

X-SpamCop-Randomness: <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

X-SpamCop-Hash: <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

################################################################

==============================================================

Any insight into this would be appreciated, as I will pass this on to the location administrators.

[Miss Betsy]

Since you have posted your special tracking codes in public, IMHO, it would be best if you contacted deputies <at> spamcop.net directly now.

Miss Betsy

[kfasold]

Hi ... I have a reporting account, and was able to list all my email locations except for one, and I can't figure out why. I've tried doing this for this location a few times, but no go. Here's the latest email that returned the error message:

=======================================================

Hello SpamCop user,

Sorry, but SpamCop has encountered errors:

Sorry, confirmation codes do not match:

From recipient address: wtocwsqrrv6oy6zt

From header:            WTocwsQrrv6oy6ZT

From body:             

...

Same problem I've been trying to report.

It appears the 'from recipient address" confirmation code is generated when the configiration email is returned (forwarded as attachment, as inclusion in another message, etc.), and for some reason it doesn't match.

As a further test, I tried editing my config email so the confirmation code was in lower case (to presumably match whatever was incorrectly calculating it inside spamcop), to no avail -- same error message, but in my case the confirmation codes appear to match:

Hello SpamCop user,

Sorry, but SpamCop has encountered errors:

Sorry, confirmation codes do not match:

>From recipient address: rbmfg1thozd429gu

>From header: rbmfg1thozd429gu

>From body:

Hopefully a deputy or Julian will chime in...

[StevenUnderwood]

Could a hint be that in all the cases I have seen posted here, the In body: line is blank?

Just a thought. Have you tried submitting the message in another way (attaching or inline as the case may be)? Are you submitting these the same way you submitted the originals, or are they different clients (a webmail client for instance)?

Each client has a diffferent method for submission, so you may need to modify the way you submit it.

Hope this helps.

[Wazoo]

neilz, was going to point out what looked obvious from my screen;

Sorry, but SpamCop has encountered errors:

Sorry, confirmation codes do not match:

From recipient address: wtocwsqrrv6oy6zt

From header: WTocwsQrrv6oy6ZT

The case doesn't match. However, while scrolling down to get to the Reply button, I saw that fixing this (per kfasold) didn't solve it ... so we're back to the strangeness that a large number say it's worked just fine, others report some issues -but not this one ... and now you've brought this specific error and sample data as being perons number 2 with this specific issue. Strange ....

[xave]

Sorry, confirmation codes do not match:

>From recipient address: slgjy2cjozq0dkcm

>From header:            SlgJy2CjoZQ0dkCM

>From body:             

I am one more victim of this problem. I added 3 hosts with success, but one fails no matter what I do and how I reply...

[kfasold]

Just to provide closure, I submitted my problem via Ellen; nothing we tried produced a usable result, so she forwarded it to Julian.

A couple of days of bouncing emails back & forth followed, and last Thursday (4/15) Julian found & fixed the problem... then he fixed it again on Friday 4/16.

My submission worked fine, if you've been affected by the problem please try again & report it here as well as via the deputies email.

kf

[Wazoo]

kfasold, thanks for the feedback, closure, and suggestions for others. Much appreciated.

[Ellen]

Just to provide closure, I submitted my problem via Ellen; nothing we tried produced a usable result, so she forwarded it to Julian.

A couple of days of bouncing emails back & forth followed, and last Thursday (4/15) Julian found & fixed the problem... then he fixed it again on Friday 4/16.

My submission worked fine, if you've been affected by the problem please try again & report it here as well as via the deputies email.

kf

Thanks for posting this -- yes Julian fixed a bug and then fixed the fix :-)