enigma1 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Here is the tracking url http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z4951929098zc...a37d342d18e94bz The received line has an additional double column but that's how I received it. [::ffff:..... Seems the filtering mechanism of the SC form processing assumes its an IPV6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpamCopAdmin Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 SpamCop can not handle IPv6 addressing yet. We're working on it, and hope to have the code updated in the coming months. - Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin - - service[at]admin.spamcop.net - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 SpamCop can not handle IPv6 addressing yet. <snip> ...Just noting that the OP is claiming that this is not IP v6. Is she/ he mistaken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enigma1 Posted March 24, 2011 Author Share Posted March 24, 2011 I believe something was changed in the SC form processing the past day or so, because older mails from my list that were successfully processed are now give the same error. Here is one that was successfully submitted on the 23rd of March. It now gives the ipv6 error http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z4951592112za...7d1347ec862128z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I believe something was changed in the SC form processing the past day or so, because older mails from my list that were successfully processed are now give the same error. <snip> ...Thanks for the extra evidence, enigma1. I'll add that the timing of your problem is suspiciously close to the March 23, 2011 Planned Maintenance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dg3274 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 I'm seeing this problem still exists today. Here is a tracking URL for one I just submitted: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z4973499514zb...cfcddf31f4d236z Please note that if I manualy remove this code ([::1]) found in the header and resubmit then it goes through just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 <snip> Please note that if I manualy remove this code ([::1]) found in the header and resubmit then it goes through just fine. ...Please be sure to cancel that parse! See SpamCop FAQ (link near top left of each SpamCop Forum page) entries labeled "Material changes to spam - Updated!" and "What if I break the rule(s)?." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enigma1 Posted April 16, 2011 Author Share Posted April 16, 2011 Well the bad news is all a spamer now has to do to evade the sc form processing is to insert a received header with an ipv6 format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 Well the bad news is all a spamer now has to do to evade the sc form processing is to insert a received header with an ipv6 format. Please see Pinned: IPv6 Routing Support Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmander Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 SpamCop can not handle IPv6 addressing yet. We're working on it, and hope to have the code updated in the coming months. - Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin - - service[at]admin.spamcop.net - Hey Don what's the status on this? I am starting to get quite a few spam messages via IPv6 and would like to be able to report them to the appropriate ISPs and host admins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Postwaster Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Sâ€pam which arrives via my backup MX is guaranteed to arrive via IPv6. However, I've not yet seen spam arrive at my primary MX over IPv6 without going via the backup… (What's going on here? I type “Sâ€pam†– capital ‘S’ – and it ends up as “spamâ€â€¦ aha, inserting a zero-width joiner ‘fixes’ it…) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 <snip> (What's going on here? I type “Sâ€pam†– capital ‘S’ – and it ends up as “spam†<snip> ...See post from me in SpamCop Forum topic "Network Solutons/Web.com blockage." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 ...(What's going on here? I type “Sâ€pam†– capital ‘S’ – and it ends up as “spamâ€â€¦ aha, inserting a zero-width joiner ‘fixes’ it…)Yes, as Steve T points out, in deference to Hormel's wishes, the capitalisation of spam is included in our badword filter and automagically transformed. Including the proper case is perhaps excessive but it certainly meats (sorry, the devil made me do it) the spirit of Hormel's polite request and keeps the filter table entry to a minimum (also the filter's interpretations of "EXACT" and the alternative "LOOSE" are a little baffling). Also included are a few actual bad words and some hacking stuff which might otherwise allow exploit posts. By no means exhaustive and the deliberate exploration of the limits by members will NOT be welcomed. The few that might surprise new members are: Before After Method javaÑ•cript javascri_pt Exact Ñ•cript scri_pt Exact Ð…PAM spam Exact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.