Schmide Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6351761016zea98422435348752ca2b032d7842d11dz Looking at the headers I see many dates? it looks like the lack of date on line Received: from 41.202.83.149:52242 by cmpweb17.aul.t-online.de with HTTP/1.1 (Lisa V4-6-5-0.13788 on API V5-3-1-0) breaks spamcop Edit: if you put a ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:43:02 +0100 on that line sc accepts it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_L Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 My guess is that since the next to last "Received" header ("Received: from 41....") contains no date, the Spamcop parser doesn't trust the headers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lking Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Material Changes to spam as Dave_L suggest: Quote SpamCop does what it does and doesn't do for a reason. Do not make any material changes to spam before submitting or parsing which may cause SpamCop to find a link, address or URL it normally would not, by design, find. Just saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_L Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I suppose a legitimate action in a case like this would be to use the Spamcop parser to identify the apppropriate reporting authority(ies), and then compose and send your own report(s), written so as to make it clear that you, and not Spamcop, are the report submitter. (Personally I wouldn't bother for an isolated case.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.