silentlarry Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Wondering why this parsed with "no links found" (VER reported) http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z519652685z7f...8b5cc4b6d27218z I assume it's a fault in the way the spam was put together, but if so I sure wish the parsing could deal with it anyway. Tried pasting headers & body into the multi-part outlook/eudora work around form, but it wouldn't go for that, said it appeared to be something that the all in one form would take. This one prompts me to ask, as I when I went to take a peek at the spam's web link (netsecape with scripting/java/cookies disabled), the cache file tripped Norton anti virus "bloodhound.exploit.10". So there might be something nefarious at that site and I was eager to report it, for whatever that's worth. While I'm thinking of it; I'm unclear on if this sort of question is better sent to forum vs Deputies. I'd like to see a faq page that give examples of "what should go to who". Thanks Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Yeah, it's the spammer's construct of the content, headers, and Content-Type: issues ... specifically, the lines ... Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: plain <html> http://www.1voicemailbox.net/voicemail/ The URL in question is missing the <a href= ...> </a> stuff, required due to the "text/html" type qualification and being found within the <html> </html> boundaries. Deputies are bound to point you to the SpamCop rules that state that there will be no material alteration made to force the parser to find that which the parser does not find on it's own. Some people could suggest that some Content-Type: lines could be "adjusted" ... one could add in the missing HTML constructs ... but submitting that spam and sending a SpamCop report could get you into trouble. Pasting just the URL into the web-based parsing box would get you; Parsing input: http://www.1voicemailbox.net/voicemail/ host 219.234.95.124 (getting name) no name Reporting addresses: jinjin[at]cendata.net which (personal opinion) looks pretty shaky, but one could add this address in as an additional target if a paid account holder, use for your own manual complaint, or at least a starting point for further research as to a target that looks a bit more legitimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentlarry Posted June 16, 2004 Author Share Posted June 16, 2004 Ok, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.