Cry Havok Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Tracking URL: http://members.spamcop.net/sc?id=z67825303...&action=display The mail is marked as being HTML, but is actually plain text, which I suspect is why the links were missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 To save others some work, the tracking URL is: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z678253036z0d...37a5d8b8753878z and I believe you are correct. Have you tried submitting this message replacing the text/html with text/plain to test this theory? THis change, as far as I know, is still a supported change to the bodyof a spam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Oh Steven! Erase your tracks quick <g> Ellen has been on a bit of a rampage over in the newsgroups about this. The spam, yes, the spamvertised site was not seen, as the construct is bad. The header indicated multi-part-alternative, but there is only one part shown ... and that part is udentified as being HTML ... however, there is no HTML code included at all. Yes, this looks intentional. (BTW: this is one of those that if the e-mail reader is a bit secured, specific example, Outlook Express in "read as plain text only" .. this is another one of those that would "display" as a "blank e-mail" .. another one of those popular complaints) But, Ellen is in the position of having to point to the rules, and changing the boundary description from HTML to TEXT will cause the parser to find things that it would not have seen prior to making that change. The alternative suggestions for a paid member would be to identify the abuse address for that site (using the one-line mode of the parse window, doing your own research, querying abuse.net, etc.) and adding that address as an additional notify (with a note of explanation) ... for a free reporter, again, find the address and manually send your own report / complaint ... or for either account type, let it go, much safer than losing your account over the bit of manipulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Just to clarify....the changing text/html to text/plain when it is obviously text is no longer allowed? It does not affect me as I quick report almost everything, but want to be sure to provide accurate information. I do see that the spamcop FAQ does seem to have changed since I last looked at it. OK, no more suggestions of the type without the do not report disclaimer. When the rules change like this, they should be mentioned at least in all the support forums to bring attention to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Ouch! I guess I need to shoulder some of that ..?? Let me just say that (I believe) that there's some "some word" (don't want to say confusion, but ..??) going with the FAQs. Courtney was tasked to do some updating (and again, this is not her primary function) of the www.spamcop.net FAQs ... RW still has access to these same FAQs ... way back when, these were held on a shared server, so that both Julian and JT had access to them ... some of them have changed tremendously, some have just been lightly touched ... some requests/suggestions have been answered with "must run them by the team" .. others with "sent to Julian for his thoughts / actions" .. one entry had been touched, changed, re-titled, and was again re-titled per some remarks offered .... others in some kind of limbo (there's still a circular loop in trying to follow the "help" links to the Forums for instance) There for a while David T and I were hitting her pretty hard (on the same irems as it turns out <g>) .. but I haven't heard anything from her for a while. I just remember doing a bit of a FAQ search on a daily basis, trying to catch any changes, and upon finding them, looking at the FAQ here to see if that had to be touched .. a bit of work there, trying to decide on whether or not something had just changed or was I remembering something else <g> ... later on trying to figure out if something was new or not .... I had to stop that for a while <g> ... I think the last major change that really caught my attention was the FAQ inclusion of not being able to report C/R e-mails anymore .. I recall surprising a number of folks over in the newsgroups when that was pointed out ... did I note it here? I can't remember, dang it ...Guess I need to start re-checking over there again <g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 I think you did mention that one, but I never reported those anyway. I respond to them (allowing virus or spam through) so I can explaint to them why C/R is bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 I think you did mention that one<snip>18154[/snapback] ...FWIW, I also remember that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.