Jump to content

SpamCop switches display mode on me


rsh@idirect.com

Recommended Posts

I keep trying to set my account to give me the short view of the reporting on spams and after two or three sessions of reports the display switches back to the long, detailed, view. I long on, page down to the bottom of the preferences screen and send the result back to SpamCop and it switches back to the simple view for a few more sessions, and then goes back to the long view with the pages of detail that I only want sometimes. I cannot seem to get the database to keep me set the way I have my preferences set up.

Does anyone have an answer as to why this happens or how I can solve the problem if it continues to happen?

The short view is the one that shows my average reporting time near the top of the display after I send the message onward, while the long one shows me how old the message I submitted is before I send it on, for those who might not know.

Added at about 1:10PM EST ... just handled 32 spams and had to go into Preferences and do as above, simply paging down to the bottom and setting them as per the choices in the list again to get back to the short format. Next time I get to the long format again I will post that here as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even after reading your description, I still don't know what screen you are talking about. The only "short/long" screen differences I can come up with are the "show technical details" settings, which when turned on, offers up all the parsing results. So I guess I'm asking .. is this the reporting page at "your" www.spamcop.net page, is this one of the e-mail reporting pages, is this the web-mail page? What "preference setting" are you changing that makes the short/long difference?

I recall a newsgroup user getting a bit upset at some results based on actions of the Mail-Host configuration ...????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.spamcop.net/mcgi?action=showadvanced

Show Technical Details during reporting

Simple output

Show technical data

SpamCop can reveal the logic it uses as it finds the right reporting parties for your spam. This can be helpful for advanced users who want to double-check SpamCop's logic, or for new users who want to learn from SpamCop's example.

I have Simple output selected but keep getting switched to Show technical data. When this happens, which is every few uses of SpamCop, I have to go back to this page and simply scroll to the bottom and click on "Save Preferences" and I am back to what I call the simple view... but that simple view is NOT being retained for any great length of time. Tomorrow I will suddenly be back the the show technical data view without my having changed the preferences... and that is what I am trying to get resolved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it (way back anyway) was something along the lines that if the parse was "clean" it'd go right through. However, if there was any kind of a glitch, the "show all" mode was entered to allow inspection of what was going on. I'm not sure that this would "change the Preferences setting" or not, but that's what triggered the 'event' ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is a solution planned? When I submit 25 or 30 spams, having to play this game because the full technical details are showing is a bit of a pain, and having to page down on 25 or 30 screeens several times to get to "Send Report" is also a pain. I would like to keep simple until I want technical... and not have it decided for me on some sort of unknown criteria that are simply not relevant to my decision making process. I know they are spam or WORMS or FRAUD messages before I even submit them TO SpamCop, after all...

:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not being able to "see" what you're talking about, I can't come up with an answer to your last .... not even knowing if it's actually a "bug" ... please re-read what I wrote as my understanding of what's going on ... for example, the newsgroup user's request was to place the "submit spam" button at the top of the screen .. like you, not wanting to scroll down through the data ....

The other side to this is (as suggested in what I recall of the past explanations) was that the flip to "show all" was because there was something "of interest" .. thus all that data was displayed to allow inspection .... placing the button at the top of the screen and your request for a fix just so you don't have to scroll all the way down both indicate that the data provided is not being inspected / evaluated, suggesting that something could be wrong with the identified targets.... and going back to "you are responsible" ....????

Not sure if it will answer the question or not, but .. a Tracking URL would at least let us talk about something specific ...????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I use Agent and am not sure what you mean by a tracking URL...

2. SpamCop has reverted to the technical view again, even though I have it set to what I call the simple view.

Since I get the responses in Agent, the last one submitted, which is not yet processed to send out the reports, is at http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z729720580zb6...1d65cf4d106468z

The above may be the URL you want...

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z729718980z3b...6533efe8d40f00z

is one where all I got was the header with its subject line about internet pharmacies. As far as I am concerned this is spam but SpamCop is reporting no body so no report... I am not clearing that one out yet either.

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z729718975zaf...87d98883f5de7bz

is one where no one seems to want the report, so I am not getting the box that will let me send the report. Instead I am getting a try again later, yet this is the first of 5 spams, all send in one batch as Forward Verbatum in one message to SpamCop.

A bunch of different issues, perhaps, and perhaps why the view I am getting has switched to the technical view, but it never switches back afterwards with messages that do NOT have a problem...

Ugh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

idirect.com,Feb 7 2005, 10:58 AM]1. I use Agent and am not sure what you mean by a tracking URL...

Please see the Forum FAQ, follow link to the Glossary ... you did in fact provide Tracking URLs below ..???

Since I get the responses in Agent, the last one submitted, which is not yet processed to send out the reports, is at http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z729720580zb6...1d65cf4d106468z

You should not leave a live report sitting. Anyone could send it, add comments, etc ... but I'm not sure I see where a 'problem' might have occurred in this one that should have caused a flip in bits ...???

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z729718980z3b...6533efe8d40f00z

is one where all I got was the header with its subject line about internet pharmacies. As far as I am concerned this is spam but SpamCop is reporting no body so no report... I am not clearing that one out yet either.

The parser is reporting "no body found" as there is no body provided. Unofficial suggestion has been to add <spam had no body> to fill that section with something ....

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z729718975zaf...87d98883f5de7bz

is one where no one seems to want the report, so I am not getting the box that will let me send the report. Instead I am getting a try again later, yet this is the first of 5 spams, all send in one batch as Forward Verbatum in one message to SpamCop.

It took a bit of forever to process, but it parsed for me. This is another one of those that is using a crap DNS server, so the problem in the time lag is the parser trying to wait for a response from those servers, eventually timing out. Although not published anywhere, I believe the "nomaster" address is being used for tracking these URLs ....

A bunch of different issues, perhaps, and perhaps why the view I am getting has switched to the technical view, but it never switches back afterwards with messages that do NOT have a problem...

Thanks for this bit of info . I had thought about asking that last night (whether it changed back on its own) but ....

I'm of the thought at this point that it is still as suggested .. a 'clean' parse will go right through, but a problem parse switches the setting. I can see you calling it a bug, but I believe Julian has this as intended, again, offering a chance to analyze the 'problem' before sending out a report ... Flipping the flag back may not have even been looked at .. am guessing that he (as I also) only run the thing with full details showing. Maybe you'd want to write up the capability of flipping the flag setting back as a suggested feature/change over in that Forum????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The parser is reporting "no body found" as there is no body provided.  Unofficial suggestion has been to add <spam had no body> to fill that section with something ....

When one block selects a list of messages and selects 'Forward Verbatum" using "Agent" as the email product to the email address for SpamCop, which is the way I use it, one cannot add anything to any section of the message. After all, Forward Verbatum is literally that. One does not even have to open or look at the message. I can block 10 or 20 messages that I know are all spam and simply right click on the block and select "Forward Verbatum", click on the To line and select the SpamCop address from the address book, and click send. I am not about to look into each message and then add anything, as then it is no longer "Verbatum" or as received. Since the instructions are to use Forward Verbatum, <spam has no body> can never be added. Once I am informed that the message has been sent successfully, I delete all of the blocked batch of spam messages and they disappear into neverland... and I then clean out the garbage pail to free up the hard drive space as well.

I have no idea how one using their own email product and forwarding "verbatum" could possibly add <spam had no body> to any section of the message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea how one using their own email product and forwarding "verbatum" could possibly add <spam had no body> to any section of the message.

In general, one can not do that. If it is that important to you, you would have to either save the source until it is successfully reported or take the headers from the failing report and manually paste them into the parser, adding the required text.

However, without a body, spamcop has no way of telling whether the headers you are submitting is an actual spam or some random headers you are investigating for other purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm of the thought at this point that it is still as suggested .. a 'clean' parse will go right through, but a problem parse switches the setting.  I can see you calling it a bug, but I believe Julian has this as intended, again, offering a chance to analyze the 'problem' before sending out a report ... Flipping the flag back may not have even been looked at .. am guessing that he (as I also) only run the thing with full details showing.  Maybe you'd want to write up the capability of flipping the flag setting back as a suggested feature/change over in that Forum????

24034[/snapback]

Which forum is 'that forum' as it has switched back to the technical mode on me again and again forced me to log on and switch it back to simple mode. I personally do not mind the full technical details when there is a problem, but 90% of the time the simple mode will do, and I would prefer the simple mode be on for EVERY spam except for those few that require me to see the full technical details. Instead, if one message needs the technical details be supplied to me I get them for every one of the messages I have submitted as spam, be it 10, 20 or 30. My choice would be for ALL to be simple unless there is a problem and then to get the technical details for only that one problem message. That would draw my attention to the fact that that particular message IS a problem. As it is now, I have no idea which of the 10, 20 or 30 that were submitted in one block via Agent is the problem, so I am more likely simply to be annoyed and ignore the whole issue. I doubt that was the intention, but as long as I can block submit them verbatum, that will be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...