message text as GIF

[glittle]

I have received a new (to me) spam message. The entire text of the message is a GIF file. When I attempt to report this, I cannot as there is no body of the message.

Anyone know how to get spamcop to accept this type message??

Thanks

Glenn

[Wazoo]

The only way to get the parser to generate a response on what you describe would end up being in violation of the current rules and guidelines on reporting. If you feel the need, check the FAQ, Flossary, and the "How to use .. Reporting" forum section on "Manual Reporting" ....

[Jank1887]

What's a Flossary? (crosslinking to WebMD's dental guide...)

I have noticed that if you have a 'no-body' spam, you cannot parse it in the "all-in-one submission form". However, in the "outlook/eudora workaround form", if you paste the headers in the appropriate box, and add a single whitespace character (space, etc.) in the email-body box, the spam will parse successfully.

Now, this probably counts as a material change, so unless we get a ruling saying otherwise, you'd still have to manually report. Seems that this would be an acceptable change that hasn't altered the material content of the email though (as it won't cause reporting additions/changes), and should be able to get approval from above.

Also, I've been getting a number of spams recenctly with a gif attachment as the only 'visible' body. The image is actually a link though, and the body is actually HTML code. What program are you using to look at the spam, and are you actually looking at the email source or just the rendered HTML?

[turetzsr]

What's a Flossary?  (crosslinking to WebMD's dental guide...)

29506[/snapback]

...My guess is a typo -- I think he meant glossary. <g>

I have noticed that if you have a 'no-body' spam, you cannot parse it in the "all-in-one submission form".

29506[/snapback]

...Not quite true about the "all-in-one" form, I don't believe. I think if you add a blank line or two beneath the headers, then add a line something like <empty body>, it will parse (see item 3 in 'Causes of "Would send" and "If reported today, reports would be sent to:" messages').

Now, this probably counts as a material change, so unless we get a ruling saying otherwise, you'd still have to manually report.  Seems that this would be an acceptable change that hasn't altered the material content of the email though (as it won't cause reporting additions/changes) <snip>.

29506[/snapback]

FWIW, I strongly agree with this last part. Again, see reference above to 'Causes of "Would send" and "If reported today, reports would be sent to:" messages.'

Also, I've been getting a number of spams recenctly with a gif attachment as the only 'visible' body.  The image is actually a link though, and the body is actually HTML code.  What program are you using to look at the spam, and are you actually looking at the email source or just the rendered HTML?

29506[/snapback]

...Perhaps these references from the " Pinned: Original SpamCop FAQ Plus - Read before Posting" (under "SpamCop Parsing and Reporting Service") will help:

• How do I get my email program to reveal the full, unmodified email?
  
• How do I submit spam via email?
  

[dbiel]

edit: this message was started before the previous one posted so please excuse the redundancies.

I am a bit confused.

The gif should be the body of the message and it should parse just fine.

If the gif has become the last line of the headers, adding a line break to break it from the headers and indicated that is part of the body would appear to me to fall with in the rules.

A tracking URL would be helpfull

Note; any links contains with in the gif would not be processed and doing anything to cause the parser to find them would be definately against the rules.

[Wazoo]

Geeze, it sure makes it hard to edit a typo when I see the next series of posts jumps right on the screw-up <g> ... Let's put it this way, I've got four keyboards here connected to seven systems, and it turns out that I don't have the occasion to use many words that use the letters q, z, x, and j ... those being the only alpha keys with legible markings. Add in that the programmable electronic thermostat behind me apparently was not meant to indicate 3-digit temperatures (assume that "OL" is "over some limit" <g>

Leave it to dbiel to point out the obvious .... a 'correctly' submitted spam with any content in the body should not result in a "no body found" error ... So a lot of this Topic/Discussion was dealing with the wrong action. As I started it, my apologies offered for heading off in the wrong direction. Thanks to those that kicked it back to center.

[Jank1887]

You should try typing with a Dvorak layout where windows won't correctly keep tabs that Alt-shift, not ctrl-shift is supposed to switch back to standard. I've already typed two paragraphs of gobbledegook because I was looking at the copy instead of the screen.

Here's the previous paragraph with the switch:

Tsf ;jsfph kot ktrglu ,gkj a H.soav patsfk ,jdod ,glhs,; ,slqk isoodikpt vddr kan; kjak Apk';jgykw lsk ikop';jgyk g; ;frrs;dh ks ;,gkij naiv ks ;kalhaohe Gq.d apodaht ktrdh k,s raoauoarj; sy usnnpdhdussv ndiaf;d G ,a; pssvglu ak kjd isrt gl;kdah sy kjd ;ioddle

------------

Dvorak, save your wrists: http://web.mit.edu/jcb/www/Dvorak/