PaulKTF Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 When will SpamCop properly report the many spams that do not contain any message bodies without me having to add in "No body" (or some such) so that they will go through the system? This means I can't Forward Verbatim" bodyless spams because they cannot be reported "as is". Very annoying! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 When will SpamCop properly report the many spams that do not contain any message bodies without me having to add in "No body" (or some such) so that they will go through the system? This means I can't Forward Verbatim" bodyless spams because they cannot be reported "as is". Very annoying!29824[/snapback] Sorry, at this rate, reports of truly bodyless spam will never go through. They used to go through until TPTB got tired of the complaints from ISPs. TPTB appear to be convinced that the ISPs would complain again and that SpamCop's rep with ISPs and the overall quality of SpamCop Reports would go down if such reports were allowed to again go through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 There is the technical side to this. From one side, the parser is set up to deal with "RFC compliant" e-mail, that is a complete set of headers with correct header lines, a blank line to separate the headr and body, and something in the body (that falls within the parameters of the data defined in the headers) .... The possible problems with a non-compliant e-mail is submitted are manifold. It might be the spam itself, it might be the cut/paste/send operation of the submitting user (the Forward vice Forward as Attachment issue for some, some paranoid users pre-munged so much data that the result was useless), it might be the user's e-mail application and/or server (the Outlook/Eudora apps, Exchange servers are the most famous here), something could have happened during transmission .. on and on ... Julian chose to go with requiring a complete RFC compliant submittal rather than trying to seconf-guess all the possibilities in why and how a submittal arrived in a "bad" way. The Outlook/Eudora hack was in response to the cries of so many users at the mercy of their employers, required to use Outlook at work, Eudora happened to match the same issues .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agsteele Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 When will SpamCop properly report the many spams that do not contain any message bodies without me having to add in "No body" (or some such) so that they will go through the system? This means I can't Forward Verbatim" bodyless spams because they cannot be reported "as is". Very annoying! 29824[/snapback] There's nothing to stop you using the SpamCop parser to identify the appropriate reporting addresses and then submitting your own reports. Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulKTF Posted July 4, 2005 Author Share Posted July 4, 2005 There's nothing to stop you using the SpamCop parser to identify the appropriate reporting addresses and then submitting your own reports. Andrew 29909[/snapback] Yeah that's all you can do now but you have to type in the extra stuff to get it to work which defeats the purpose. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 There's nothing to stop you using the SpamCop parser to identify the appropriate reporting addresses and then submitting your own reports. Andrew 29909[/snapback] Yeah that's all you can do now but you have to type in the extra stuff to get it to work which defeats the purpose. Oh well. 29910[/snapback] ...Not really. If your e-mail client software permits it, you can pre-edit the spam by typing in something like "<empty body>" and then submit it. Fortunately, empty spams are very rare for me! <g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.