[Resolved] Registered Mailhost that does not appear

[Gilboooo]

I have configured a new mailhost for my email address [at]club-internet.fr

I have received the email, answered it and it says success but the mail itself is empty :

Return-Path: <spamcop[at]devnull.spamcop.net>

Delivered-To: spamcop-net-gilbert.fernandes[at]spamcop.net

Received: (qmail 32669 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2005 16:00:48 -0000

Received: from unknown (192.168.1.103)

by blade1.cesmail.net with QMQP; 9 Oct 2005 16:00:47 -0000

Received: from vmx1.spamcop.net (204.15.82.27)

by mx53.cesmail.net with SMTP; 9 Oct 2005 16:00:47 -0000

Received: from sc-app6.ironport.com (HELO spamcop.net) (204.15.82.25)

by vmx1.spamcop.net with SMTP; 09 Oct 2005 09:00:47 -0700

From: SpamCop robot <spamcop[at]devnull.spamcop.net>

To: gilbert.fernandes[at]spamcop.net

Subject: Spamcop account configuration: success

Precedence: list

Message-ID: <wh43493eafge4f9[at]msgid.spamcop.net>

Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 16:00:47 GMT

X-Mailer: http://www.spamcop.net/ v1.493

X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on blade1

X-spam-Level:

X-spam-Status: hits=-100.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO,USER_IN_WHITELIST

version=3.0.2

X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.103 204.15.82.27 204.15.82.25

And when I click on the "Mailhost" part of my Spamcop account, I only see two defined Mailhosts :

- Spamcop

- Wanadoo

(I use POP-fetch from the Spamcop's webmail to gather the Wanadoo and Club Internet email and the Spamcop's address itself is also registered).

Is there some lag or a problem ?

Is it normal for the Spamcop's robot's answer to be empty ?

[Jeff G.]

Please try again. If that doesn't work, please forward both messages to deputies[at]spamcop.net using a subject that includes "mailhosts". Thanks!

[Gilboooo]

Please try again.  If that doesn't work, please forward both messages to deputies[at]spamcop.net using a subject that includes "mailhosts".  Thanks!

33910[/snapback]

Roger that. I will try at home within a few hours and report back to you.

[Wazoo]

I have configured a new mailhost for my email address [at]club-internet.fr

I have received the email, answered it and it says success but the mail itself is empty :

And when I click on the "Mailhost" part of my Spamcop account, I only see two defined Mailhosts :

- Spamcop

- Wanadoo

(I use POP-fetch from the Spamcop's webmail to gather the Wanadoo and Club Internet email and the Spamcop's address itself is also registered).

33908[/snapback]

I'm not one of those priveleged few on the inside of this MailHost thing, but ... I'm not sure I woud be happy with all that you've said. If it was me, I would want you to "stop" the SpamCop POPing of those accounts for the process of picking up "your" MailHosts. Granted, the path could be picked up from all that extra routing, but I'd think it would be 'better' if you actually picked up that e-mail from club-internet.fr and fed it to the MailHost tool yourself ... after that's done, then turn the POP thing back on ... Maybe this makes no difference, but ...???? The picture kinf of painted right now is that one 'hand' of SpamCop sent a test message, another 'hand' received it ... what you fed back is something that says that both the start and end points were SpamCop servers, all that other stuff in between was just the e-mail travelling betwen servers, and if (as apprently indicated) all those servers tag the headers correctly, there's nothing there that states explicitly that those servers are actually part of the normal path to the club-internet.fr server as "your" e-mail InBox .... This is primarily based on all the issues of MailHost configured parse results keying on the "last configured/known user identified system" in the chain as being a decision point.

[Gilboooo]

Does not work at all.

I have tried again and received a message. I have clicked on "Reply" and I have pasted a copy of the full message. In order to recover the full message, I have copied its "message source" with headers. I pasted that into the Compose window of Spamcop's webmail and sent it.

An error came back within a few minutes :

Hello SpamCop user,

Sorry, but SpamCop has encountered errors:

Headers mangled

It appears that the sample you provided has been altered. Often, extra

line-breaks are inserted by your software in an invalid format. Part of

the reason for this proceedure is to ensure that you and your software are

submitting spam in an error-free format. Please review the relevant FAQ

for your software and ensure you are following a proceedure which returns

intact spam content to SpamCop.

In this sample, the problem was found near the line:

-0000

Received: from unknown (HELO c60.cesmail.net) (192.168.1.105)

I guess the problem is because my webmail is configured to truncate lines length at 71 or 72 characters or so.

I am going to try again, using 80 characters per line.

[Gilboooo]

It worked.

The problem was the webmail was truncating at 72 chars.

I have now registered this new email and I am setting the webmail back to 72 characters (that's the default I use when I'm using mutt on my beloved NetBSD box).

Perhaps FAQ should explain that the message must not be truncated and that the mailer, if configured to truncate lines "too short" will result in Spamcop believe the message has been mangled (which is not wrong from its point of view).

Problem solved.

[Jeff G.]

Problem solved.

33928[/snapback]

The problem is not resolved if your submissions are truncated at 72 or even 80 characters.

[Wazoo]

The problem was the webmail was truncating at 72 chars.

I have now registered this new email and I am setting the webmail back to 72 characters (that's the default I use when I'm using mutt on my beloved NetBSD box).

Perhaps FAQ should explain that the message must not be truncated and that the mailer, if configured to truncate lines "too short" will result in Spamcop believe the message has been mangled (which is not wrong from its point of view).

33928[/snapback]

Thanks for the effort expended, troubleshooting, and the feedback on your success. However, not sure I can fly with the suggested FAQ change, especially "just" for the MailHost issue .... the problem is that this same issue will/can/does cause Parsing & Reporting issues .. back to the age-old problem of folks pasting their "sample spam" here or in the spamcop.spam newsgroup .. by the time I'm done "fixing" the sample, the darn thing parses just fine .... will look at how to add this, perhaps starting up a "common / possible problems entry???? (though noting again, the majority of the FAQ on MailHost configuration is based still on the www.spamcop.net pages and hasn't been touched in a long while .. and you didn't really suggest "the" spot to place your suggested addition <g>)

[Gilboooo]

The problem is not resolved if your submissions are truncated at 72 or even 80 characters.

33930[/snapback]

What do you mean ?

If by submissions you mean the spams I do report, I do that from Spamcop's webmail and the "Held Mail" folder. I click on spams (sometimes I do open a few to be sure they are spams when it's not obvious by Subject) and report them as spam.

The Spamcop answer that comes back shows there is no problem in the parsing at all.

[Gilboooo]

Thanks for the effort expended, troubleshooting, and the feedback on your success.  However, not sure I can fly with the suggested FAQ change, especially "just" for the MailHost issue .... the problem is that this same issue will/can/does cause Parsing & Reporting issues .. back to the age-old problem of folks pasting their "sample spam" here or in the spamcop.spam newsgroup .. by the time I'm done "fixing" the sample, the darn thing parses just fine .... will look at how to add this, perhaps starting up a "common / possible problems entry???? (though noting again, the majority of the FAQ on MailHost configuration is based still on the www.spamcop.net pages and hasn't been touched in a long while .. and you didn't really suggest "the" spot to place your suggested addition <g>)

33931[/snapback]

As a fix that does not require FAQ modification, if the Spamcop has to answer "Error" after replying to the email received for registering a new Mailhost, a line could be added to the error email message to give an hint that line truncating below XXX will result in failure.

That should be easier than trying to fit that into the FAQ and pretty effective since the error message is the first thing we read in detail once we get it

[Wazoo]

As a fix that does not require FAQ modification, if the Spamcop has to answer "Error" after replying to the email received for registering a new Mailhost, a line could be added to the error email message to give an hint that line truncating below XXX will result in failure.

That should be easier than trying to fit that into the FAQ and pretty effective since the error message is the first thing we read in detail once we get it

33933[/snapback]

Easier from your perspective perhaps. Have you followed the link to the SpamCop FAQ on this page yet? There is a bit of background provided on why that monster was created, why it still exists .... The volinteer folks "here" can effect changes to that document ... getting the other parts of the IronPort/SpamCop.net system aren't near as responsive (based on appearances) .... At this time, I might also point out that there is a New Feature Request/Suggestion Forum section in here that was put in place such that those "in power" could 'see' those types of actions in an appropriate spot, as compared to being "buried" within a Topic/Discussion somewhere else ....

[Jeff G.]

What do you mean ?

If by submissions you mean the spams I do report, I do that from Spamcop's webmail and the "Held Mail" folder. I click on spams (sometimes I do open a few to be sure they are spams when it's not obvious by Subject) and report them as spam.

The Spamcop answer that comes back shows there is no problem in the parsing at all.

33932[/snapback]

Using the "Report as spam" link in the SpamCop Email System's Webmail or any of the "Report" options in the SpamCop Parsing and Reporting System's Very Easy Reporting should be fine. The trouble starts when "my webmail is configured to truncate lines length at 71 or 72 characters or so." or you use the truncation feature of your mutt, and you then use the truncated version when forwarding to your submit address or when pasting into the Parser.

Are you sure that you don't mean "word-wrap" instead of "truncate"? "Truncate" implies loss of data (as a tree branch is cut off from its trunk and discarded), while "word-wrap" only implies loss of form (as the data is moved to the next line). Thanks!

[Gilboooo]

Are you sure that you don't mean "word-wrap" instead of "truncate"?  "Truncate" implies loss of data (as a tree branch is cut off from its trunk and discarded), while "word-wrap" only implies loss of form (as the data is moved to the next line).  Thanks!

33935[/snapback]

Yes, exactly. I wanted to mean "word wrap" of course.

Well, the webmail does truncate lines by inserting LF characters at their end,

that's what I wanted to say but english is not my native tongue (being french)

so I don't always use the proper words.

I set it to 72 chars so I can have up to 2 or 3 levels of quoting and when

I hit the reply button, those lines don't get mangled with insertion of >

characters. In fact, I have been using Unix for such a long time that I have

the habit of inserting line feeds myself at the end of sentences below that

72 chars per line

Hopefully, I have since learned how to properly use nvi so it automatically

inserts the LF I want

I'm at work right now (as I have been the last two days) so I don't have

much time to check the FAQ and all details around but I will do today later.

Thanks for the help.

[StevenUnderwood]

I'm at work right now (as I have been the last two days) so I don't have

much time to check the FAQ and all details around but I will do today later.

33942[/snapback]

Please do. The general answer by the deputies is that if you need to do anything to the source, then there is a problem that should be addressed. In your case where (I think) your messages ultimately get forwarded to spamcop webmail, you should have replied to the probe from there (where you will normally be reporting spam from). The probe is there (partially) to be sure none of your systems mangle the headers on their route to being reported. If you need to modify those headers, you would need to modify headers of every spam message you are reporting via that path, which can lead to mistakes.