john1000 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Now tell,why cant i report this? From - Sun Oct 30 12:18:18 2005 X-Account-Key: account2 X-UIDL: 9BE82B132D1EF4DF7D0FC93A212E1327 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Return-Path: <qqtiypaktara[at]myway.com> Received: from dsl-207-112-45-66.tor.primus.ca ([207.112.45.66]) by amsfep18-int.chello.nl (InterMail vM.6.01.04.04 201-2131-118-104-20050224) with SMTP id <20051030045854.LIF13238.amsfep18-int.chello.nl[at]dsl-207-112-45-66.tor.primus.ca> for <HERE WAS MY EMAIL>; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 05:58:54 +0100 Received: from localhost (averse[at]localhost) by postmaster.co.uk (6.2/6.2) with ESMTP id XAA905310[10 Message-Id: <20051030045854.LIF13238.amsfep18-int.chello.nl[at]dsl-207-112-45-66.tor.primus.ca> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 05:58:54 +0100 X-NAS-Language: Unknown X-NAS-Bayes: #0: 0.661245; #1: 0.338755 X-NAS-Classification: 0 X-NAS-MessageID: 2160 X-NAS-Validation: {F7BA843E-98D5-4CDC-9785-F0A065297481} Even with <no body> the report was rejected cause it couldnt do anything. So infact,the idiot who send it now knows the address was ok,and i cannot report him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agsteele Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Assuming that this is the entire set of headers, then they are not complete (For example, no From or To lines) and so the parser will not be able to process correctly. Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john1000 Posted October 30, 2005 Author Share Posted October 30, 2005 indeed its complete,perfect way for spammers to check if a email address is correct.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Now tell,why cant i report this?35179[/snapback] John, The reason SpamCop has for not completeing the parse would be possible if you provided a TrackingURL, which is available even when there is no body. I will give you the problems I see with the headers, one of which may be the problem. These are in addition to Andrew's comments. From - Sun Oct 30 12:18:18 2005-This line is not an RFC header...no : Looks like they were corrupted on their way to you or done on purpose. Received: from localhost (averse[at]localhost) by postmaster.co.uk (6.2/6.2) with ESMTP id XAA905310[10-The wrapping on this line is broken making the "by postmaster..." line attempt to be parsed as a separate line. This could be due to your copy/paste method, a broken transfer, or done on purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 It parsed fine for me using mailsc as http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z821320011zd3...58f499da4fd9e0z, and using www as http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z821322142zf7...bceaef76877fbdz. I used a "pretend edit" of John's post to get a better source than this Forum's wrapping and whitespace nullification provides. I could have used a "pretend reply" for the same purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 John: Please use the links Jeff provided to compare to your parse and tell us where they differ. Then use the "View message source" link within that parse to see what differenced are there. Together, those 2 pieces of information should provide you with the answer to your first question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john1000 Posted October 30, 2005 Author Share Posted October 30, 2005 i checked the links but what am i looking for ? I checked again and the stuff i posted is exactly how the original is,its not changed .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Please resubmit (with <no body>) and post the Tracking URL. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john1000 Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 like this.. http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z821638216zaf...d08e45b7bbaf35z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbiel Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 The answer is very simple. You can not report spam that has no body It is just one of the conditions built into the parser. For more information see spams with no body Note: edited title to include "spams with no body" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john1000 Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 well thats all fine,so as i understand it this is actualy caused by spamcop...nice...so spammers know that. so what was the purpose of sending it? The check on a email address ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terribleted Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 I also have had several recent reports with incomplete data for tracking. Since I only started reporting to Spamcop last week, my experience is new and on a learning curve, my end. I started reporting by using a trial copy of MailWasher Pro. It identifies the possible spam and forward the necessary copy to Spamcop. A couple dozen of those reports were denied for missing information or extra-large amount of message size. I changed to using a manual reporting by Outlook Express: Forward/w/attachment. (see related posting from 29th -30th on Forums). I still see a few of those reports come back as denied for sparse information. My denials appear to be from purposeful exclusion of information from the sending daemon (the spammer). Jeff asked me to save spam, something I don't do. So, I shall and then follow any instructions from the Moderators that they wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john1000 Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 Well your still fresh so do it for a long time and you will wake up "terribleted". Ive already activated my isp spamfilter again cause ive been busy long enough to say that its useless. And it will only get more and more. And everytime new providers pop up as a potential address to send spam from. Im getting so sick and tired to see the same f.... company go by as spam providers like.. hanaro.com , comcast.net , mail.online.sh.cn , telekomunikacja.pl , verizon.net , and not to forget korea where every minute a spammer is born..etc.. These are major players in the world of sending spam. If they dont tighten up the rules and people are still making to much money on it you will never stop it. For example...when i wake up i start with reporting 25 mails and this morning it was suddenly..44. Fact is,if the world health organisation would fight a spreading virus the same as an isp fights spam then we would be dead tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terribleted Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Well your still fresh so do it for a long time and you will wake up "terribleted". Ive already activated my isp spamfilter again cause ive been busy long enough to say that its useless. And it will only get more and more. And everytime new providers pop up as a potential address to send spam from. Im getting so sick and tired to see the same f.... company go by as spam providers like.. hanaro.com , comcast.net , mail.online.sh.cn , telekomunikacja.pl , verizon.net , and not to forget korea where every minute a spammer is born..etc.. These are major players in the world of sending spam. If they dont tighten up the rules and people are still making to much money on it you will never stop it. For example...when i wake up i start with reporting 25 mails and this morning it was suddenly..44. Fact is,if the world health organisation would fight a spreading virus the same as an isp fights spam then we would be dead tomorrow. 35255[/snapback] John, not sure what you mean by "wake up" but your comments about Korea really strike home as that is where our bulk originates from. I actually force KISA to get moving several years ago after getting several thousand folks to report to KISA and the Korean Embassy in DC. The vast majority of bulk email reported to KISA was from my users for the year 2001. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john1000 Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 well the wake up means ,if you think you can fight this ...you cant ! as for korea,well reports dont lie.. the providers as i posted them are the ones i get the most of,but also japan... But also the u.s.a is one of the largest spam countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Please resubmit (with "<no body>" after a blank line simulating the body and with technical details shown) and post the Tracking URL. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john1000 Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 ok i did that ,now it was accepted http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z821710040z6a...ecbc51e297038az Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 ok i did that ,now it was accepted http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z821710040z6a...ecbc51e297038az 35262[/snapback] Not that it makes any difference in this case but you have a broken line in that example - see http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z821745658z01...6aa1e3adc72cc5z with it fixed. Lines Received: from localhost (averse[at]localhost) by postmaster.co.uk (6.2/6.2) with ESMTP id XAA905310[10 are actually one line, so it should be Received: from localhost (averse[at]localhost) by postmaster.co.uk (6.2/6.2) with ESMTP id XAA905310[10 or Received: from localhost (averse[at]localhost) by postmaster.co.uk (6.2/6.2) with ESMTP id XAA905310[10 (some leading whitespace for the line continuation) just in case you were wondering about the "Parsing text part error: couldn't parse head Message body parser requires full, accurate copy of message" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 ok i did that ,now it was accepted 35262[/snapback] Thanks for the update! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.