btech Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 I have noticed a new trend in spam that I as a SCMail user find bothersome, because I have to look [at] the trashed message to see the information. Lately, spammers have been attaching images like those for Stock messages OR images that have hyperlinks to drug or replica watch sites. Sometimes the parser will catch the links, but many times, even after refreshing the page 20+ times, the links do not parse. Here's an example of one that I had to manually report the link, but now when I parse it, the spamvertised link is reported properly: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z832577422z31...b92683c98bd31fz Is there anything that can be done on my end to get these links to parse right? I don't mind refreshing, but 20+ times for one message is tedious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agsteele Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 Personally, I don't bother. I don't find that reports about spamvertised websites are very effective in tackling the spam problem. Provided the originating IP address is parsed correctly I file the report and move on. Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 Personally, I don't bother. I don't find that reports about spamvertised websites are very effective in tackling the spam problem. <snip> 36793[/snapback] ...Also, please see the SpamCop FAQ entry labeled "NEW! SpamCop reporting of spamvertized sites - some philosophy." Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agsteele Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 ...Also, please see the SpamCop FAQ entry labeled "NEW! SpamCop reporting of spamvertized sites - some philosophy." Thanks! 36797[/snapback] Hi Steve, Fully undestand the philosophy - no doubt the reason I consider the reportings of spamvertised URLs to be low on the priority list. Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 Hi Steve, Fully undestand the philosophy - no doubt the reason I consider the reportings of spamvertised URLs to be low on the priority list. 36804[/snapback] Hi, Andrew! ...Oops, sorry, I should have specified that I was directing my suggestion to the OP (btech), not to you. <g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btech Posted November 28, 2005 Author Share Posted November 28, 2005 I'll check that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.