lcusdtech Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Parser says: error: couldn't parse head Message body parser requires full, accurate copy of message I know I've copied the full headers, can someone take a look at it, I don't read mime headers very well. Tracking url My guess is that the spammer intentionally mis-formatted it, but I can't tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 ... I know I've copied the full headers, can someone take a look at it, I don't read mime headers very well. ... My guess is that the spammer intentionally mis-formatted it, but I can't tell.41453[/snapback] Yeah, slightly misconfigured - http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z902046763za9...db212cd3592672z shows how it would be if written properly. Makes no difference to your reporting, I would say incompetence (no matter which way you cut it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcusdtech Posted March 21, 2006 Author Share Posted March 21, 2006 Ok, just wanted to make sure it wasn't some new trick or something. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 You're welcome. Could be a "trick", who knows? But in the context of the SC parser it achieves nothing. More likely this particular spam "author" just got it a tad wrong. Important things: there was nothing wrong with your processing of the spam the parsing error occurred after the parser had done its thing For the record, the difference causing the hiccough is (fragment) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C64B51.5C52C400 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_000E_01C64B51.5C52C400" should be(same fragment) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C64B51.5C52C400 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_000E_01C64B51.5C52C400" (Or maybe that's vice versa . Pretty subtle, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Pretty subtle, eh? 41525[/snapback] Farelf, I would have pointed out that the difference was in the number of -'s. It took me 3 times looking it over to figure out the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 ... It took me 3 times looking it over to figure out the difference.41553[/snapback] Yeah, I guess I should have used quotes instead of code, could have highlighted it then. One learns ... unfortunately one forgets at a similar rate Keeps the head from exploding, I guess. [edit]Previous post amended accordingly[/edit] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcusdtech Posted March 30, 2006 Author Share Posted March 30, 2006 Even with the dashes in red it still took me a few times over to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.