dbiel Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 test Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbiel Posted July 5, 2006 Author Share Posted July 5, 2006 (edited) additional test edit, it is suprising how may views this little test topic has had. Edited July 5, 2006 by dbiel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 ... it is suprising how may views this little test topic has had.The views on fairly well all the test topics are way out of proportion to the contents - grounds for endless conjecture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Test post ignore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telarin Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 I think its because we're all interested to see what you are testing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjvgpuryy Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Test post ignore Oh, and by the way, don't think of an elephant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 I think its because we're all interested to see what you are testing... Oh, and by the way, don't think of an elephant.To explain: just looking at what happens to links when a post is moved. This was where it was moved "to". The link to the previous location then went to the top of the old topic. But then I am, as often confessed, a consistent liar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 <snip> To explain: .... But then I am, as often confessed, a consistent liar. "But there was ... "no explosion. "What? "He lied. "Everything [Farelf] tells you is a lie. "Everything [Farelf] tells you is a lie. Farelf: "Listen to this carefully, Norman. Farelf: "I am lying. Norman:"You say you are lying, Norman:"but if everything you say is a lie, Norman:"then you are telling the truth, but ... Norman:"you cannot tell the truth Norman:"because everything you say is a lie. Norman:"You lie -- You tell the truth -- Norman:"But you cannot -- Norman:"Illogical! Norman:"Illogical! Norman:"Please explain." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 The views on fairly well all the test topics are way out of proportion to the contents - grounds for endless conjecture. I am forced to look, just to see "what" is being tested .... for all I know, someone may be checking to see if the the web page is flammable <g> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 The views on fairly well all the test topics are way out of proportion to the contents - grounds for endless conjecture. I'm just nosy and read every unread message Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 I'm just nosy and read every unread message ...Ditto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjvgpuryy Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 I'm just nosy and read every unread message ...Ditto. I must admit that so am I. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 (edited) I must admit that so am I. Just testing some quoting, since someone else is having some problems with it this morning. Looks as if it's working OK... Edited November 1, 2006 by DavidT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbiel Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 I believe that the problem is the number of quotes used. There seems to be a limit on how many quotes can be contained in a single post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbiel Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 Copy of problem post with much of the text deleted to shorten post for testing - see following post that will delete some quotes to isolate problem It is not possible to see others reports unless you receive them via email. Bum. As you'll appreciate, I'm a bit stuck here, because our hosts won't let me in to see my e-mail at all "Double OPt-in" in a spammers term. Confirmed opt-in is the preferred term, if that is what you are doing. How embarrassing. I've always called it "verifying" but a rapid glance about the place suggested the accepted term was "double-opt-in." Anyway, yes, that's the idea: there's a Mailing List page where you lob As a paying reporter, I can see some information on that IP as follows: I'm not a paying reporter, but that's exactly the info I see -- I wasn't sure if it was okay to post the I see Mill's list, some misdirected bounces, and some phishing attempts, all spam, but maybe not from you if it is indeed a shared server. No, we're the List bits only. Maybe the bounces, come to think of it -- theweekly.co.uk's recently been vics, The 2 Mil's lists were both mole reports, so no full report is sent. You will need to contact the anything that would allow you to whitelist (remove) the reporter. Exc, I'll try that. As I say, if the reporting address has to concealed, that's fine. Obviously it'd be nice to In most cases, if there are 2 reports, it means many others received the message who also don't want it but simply delete it. That would be a big surprise, because of the verification bit. We simply don't know your address until you You may want to sign up for a free ISP account - see How can I get SpamCop reports about my network? It says I'm already registered, so I'm guessing the ISP account has the same functionality as the e-mail . As a mole, I would have to add (2d) that mole reports do not contribute to the blocklist. They may to be listed in isolation of more "accountable" reports nor can they even do as much as prolong the period of listing (not for many months past). Spook. The mystery thickens. As I say, from my shallow understanding of Spamcop the fact any block that Mil's Mailing List has had nothing to do with the IP's listing on the basis of the evidence seen. The OP's ISP has shot the (sitting ducks come to mind). Sounds like you've got a fairly accurate understanding of what happened, but most of us here can't give you any more specifics because we're fellow users, not SpamCop admins. I'd recommend that you try to reach the Deputies at: deputies at admin dot spamcop dot net. They might be willing to give you a better picture of what caused that IP to get listed, because it *might* involve spamtrap hits from "after the fact" bounce activity, and they'd be able to see that. That'd be interesting because, as you'd expect from a slightly popular, wildly irregular newsletter, we have As for those moles, you should report them to the Deputies as well, in that they seem to be reporting things that they signed up to receive and that diminishes the efforts of the rest of the SpamCop users. My instinctive grasp of quoting, there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I believe that the problem is the number of quotes used. There seems to be a limit on how many quotes can be contained in a single post. Glad someone has an answer, I looked over that post (and re-edited it) several times before giving up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbiel Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 Deleted first 4 quotes for testing The 2 Mil's lists were both mole reports, so no full report is sent. You will need to contact the anything that would allow you to whitelist (remove) the reporter. Exc, I'll try that. As I say, if the reporting address has to concealed, that's fine. Obviously it'd be nice to In most cases, if there are 2 reports, it means many others received the message who also don't want it but simply delete it. That would be a big surprise, because of the verification bit. We simply don't know your address until you You may want to sign up for a free ISP account - see How can I get SpamCop reports about my network? It says I'm already registered, so I'm guessing the ISP account has the same functionality as the e-mail . As a mole, I would have to add (2d) that mole reports do not contribute to the blocklist. They may to be listed in isolation of more "accountable" reports nor can they even do as much as prolong the period of listing (not for many months past). Spook. The mystery thickens. As I say, from my shallow understanding of Spamcop the fact any block that Mil's Mailing List has had nothing to do with the IP's listing on the basis of the evidence seen. The OP's ISP has shot the (sitting ducks come to mind). Sounds like you've got a fairly accurate understanding of what happened, but most of us here can't give you any more specifics because we're fellow users, not SpamCop admins. I'd recommend that you try to reach the Deputies at: deputies at admin dot spamcop dot net. They might be willing to give you a better picture of what caused that IP to get listed, because it *might* involve spamtrap hits from "after the fact" bounce activity, and they'd be able to see that. That'd be interesting because, as you'd expect from a slightly popular, wildly irregular newsletter, we have As for those moles, you should report them to the Deputies as well, in that they seem to be reporting things that they signed up to receive and that diminishes the efforts of the rest of the SpamCop users. My instinctive grasp of quoting, there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 "Semper edam," snorted Good Queen Bess, "why must one always have this Dutch cheese?" "Semper edam," snorted Good Queen Bess, "why must one always have this Dutch cheese?" "Semper edam," snorted Good Queen Bess, "why must one always have this Dutch cheese?" "Semper edam," snorted Good Queen Bess, "why must one always have this Dutch cheese?" "Semper edam," snorted Good Queen Bess, "why must one always have this Dutch cheese?" "Semper edam," snorted Good Queen Bess, "why must one always have this Dutch cheese?" "Semper edam," snorted Good Queen Bess, "why must one always have this Dutch cheese?" "Semper edam," snorted Good Queen Bess, "why must one always have this Dutch cheese?" "Semper edam," snorted Good Queen Bess, "why must one always have this Dutch cheese?" "Semper edam," snorted Good Queen Bess, "why must one always have this Dutch cheese?" Yes, 10 is the limit - add one more and kapow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Good catch, dbiel. dt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 10 quotes per post is the curent setting. I 'fixed' the original problem post by converting a couple 'quote' tags to 'code' statements. Background: FireFox (1.0.x) tended to blow up at around 12 to 14 embedded quotes. Opera tended to blow up at something around 9 to 12 embedded quotes. The limit setting at 10 embedded quotes per post has been the Default and recommended setting since version 2.0.1 or so .... making that a couple of years now .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 ...edit, it is suprising how may views this little test topic has had.Test topics appear to be treated pretty much like "How to use" pages. Just taking the "top" pages of various forums currently (by linear correlation) - TEST Views 1272 + 151 per reply HOW TO USE - Forum, Reporting Views 1735 + 374 per reply Contrast with HELP - Reporting, BL, Mail, Mailhosts Views 72 + 33 per reply LOUNGE Views 25 per reply Fairly obviously the length of time any given topic spends on the forum's "front page" has a lot to do with it. (Some correlations are "weak" - they do not account for much of the variance - but all are assured by high confidence levels - the least of which indicates 1/34,543 probability of chance attribution). [it's a test to see if various characters are altered in quick edit `~ [at] #$%^&*-_=+"<>?/\|] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Test of APEWS multi-moderation option There is no connection between SpamCop.net and APEWS. However, because the APEWS FAQ was apparently misunderstood, the following data is provided; ______________________________________________________________________________ Considering the current behavior and management of the APEWS blacklist, we can only agree with the advice given at Al Iverson's DNS RESOURCE - If you are listed on the APEWS blacklist, as confirmed by checking their website, here's how I would recommend that you handle the situation. (Who the heck am I?) Note: This isn't guidance on how to avoid a blacklisting or sidestep anti-spam groups. If you have a spam issue, fix it. Don't spam, ever, for any reason. This is information is regarding how to address an issue with a blacklist that is very aggressive at listing non-abusing IP addresses and networks, with no published, attainable path to resolution. - read it at: What to do if you are listed on APEWS ________________________________________________________________________________ [APEWS] removed from topic title - it works fine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makc666 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 He all there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Who/what is Stukachkov and what did he, she, it or they do to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbiel Posted August 28, 2007 Author Share Posted August 28, 2007 He all there! Interesting how we end up with a post that shows total posts by the user = 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.