Jump to content

Test topic


dbiel
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
...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] #$%^&*-_=+"<>?/\|]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...