Spamcop fooled by fake timestamps in messages

[aryant]

How do the spammers fake out SpamCop with their false timestamps? I reported spam that could not have been in my inbox/held mail more than an hour and SC responded "this message is over 24 hours old".

Also, some spam finds its' way to Inbox position 1 because the spammer claimed to have sent it in 2003. (Inbox is set to order by date/time received)

Surely SC knows when it pulled the messages off my POP server?

[Wazoo]

How do the spammers fake out SpamCop with their false timestamps? I reported spam that could not have been in my inbox/held mail more than an hour and SC responded "this message is over 24 hours old".

That would be a Reporting issue, best handled by a Tracking URL of one of these in the Reporting Help Forum section ..... at which time that 'new' post wold probably be merged into an existing Topic/Discussion that covers the same ground.

Also, some spam finds its' way to Inbox position 1 because the spammer claimed to have sent it in 2003. (Inbox is set to order by date/time received)

Surely SC knows when it pulled the messages off my POP server?

"When it was pulled" has little bearing on the data seen/found in the headers involved, which again have not been provided for anyone else to try to analyze and talk to/about.

[StevenUnderwood]

How do the spammers fake out SpamCop with their false timestamps? I reported spam that could not have been in my inbox/held mail more than an hour and SC responded "this message is over 24 hours old".

Also, some spam finds its' way to Inbox position 1 because the spammer claimed to have sent it in 2003. (Inbox is set to order by date/time received)

To sort by the order received, sort by the # column. That is how I keep it sorted.