ronsch98 Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 New since a few days at SpamCop reporting, all worked fine at first. Reported spam from Mailwasher directly, got the Spamcomp Autoresponder Message with a clickable link, jumped to -report- and the spam was reported. But now, without any changes made as far as I know, all I ever get to see after clicking ther link in the Autoresponder Message is my reported spam and this message at the bottom: Here is your TRACKING URL - it may be saved for future reference: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1401857122z1...aba78d9f40c740z No source IP address found, cannot proceed. Add/edit your mailhost configuration Finding full email headers Submitting spam via email (may work better) Example: What spam headers should look like Nothing to do. Where do I go wrong??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Posted into the wrong Forum section. Will be moved from the How to use .... Instructions, Tutorials > SpamCop Forum to the Reporting Help Forum section with this post. The spam submittal shown in your Tracking URL contains no IP Address in the headers. If that spam was not sent from someone using the same ISP, then you're going to have to talk to that ISP and ask them what they are doing with the 'real' headers of their e-mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 And furthermore ... Do you already have a successful report that looks like: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1402149004z9...761537a028ebddz ? (except not cancelled). Looks like you are trying to report some sort of report (not SC) that your spam has been reported. That original spam is appended to the report you are trying to report and parses as shown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronsch98 Posted August 20, 2007 Author Share Posted August 20, 2007 Do you already have a successful report that looks like: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1402149004z9...761537a028ebddz ? (except not cancelled). Looks like you are trying to report some sort of report (not SC) that your spam has been reported. That original spam is appended to the report you are trying to report and parses as shown. Tnx Farelf, I think I got the message! Indeed I tried to report ***spam*** which was already defined as such by my ISP . Never realized the ISP already cut the head off! Topic closed for now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpamCopAdmin Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 Here is your TRACKING URL - it may be saved for future reference: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1401857122z1...aba78d9f40c740z No source IP address found, cannot proceed. http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1401857122z1...aba78d9f40c740z >- Received: from localhost by spamfilter.firstfind.nl >- with SpamAssassin (version 3.2.1); The reason SpamCop can't parse that spam is because the SpamAssassin running on spamfilter.firstfind.nl is moving the source information into the body text and replacing the headers with localhost information. That SpamAssassin needs to be set to "add x-headers" rather than "rewrite/enclose." SpamAssassin vs 'localhost' headers: The parameter is report_safe report_safe = 0 indicates "add x-headers" report_safe = 1 is "rewrite/enclose" It may be found in local.cfile or .userprefs file depending on the SA setup. - Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 Thank you very much, Don. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronsch98 Posted January 21, 2008 Author Share Posted January 21, 2008 Moderator Edit: Upon some further research, this post was merged into an earlier Topic started by the same user, basically asking about the same situation (thought without providing any data/links/documentation this time .... More and more reporting spam results in "No source IP address found, cannot proceed. Nothing to do." I wonder what causes this, and if I should/could do something about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 More and more reporting spam results in "No source IP address found, cannot proceed. Nothing to do." I wonder what causes this, and if I should/could do something about it. If you look in the SpamCop Reporting Help forum where I will be moving this thread shortly there are other threads with the same title which should help explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 I wonder what causes this, and if I should/could do something about it. All kinds of things can cause this. Unfortunately, you chose not to provide any detail at all, not even explaining why you chose the SpamCop Email System & Accounts Forum section to post what appears to be a SpamCop Reporting issue. With this post, this Topic will be moved to the more appropriate Forum section. ...(actually, one of the other Moderators beat me to it, returning a favor from last week <g>) There is hope that perhaps you might take the time to look at at least a few of the thousands of previously posted queries/discussions on the same subject, perhaps take a peek at a few of the How to ask a (good) question links dropped in many places around this Forum. The thought being that your next post might actually contain something that others can look at / work with. Is it a coincidence that there's the same kind of query made over in the spamcop newsgroup this morning? Although there was a bit more data posted over there, there was still nothing provided that was usable, much detail not made available, etc. etc. etc. (looking at the IP addresses involved, the only apparent connection would be that both posters are coming from the European area of the world .... this could even pull in a possible Akamai issue, but ...??? with no data provided, no way to guess) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpamCopAdmin Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 "No source IP address found, cannot proceed. Nothing to do." Please accept my apologies for the rude treatment you received here. If you would like to contact me directly at service[at]admin.spamcop.net I would be more than happy to give you a straight answer to your questions. - Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin - service[at]admin.spamcop.net http://www.spamcop.net/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Please accept my apologies for the rude treatment you received here. If you would like to contact me directly at service[at]admin.spamcop.net I would be more than happy to give you a straight answer to your questions. OK, this response is absolutely beyond belief. Why didn't you simply provide your "straight answer" right here, in this very post? Oh wait, let me guess, might it be that you don't have enough data to work with? Naw. that'd probably mean that I'd have to be guessing that your powers-of-observation might be dwindling down to my levels ... which I admit are deficient, only able to work with what data gets provided ..... For the others that may not quite understand the background dynamics involved here, Don is making the assumption that the user will contact him using an e-mail address that the user Registered to the Reporting system with, such that Don can peer into the History database and look at this user's submittals. thereby able to 'see' the data that was not provided 'here' .. fitting right into his apparently evil plan to continue to make the Volunteers look like idiots, pumping up his time-card-related-e-mail-handling charts/statistics, all the while complaining that the Deputies are over-whelmed with e-mail, on and on .... which, strange as it may seem, is why the Volunteers had spent so much time populating a Dictionary, FAQ, Glossary, Wiki, etc. 'over here', that apparently stupid attempt to help lighten the load of the few, allgedly overworked paid-staff. Even 'funnier' (???) the newsgroup poster has managed to get his/her spam to parse by adding in a bunch of missing header lines [scspamcop] "No source IP address found, cannot proceed" David Purdy .... but it appears that this Admin only has time to search for selectable Wazoo posts on the Forum.... give it a rest! As repeatedly asked, please do not disrupt the Forum with these absolutely inane posts. Had the Topic Starter provided anything useful in that Post, a "straight answer" could have been provided by many of the other users here. Aslo as stated, it's not like this is an 'unknown' subject ... geeze .... I have no problem with one-on-one support, if that's what is required. However, this is am open venue, users (trying to) helping others users. As such, questions and answers basically need to include specific data ... firstly, such that a question might be answered by another user ... secondly, such that the next person that comes along with the same question has the opportunity to see that the question has been asked before, answers provided, perhaps even converted into a FAQ entry, if the question has been asked often enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 ...Even 'funnier' (???) the newsgroup poster has managed to get his/her spam to parse by adding in a bunch of missing header lines .... but it appears that this Admin only has time to search for Wazoo posts .... give it a rest. ...Well, to spell that out a little since it has been raised and though I'm not up to date on it (can't access from current workstation), the last I saw was the newsgoup user firmly of the opinion that there was nothing wrong with making material changes to the message headers (and adding a body) because those actions corrected a "deficit" in SC's parser - all in the face of (following) a clear exposition by Mike Easter as to the rules which might be contavened and the/some reasons the rules existed. If ever a case needed official intervention and authoritative pronouncement, that's the one. Though maybe the NG regulars have now set that user straight, without such assistance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 (can't access from current workstation), Ignoring that you're at work and probably shouldn't be 'here' anyway, I did add in the newsgroup Archive link, which should be available. Though maybe the NG regulars have now set that user straight, without such assistance? Far be it for me to take any credit for any of Don's actions, it is true that of all the threads over there that could use Deputy input, this is the only one with a post (a few hours down the road from all of the above) with input from the powers that be. One of those funny situations where the Wiki has the 'latest' words on making manual changes to the spam, but that still isn't seen as an available resource .... yeah, yeah, I know .. that's the newsgroup and everything else falls under "the Forum" .... but ... I'm just so impressed with seeing the setting reversion to "X-No-Archive: yes" in his posts. If course, once again totally undone because the original poster had the nerve to quote that post in its entriety. So yes, it will in fact show up in the newsgroup archives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 ... this is the only one with a post (a few hours down the road from all of the above) with input from the powers that be. ....Yes, Don set things straight with his usual precision - including (and I quote from the quote without the "X-No-Archive:" flag)"SpamCop Admin" <nobody[at]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:dh2bp391fcaau44cjltqr2uvcnrakb91dk[at]4ax.com... >...if it > comes in with no body text, you can add a small note to that effect, > such as "no body text." which is huge, is it not? - careful observers having previously noted that statement had not actually been recorded coming from an official source despite apparent acceptance down through the years, consequently there was always qualification, hesitation or reticence connected with that usage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 which is huge, is it not? - careful observers having previously noted that statement had not actually been recorded coming from an official source despite apparent acceptance down through the years, consequently there was always qualification, hesitation or reticence connected with that usage. Yep .... I noted that. Am still actually wrestling with how to link to it actually ... that conundrum about his issue with "words being construed as gospel, always being used against him, etc." .. the issue being (and probably why no one can find any previous 'evidence' in that he tagged the newsgroup posting so as to disappear/not get archived. The only thing I can come up with is to simply tick him off all the more and actually use the existing post .. as is ... add it to the Wiki, perhaps the FAQ entry here .... It's pretty well known that this bit of data won't make it into the Official/Original FAQ .. which strikes me as simply wrong and odd .....???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 ... that conundrum about his issue with "words being construed as gospel, always being used against him, etc." .. Yeah, well it is easy to appreciate the point - "things change" I think was another expression, touching on the reluctance to have utterences in a particular context graven in granite and touted as universal and immutable truths (as I understand/paraphrase the concern). Yet this little workaround is hardly such a risk, is it? Durability has been demonstrated, legitimacy was the only issue, application is self-defining and self-limiting. The possible issue of folk having mail agents set to text only thus missing the body of HTML only messages isn't really an issue to my mind - the forensics aren't that strict that the "unseen" is actually required for paste-in usage (else there would be instructions on "revealing the full body"). Anyway, HTML mail is an affront - and HTML only an anathema. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Yet this little workaround is hardly such a risk, is it? Durability has been demonstrated, legitimacy was the only issue, application is self-defining and self-limiting. Yep, that has been the issue/problem for a number of years now. Some attributed the 'guidance/instruction' to Jeff G. or myself in Forum traffic, some conversations in the newsgroup archives included this, but the question always boiled down to "where was the 'official' statement?" ... To which I can only suggest that the X-NoArchive bit did its nasty deed and that's why no one could find anything 'official' .... The possible issue of folk having mail agents set to text only thus missing the body of HTML only messages isn't really an issue to my mind - the forensics aren't that strict that the "unseen" is actually required for paste-in usage (else there would be instructions on "revealing the full body"). Recalling numerous posts here about "blank spam that only had a graphic/image included" .. me trying to explain that the image included made it 'not a blank spam' ..... I did up an entry in the How to use ... Reporting section that dealt with forwarding, headers, body content, etc. using OE6 as the example client .... but I attempted to show a number of things in that post, to include just what a 'graphic' looked like when actually dealing with the 'source' of an e-mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Amazing .. after all the bad words .... I find that the same user asked pretty much the same question a long time back, made the same "started the Topic in the wrong Forum section" mistake then also, had feedback and specific issues pointed out, yet .... Nothing provided in the 'new' Topic for anyone to try to work with ... Merged the 'new' Topic into that old one, removed the [Resolved] subject decriptor, sent a PM to advise of the move/merge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.