From nobody at spamcop.net Wed Jun 1 01:26:50 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Aaron Lawrence) Date: Tue May 31 08:30:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Keyword search and replace References: Message-ID: Suddenly, StampOutSpam sprang forth and uttered these pithy words: > >> Does SpamCop Mail have keyword filters that can, for example, > >> separate all messages with "Springfield" into another folder? > > Yes, it does, but they are only activated when you use Webmail. > > Is Webmail like a normal Web-based interface where I can send and receive > messages? Can the filters be set up to do: > > If Body or Subject contains Springfield, send to Name > Or > If Body or Subject contains Simpson, send to Name > Or > If Body or Subject contains Bank, send to Phish > Or... and so on. > > If I could get a consolidated mail interface with filters like this, I'd > sign up for SpamCop Mail. fastmail.fm can do this, as far as I can see. Dunno about spamcop. -- aaronl at consultant dot com For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke From nobody at spamcop.net Wed Jun 1 06:40:58 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (StampOutSpam) Date: Wed Jun 1 01:45:04 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] PayPal payment problem References: Message-ID: You got me to sign up and start using more of my time to stamp out spam, but first I had my time wasted by PayPal. Paying by credit card: I get the info form on https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr While filling in the info and guessing what that Security Measure password is at the bottom, PayPal redirects to https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?refresh_card_type=Refresh This page erases some of the info, so I have to input it again. Then it tells me that my session has expired and I must start over. It took several tries to get past this payment page. Does this service come with lawsuit protection, in case a notorious spammer tries to sue me for reporting it? From jeffg at spamcop.net Wed Jun 1 10:25:55 2005 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Wed Jun 1 09:30:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: PayPal payment problem References: Message-ID: StampOutSpam wrote: > Does this service come with lawsuit protection, in case a notorious > spammer tries to sue me for reporting it? No, but you've got Federal and Maryland law behind you. I report objectionable material in compliance with 47 USC 230 (c)(2)(B) and you are protected by the Maryland Spam Deterrence Act - see http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html and http://mlis.state.md.us/2004rs/billfile/hb1320.htm for details. -- Best Regards, Jeff G. I have been a SpamCop User/Member/Customer since 1999 and am a Moderator of the new web-based forums (now the primary method for getting help, http://forum.spamcop.net). Please reply via Forum, Group, or List only. From amenex at amenex.com Fri Jun 3 20:03:34 2005 From: amenex at amenex.com (George Langford, Sc.D.) Date: Fri Jun 3 19:04:06 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] What are those - - - folders in the "move message to" menu ? Message-ID: <200506032303.j53N3YX00542@email1.voicenet.com> Whenever I'm jockeying around questionable emails in order to shove 'em out of my Inbox (whence they'll eventually get POP'd into my 'puter), the menu shows two horizontal dashed lines, one above and one below the "New Folder" choice. Are those just framing that "New Folder" line or is that where the apocryphal "devnul" is located ? And which one makes 'em go away the best ? From jeffg at spamcop.net Fri Jun 3 21:09:55 2005 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Fri Jun 3 20:10:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: What are those - - - folders in the "move message to" menu ? References: Message-ID: George Langford, Sc.D. wrote: > Whenever I'm jockeying around questionable emails in order > to shove 'em out of my Inbox (whence they'll eventually get > POP'd into my 'puter), the menu shows two horizontal dashed > lines, one above and one below the "New Folder" choice. Are > those just framing that "New Folder" line or is that where > the apocryphal "devnul" is located ? And which one makes > 'em go away the best ? Exactly where do you see them? I don't see them. -- Thanks and Best Regards, Jeff G. I have been a SpamCop User/Member/Customer since 1999 and am a Moderator of the new web-based forums (now the primary method for getting help, http://forum.spamcop.net). Please reply via Forum, Group, or List only. From nobody at spamcop.net Sat Jun 4 07:21:07 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (StampOutSpam) Date: Sat Jun 4 02:25:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: What are those - - - folders in the "move message to" menu ? References: Message-ID: >> Whenever I'm jockeying around questionable emails in order >> to shove 'em out of my Inbox (whence they'll eventually get >> POP'd into my 'puter), the menu shows two horizontal dashed >> lines, one above and one below the "New Folder" choice. > > Exactly where do you see them? I don't see them. In Held Mail, the "Messages to" menu has {---- | New Folder | ---- | Inbox | ... } Those are menu separators. From jabial at spamcop.net Tue Jun 7 00:19:44 2005 From: jabial at spamcop.net (Joel-Alexis Bialkiewicz) Date: Mon Jun 6 17:20:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Can't access webmail Message-ID: I can't access my e-mail, either through IMAP nor by webmail, for two days. I simply get a timeout. This must be somehow linked to my ISP, as I can access the webmail if I go through an anonymiser proxy like the-cloak. This isn't a DNS record problem, as I have the same problem if I try the IP address. I have no problem accessing www.spamcop.net, forum.spamcop.net and obviously news.spamcop.net . Please send any update regarding this issue to jabial@gmail.com Sincerely, Joel-Alexis Bialkiewicz From jeffg at spamcop.net Mon Jun 6 19:59:05 2005 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Mon Jun 6 19:00:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Can't access webmail References: Message-ID: Joel-Alexis Bialkiewicz wrote: > I can't access my e-mail, either through IMAP nor by webmail, for two > days. I simply get a timeout. > > This must be somehow linked to my ISP, as I can access the webmail if > I go through an anonymiser proxy like the-cloak. > > This isn't a DNS record problem, as I have the same problem if I try > the IP address. > > I have no problem accessing www.spamcop.net, forum.spamcop.net and > obviously news.spamcop.net . > > Please send any update regarding this issue to jabial@gmail.com > > Sincerely, > Joel-Alexis Bialkiewicz Please yell at your ISP. Loudly. -- Thanks and Best Regards, Jeff G. I have been a SpamCop User/Member/Customer since 1999 and am a Moderator of the new web-based forums (now the primary method for getting help, http://forum.spamcop.net). Please reply via Forum, Group, or List only. From jabial at spamcop.net Tue Jun 7 20:30:38 2005 From: jabial at spamcop.net (=?windows-1252?Q?Jo=EBl-Alexis_Bialkiewicz?=) Date: Tue Jun 7 13:35:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Can't access webmail In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jeff G. a ?crit : > Joel-Alexis Bialkiewicz wrote: > >>I can't access my e-mail, either through IMAP nor by webmail, for two >>days. I simply get a timeout. >> >>This must be somehow linked to my ISP, as I can access the webmail if >>I go through an anonymiser proxy like the-cloak. >> >>This isn't a DNS record problem, as I have the same problem if I try >>the IP address. >> >>I have no problem accessing www.spamcop.net, forum.spamcop.net and >>obviously news.spamcop.net . >> >>Please send any update regarding this issue to jabial@gmail.com >> >>Sincerely, >>Joel-Alexis Bialkiewicz > > Please yell at your ISP. Loudly. The packets go way past my ISP's routers, as proves the following traceroute. (in french, D?lai de la demande d?pass? means timeout). The last routor contacted is already in the 216.154 network, so spamcop should yell at its ISP. Please. Sincerely, Joel-Alexis Bialkiewicz 2 60 ms 55 ms 61 ms V300.c6k02-m.club-internet.fr [195.36.219.4] 3 60 ms 58 ms 56 ms V110.GEC3-3G.core02-m.club-internet.fr [62.34.0. 62] 4 58 ms 58 ms 57 ms TenGE2-4.core01-t.club-internet.fr [62.34.0.94] 5 60 ms 59 ms 60 ms cogent.FreeIX.net [213.228.3.187] 6 169 ms 168 ms 161 ms p13-0.core01.lon02.atlas.cogentco.com [130.117.1 .121] 7 230 ms 230 ms 228 ms p10-0.core01.bos01.atlas.cogentco.com [130.117.0 .46] 8 234 ms 234 ms 239 ms p5-0.core01.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.11 8] 9 153 ms 154 ms 154 ms p4-0.core02.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.81 ] 10 * * * D?lai d'attente de la demande d?pass?. 11 * * * D?lai d'attente de la demande d?pass?. 12 164 ms 168 ms 167 ms ITCDeltacomCommunications.demarc.cogentco.com [6 6.28.30.134] 13 * * * D?lai d'attente de la demande d?pass?. 14 166 ms 164 ms 167 ms pos3-0.suwangaeq01w.cr.deltacom.net [66.35.174.1 06] 15 * * * D?lai d'attente de la demande d?pass?. 16 * * * D?lai d'attente de la demande d?pass?. 17 168 ms 168 ms 164 ms suwE1N-gig1-1-4.edeltacom.com [216.154.207.22] 18 * * * D?lai d'attente de la demande d?pass?. 19 * * * D?lai d'attente de la demande d?pass?. 20 * * * D?lai d'attente de la demande d?pass?. 21 * * * D?lai d'attente de la demande d?pass?. 22 * * * D?lai d'attente de la demande d?pass?. 23 * * * D?lai d'attente de la demande d?pass?. 24 * * * D?lai d'attente de la demande d?pass?. 25 * * * D?lai d'attente de la demande d?pass?. 26 * * * D?lai d'attente de la demande d?pass?. 27 * * * D?lai d'attente de la demande d?pass?. 28 * * * D?lai d'attente de la demande d?pass?. 29 * * * D?lai d'attente de la demande d?pass?. 30 * * * D?lai d'attente de la demande d?pass?. From MikeE at ster.invalid Tue Jun 7 12:36:11 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Tue Jun 7 14:40:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Can't access webmail References: Message-ID: I'm just a kibitzer here, and I don't have SC webmail, just snooping and commenting. Joël-Alexis Bialkiewicz wrote: > 14 166 ms 164 ms 167 ms pos3-0.suwangaeq01w.cr.deltacom.net > [66.35.174.1 > 06] > 15 * * * Délai d'attente de la demande dépassé. > 16 * * * Délai d'attente de la demande dépassé. > 17 168 ms 168 ms 164 ms suwE1N-gig1-1-4.edeltacom.com > [216.154.207.22] Sometimes traceroute or tracert isn't a great tool, depending upon whether or not the target will echo the packets. In this case, webmail's IP [for me] will echo ping & traceroute packets. webmail.spamcop.net DNS 216.154.195.51 14 66.35.174.102 (pos3-0.suwangaeq00w.cr.deltacom.net ok) 15 66.35.174.122 (suw02.gig1-0.edeltacom.com) 16 216.154.207.13 (suwC1-gig3-5.edeltacom.com ok) 17 216.154.207.22 (suwE1N-gig1-1-4.edeltacom.com ok) 18 216.154.195.51 (webmail.spamcop.net ok) So, in this case, it appears that your traceroute 'criticism' evidence of poor connectivity to SC webmail is justified. That evidence points to SC's end. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From zypher at spamcop.net Tue Jun 14 16:34:32 2005 From: zypher at spamcop.net (Ron B.) Date: Tue Jun 14 16:35:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] White listed WebTV Address Held Message-ID: I am a spamcop subscriber. I have a regular correspondent that e-mails me through Web TV. He is not computer savvy; this is his only access to e-mail. I find that his mails to me are usually sequestered in the "Held Mail" area. I have released this mail _countless_ times to be whitelisted, and his address is in my whitelist. Is there anything else that I can do to allow his e-mails to by-pass the held mail area? Sender's (modified) e-mail: munged_ret (at) webtv (dot) net From jeffg at spamcop.net Wed Jun 15 01:55:38 2005 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Wed Jun 15 01:00:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: White listed WebTV Address Held References: Message-ID: Ron B. wrote: > I am a spamcop subscriber. I have a regular correspondent that > e-mails me through Web TV. He is not computer savvy; this is his > only access to e-mail. I find that his mails to me are usually > sequestered in the "Held Mail" area. I have released this mail > _countless_ times to be whitelisted, and his address is in my > whitelist. Is there anything else that I can do to allow his e-mails > to by-pass the held mail area? > > Sender's (modified) e-mail: > > munged_ret (at) webtv (dot) net Have you been through "FAQ about the Personal Blacklist and Whitelist" at http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/302.html ? -- Thanks and Best Regards, Jeff G. I have been a SpamCop User/Member/Customer since 1999 and am a Moderator of the new web-based forums (now the primary method for getting help, http://forum.spamcop.net). Please reply via Forum, Group, or List only. From zypher at spamcop.net Wed Jun 15 07:11:50 2005 From: zypher at spamcop.net (Ron B.) Date: Wed Jun 15 07:15:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: White listed WebTV Address Held In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jeff G. wrote: > Ron B. wrote: > >>I am a spamcop subscriber. I have a regular correspondent that >>e-mails me through Web TV. He is not computer savvy; this is his >> only access to e-mail. I find that his mails to me are usually >>sequestered in the "Held Mail" area. I have released this mail >>_countless_ times to be whitelisted, and his address is in my >>whitelist. Is there anything else that I can do to allow his e-mails >>to by-pass the held mail area? >> >>Sender's (modified) e-mail: >> >>munged_ret (at) webtv (dot) net > > > Have you been through "FAQ about the Personal Blacklist and Whitelist" > at http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/302.html ? > Yes. Nothing in the FAQ helps if the sender is whitelisted, but the mail is still held. From nobody at spamcop.net Wed Jun 15 09:27:33 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Dave Lerner) Date: Wed Jun 15 08:30:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: White listed WebTV Address Held In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ron B. wrote on 06/15/2005 07:11 AM: >>>I am a spamcop subscriber. I have a regular correspondent that >>>e-mails me through Web TV. He is not computer savvy; this is his >>>only access to e-mail. I find that his mails to me are usually >>>sequestered in the "Held Mail" area. I have released this mail >>>_countless_ times to be whitelisted, and his address is in my >>>whitelist. Is there anything else that I can do to allow his e-mails >>>to by-pass the held mail area? Can you post the actual email headers? Munge them if you like, but don't change the syntax: replace digits with 0, letters with X and leave other characters unchanged. From zypher at spamcop.net Wed Jun 15 09:28:41 2005 From: zypher at spamcop.net (Ron B.) Date: Wed Jun 15 09:30:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: White listed WebTV Address Held In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dave Lerner wrote: > Ron B. wrote on 06/15/2005 07:11 AM: > >>>>I am a spamcop subscriber. I have a regular correspondent that >>>>e-mails me through Web TV. He is not computer savvy; this is his >>>>only access to e-mail. I find that his mails to me are usually >>>>sequestered in the "Held Mail" area. I have released this mail >>>>_countless_ times to be whitelisted, and his address is in my >>>>whitelist. Is there anything else that I can do to allow his e-mails >>>>to by-pass the held mail area? > > > Can you post the actual email headers? Munge them if you like, but > don't change the syntax: replace digits with 0, letters with X and leave > other characters unchanged. When I receive the next held mail I will. Sorry, I have no specimen now. Thanks. From zypher at spamcop.net Wed Jun 15 18:29:41 2005 From: zypher at spamcop.net (Ron B.) Date: Wed Jun 15 18:30:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: White listed WebTV Address Held In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ron B. wrote: > Dave Lerner wrote: > >>Ron B. wrote on 06/15/2005 07:11 AM: >> >> >>>>>I am a spamcop subscriber. I have a regular correspondent that >>>>>e-mails me through Web TV. He is not computer savvy; this is his >>>>>only access to e-mail. I find that his mails to me are usually >>>>>sequestered in the "Held Mail" area. I have released this mail >>>>>_countless_ times to be whitelisted, and his address is in my >>>>>whitelist. Is there anything else that I can do to allow his e-mails >>>>>to by-pass the held mail area? >> >> >>Can you post the actual email headers? Munge them if you like, but >>don't change the syntax: replace digits with 0, letters with X and leave >>other characters unchanged. > > > > When I receive the next held mail I will. Sorry, I have no specimen now. > > Thanks. Here is a recent sample. See note below headers. No munging done except for e-mail addresses Return-Path: Delivered-To: spamcop-net-zypher@spamcop.net Received: (qmail 4763 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2005 16:14:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (192.168.1.101) by blade6.cesmail.net with QMQP; 15 Jun 2005 16:14:36 -0000 Received: from sccqmxc96.asp.att.net (204.127.203.206) by mailgate.cesmail.net with SMTP; 15 Jun 2005 16:14:35 -0000 Received: from smtpout-3204.bay.webtv.net ([209.240.205.139]) by sccqmxc96.asp.att.net (sccqmxc96) with ESMTP id <20050615161434q9600rj1e9e>; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:14:34 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [209.240.205.139] Received: from storefull-3132.bay.webtv.net (bay-6me-tv-1a-natpool-1.bay.webtv.net [209.240.207.249]) by smtpout-3204.bay.webtv.net (WebTV_Postfix+sws) with ESMTP id 301E6D5FA; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:14:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from production@localhost) by storefull-3132.bay.webtv.net (8.8.8-wtv-f/mt.gso.26Feb98) id JAA16091; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:14:33 -0700 (PDT) X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAtAhRkwsOn39hjMbm/7O19REOz4getSQIVALv3CKYrXl92vnMPH2BB+kKjeuN8 From: munged_ret@webtv.net (Mike Hession) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:14:33 -0500 To: (list of several cc's all friends of sender. My own e-mail address included) Subject: Fwd: Joke a Day - Issue # 47 Message-ID: <6715-42B053E9-539@storefull-3132.bay.webtv.net> Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary=WebTV-Mail-1555-269 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on blade6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: hits=0.1 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE version=3.0.2 X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.101 204.127.203.206 209.240.205.139 209.240.207.249 X-SpamCop-Disposition: Blocked bl.spamcop.net --WebTV-Mail-1555-269 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit --WebTV-Mail-1555-269 Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Message/RFC822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Received: from smtpin-3308.bay.webtv.net (209.240.205.166) by storefull-3134.bay.webtv.net with WTV-SMTP; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 07:14:05 -0700 Received: from n25.bulk.scd.yahoo.com (n25.bulk.scd.yahoo.com [66.94.237.54]) by smtpin-3308.bay.webtv.net (WebTV_Postfix+sws) with SMTP id E92F4E11D for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 07:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lima; d=yahoogroups.com; b=Y+lA0JEnp42a5wVFp42cEobhjBXeppweDmjCxHFZvIlZizNPpJuBbs5okKPrwlXOokvYk6ekRMqkt2kzi4S/1D9ynql6biDhXr0TgDbHkVohC6Cbw1yPEZoekk67KikZ; Received: from [66.218.66.59] by n25.bulk.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2005 14:05:51 -0000 Received: from [66.218.66.30] by mailer8.bulk.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2005 14:05:51 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-email Received: (qmail 48333 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2005 14:05:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m24.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Jun 2005 14:05:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n31.bulk.scd.yahoo.com) (66.94.237.60) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2005 14:05:40 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys Received: from [66.218.66.59] by n31.bulk.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2005 14:04:38 -0000 Received: from [66.218.66.81] by mailer8.bulk.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2005 14:04:38 -0000 X-Sender: jokes_book@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: jokeaday@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 95333 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2005 14:02:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Jun 2005 14:02:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web54302.mail.yahoo.com) (68.142.225.144) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2005 14:02:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 41045 invoked by uid 60001); 15 Jun 2005 14:02:48 -0000 Message-ID: <20050615140247.41039.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [212.113.164.102] by web54302.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 07:02:47 PDT To: jokeaday@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 68.142.225.144 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0 From: Jokes Book X-Yahoo-Profile: jokes_book X-eGroups-Approved-By: jokes_book via web; 15 Jun 2005 14:04:37 -0000 Sender: jokeaday@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list jokeaday@yahoogroups.com; contact jokeaday-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list jokeaday@yahoogroups.com List-Id: Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 07:02:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Joke a Day - Issue # 47 Reply-To: jokeaday-owner@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail: Message tested, results are inconclusive Note on headers: although this is a re-mail of a yahoogroups distribution, the same problem (sender is whitelisted, but has to be released from "Held Mail" exists even when ordinary e-mail is sent. From jeffg at spamcop.net Wed Jun 15 20:32:58 2005 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Wed Jun 15 19:35:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: White listed WebTV Address Held References: Message-ID: Ron B. wrote: > Ron B. wrote: >> Dave Lerner wrote: >>> Ron B. wrote on 06/15/2005 07:11 AM: >>>>>> I am a spamcop subscriber. I have a regular correspondent that >>>>>> e-mails me through Web TV. He is not computer savvy; this is his >>>>>> only access to e-mail. I find that his mails to me are usually >>>>>> sequestered in the "Held Mail" area. I have released this mail >>>>>> _countless_ times to be whitelisted, and his address is in my >>>>>> whitelist. Is there anything else that I can do to allow his >>>>>> e-mails to by-pass the held mail area? > Here is a recent sample. See note below headers. > No munging done except for e-mail addresses > > Return-Path: munged_ret@webtv.net Assuming that you have confirmed that the real address represented above by "munged_ret@webtv.net" is in your whitelist exactly once, have you tried removing and re-adding it? -- Thanks and Best Regards, Jeff G. I have been a SpamCop User/Member/Customer since 1999 and am a Moderator of the new web-based forums (now the primary method for getting help, http://forum.spamcop.net). Please reply via Forum, Group, or List only. From zypher at spamcop.net Wed Jun 15 20:52:12 2005 From: zypher at spamcop.net (Ron B.) Date: Wed Jun 15 20:55:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: White listed WebTV Address Held In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jeff G. wrote: > Ron B. wrote: > >>Ron B. wrote: >> >>>Dave Lerner wrote: >>> >>>>Ron B. wrote on 06/15/2005 07:11 AM: >>>> >>>>>>>I am a spamcop subscriber. I have a regular correspondent that >>>>>>>e-mails me through Web TV. He is not computer savvy; this is his >>>>>>>only access to e-mail. I find that his mails to me are usually >>>>>>>sequestered in the "Held Mail" area. I have released this mail >>>>>>>_countless_ times to be whitelisted, and his address is in my >>>>>>>whitelist. Is there anything else that I can do to allow his >>>>>>>e-mails to by-pass the held mail area? >> >>Here is a recent sample. See note below headers. >>No munging done except for e-mail addresses >> >>Return-Path: munged_ret@webtv.net > > > Assuming that you have confirmed that the real address represented above > by "munged_ret@webtv.net" is in your whitelist exactly once, have you > tried removing and re-adding it? > Correct assumption. Will try your suggestion. Thanks. From warkeng at spamcop.net Thu Jun 16 03:58:00 2005 From: warkeng at spamcop.net (Grant Warkentin) Date: Wed Jun 15 23:00:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Issues on SC mailserver? Message-ID: Was wondering about a note I sent myself @ 16:26 MDT - it had not arrived in my inbox @ 20:00 MDT. When It did arrive I checked the headers.... Looks like Spamcop needs to fix it's time zone? (-0000 ??). Received: (qmail 27389 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2005 22:31:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (192.168.1.103) by blade1.cesmail.net with QMQP; 15 Jun 2005 22:31:59 -0000 Received: from pix-a-20.gov.calgary.ab.ca (HELO Mail- OUT.gov.calgary.ab.ca) (192.41.148.220) by mailgate2.cesmail.net with SMTP; 15 Jun 2005 22:31:59 -0000 Received: from cocexfe2.coc.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Mail-OUT.gov.calgary.ab.ca (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id j5FMQHQ5014553 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:26:17 -0600 For some reason this mail was delayed on spamcop for 4 hours. The logs on mail-out.gov.calgary.ab.ca indicate a sucessful delivery @ 16:26 MDT DSN=2.0.0. Jun 15 16:26:17 mail-out sendmail[14553]: j5FMQHQ5014553: from= , size=3666, class=0, nrcpts=1, msgid= , proto=SMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=localhost [127.0.0.1] Jun 15 16:26:21 mail-out sendmail[14556]: j5FMQHQ5014553: to= , delay=00:00:04, xdelay=00:00:04, mailer=esmtp, pri=123666, relay=mx.spamcop.net. [216.154.195.53], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (ok 1118874721 qp 32720) Was the delay caused by some kind of quota? I was getting close to ten megs in my inbox on spamcop. Thanks From warkeng at spamcop.net Thu Jun 16 04:08:11 2005 From: warkeng at spamcop.net (Grant Warkentin) Date: Wed Jun 15 23:10:25 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Issues on SC mailserver? References: Message-ID: Grant Warkentin wrote in news:Xns9676D562180Cwarkengspamcopnet@216.154.195.61: DOH! It was probably Apple's OS X mail client not picking up that there was new messages in the inbox. Will verify with webmail if I see this happen again. > Was wondering about a note I sent myself @ 16:26 MDT - it had not > arrived in my inbox @ 20:00 MDT. When It did arrive I checked the > headers.... > > Looks like Spamcop needs to fix it's time zone? (-0000 ??). > > Received: (qmail 27389 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2005 22:31:59 > -0000 Received: from unknown (192.168.1.103) > by blade1.cesmail.net with QMQP; 15 Jun 2005 22:31:59 -0000 > Received: from pix-a-20.gov.calgary.ab.ca (HELO Mail- > OUT.gov.calgary.ab.ca) (192.41.148.220) > by mailgate2.cesmail.net with SMTP; 15 Jun 2005 22:31:59 -0000 > Received: from cocexfe2.coc.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by Mail-OUT.gov.calgary.ab.ca (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id > j5FMQHQ5014553 > for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:26:17 -0600 > > > For some reason this mail was delayed on spamcop for 4 hours. The logs > on mail-out.gov.calgary.ab.ca indicate a sucessful delivery @ 16:26 > MDT DSN=2.0.0. > > Jun 15 16:26:17 mail-out sendmail[14553]: j5FMQHQ5014553: from= > , size=3666, class=0, nrcpts=1, msgid= > , > proto=SMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=localhost [127.0.0.1] > Jun 15 16:26:21 mail-out sendmail[14556]: j5FMQHQ5014553: to= > , delay=00:00:04, xdelay=00:00:04, mailer=esmtp, > pri=123666, relay=mx.spamcop.net. [216.154.195.53], dsn=2.0.0, > stat=Sent (ok 1118874721 qp 32720) > > > Was the delay caused by some kind of quota? I was getting close to ten > megs in my inbox on spamcop. > > Thanks From MikeE at ster.invalid Wed Jun 15 21:45:38 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Wed Jun 15 23:50:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Issues on SC mailserver? References: Message-ID: Grant Warkentin wrote: > Was wondering about a note I sent myself @ 16:26 MDT - it had not > arrived in my inbox @ 20:00 MDT. When It did arrive I checked the > headers.... > > Looks like Spamcop needs to fix it's time zone? (-0000 ??). Well, there is a very very small point that if you are going to use UTC and it isn't your local time, you should say +0000.instead of -0000, but that is a very fine point compared to your misinterpretation of what to do with timezone offsets. The way I like to look at timestamps is to convert everything to UTC by 'relieving' the timezone offset. > Received: (qmail 27389 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2005 22:31:59 > -0000 Received: from unknown (192.168.1.103) > by blade1.cesmail.net with QMQP; 15 Jun 2005 22:31:59 -0000 = 22:32 UTC > Received: from pix-a-20.gov.calgary.ab.ca (HELO Mail- > OUT.gov.calgary.ab.ca) (192.41.148.220) > by mailgate2.cesmail.net with SMTP; 15 Jun 2005 22:31:59 -0000 = 22:32 UTC > Received: from cocexfe2.coc.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by Mail-OUT.gov.calgary.ab.ca (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id > j5FMQHQ5014553 > for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:26:17 -0600 16:26 local with a timezone offset of 6 hours = 22:26 UTC > For some reason this mail was delayed on spamcop for 4 hours. The logs > on mail-out.gov.calgary.ab.ca indicate a sucessful delivery @ 16:26 > MDT DSN=2.0.0. 16:26 MDT = 22:26 UTC, since MDT [for US Mountain Daylight Time] has a timezone offset of -0600, which means that it is 6 hours west of GMT or Zulu or UTC, which we'll make the same for purposes of this conversation. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From Ilgaz at spamcop.net Thu Jun 16 18:41:17 2005 From: Ilgaz at spamcop.net (Ilgaz Ocal) Date: Thu Jun 16 10:45:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Why zinio is blocked? Where to notify them? Message-ID: Hi, I use IMAP held mail advantages and I remember one day zinio got blocked so I checked that folder immediately after buying popular mechanics subscription. I wanted to have a hard copy in hand of mail. Its in held mail and says spamcop own blocking list blocked it. I don't have a slight clue why would that happen. Its a known company, not spamming, does business and their mails have proper opt in-out schemes. Its a digital magazine dealer (Adobe DRM PDF). If one gets mail from them, its likely his/her friend actually gave the mail address to share his/her mag. (There is a option) It may be a huge problem since people like me (buying mags) disables its checking for magazines at startup so the only real reminder left is: mail. No, its not very clever to have a 20mb application running to show a new mag arrived once a MONTH :) I will make a favor to foreigners like me liking to read mags online since subscription with fedex etc is not a option, will notify either spamcop or zinio. Who to notify? I'd call it abuse of spamcop, no less. I mean if someone actually abused the spamcop to make them in blocking list. Ilgaz Ocal Pasting headers below: Return-Path: Delivered-To: spamcop-net-Ilgaz@spamcop.net Received: (qmail 9639 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2005 14:22:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (192.168.1.103) by blade3.cesmail.net with QMQP; 16 Jun 2005 14:22:42 -0000 Received: from notification.zinio.net (63.110.28.125) by mailgate2.cesmail.net with SMTP; 16 Jun 2005 14:22:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 5231 invoked by uid 545); 16 Jun 2005 07:19:23 -0700 Received: from unknown (HELO eq-w2k-ap-04) (63.110.28.34) by notification.zinio.net with SMTP; 16 Jun 2005 07:19:23 -0700 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 07:23:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Digital Magazines Reply-To: deliveries@notification.zinio.net To: Ilgaz@spamcop.net Subject: Zinio Order Confirmation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_655_1692531.1118931783874" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on blade3.cesmail.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: hits=0.2 tests=AWL,HTML_MESSAGE version=3.0.2 X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.103 63.110.28.125 63.110.28.34 X-SpamCop-Disposition: Blocked bl.spamcop.net From Ilgaz at spamcop.net Thu Jun 16 19:01:13 2005 From: Ilgaz at spamcop.net (Ilgaz Ocal) Date: Thu Jun 16 11:05:12 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Notified Zinio and Spamcop (Re: Why zinio is blocked? Where to notify them?) References: Message-ID: Hi, No supersede or cancel option on client I use, so sorry for replying own post. I checked why it was blocked and my guess was right, 6 persons reported it as spam. I notified zinio and spamcop , I guess it was all needed to do. Sorry if I sound harsh, I had my paid Ilgaz@spamcop.net address rejected as fake on couple of sites, looks like "give them postmaster@spamcop.net" moronic advice of some lamers started to hurt us, real spamcop mail customers. So I got a bit tired of those abuses as a user. Ilgaz On 2005-06-16 17:41:17 +0300, Ilgaz Ocal said: Hi, > > I use IMAP held mail advantages and I remember one day zinio got > blocked so I checked that folder immediately after buying popular > mechanics subscription. > > I wanted to have a hard copy in hand of mail. > > Its in held mail and says spamcop own blocking list blocked it. I don't > have a slight clue why would that happen. > y either spamcop or zinio. Who to notify? > > I'd call it abuse of spamcop, no less. I mean if someone actually > abused the spamcop to make them in blocking list. > > Ilgaz Ocal > > > Pasting headers below: > > Return-Path: > Delivered-To: spamcop-net-Ilgaz@spamcop.net > Received: (qmail 9639 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2005 14:22:42 -0000 > Received: from unknown (192.168.1.103) > by blade3.cesmail.net with QMQP; 16 Jun 2005 14:22:42 -0000 > Received: from notification.zinio.net (63.110.28.125) > by mailgate2.cesmail.net with SMTP; 16 Jun 2005 14:22:42 -0000 > Received: (qmail 5231 invoked by uid 545); 16 Jun 2005 07:19:23 -0700 > Received: from unknown (HELO eq-w2k-ap-04) (63.110.28.34) > by notification.zinio.net with SMTP; 16 Jun 2005 07:19:23 -0700 > Message-ID: > Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 07:23:03 -0700 (PDT) > From: Digital Magazines > Reply-To: deliveries@notification.zinio.net > To: Ilgaz@spamcop.net > Subject: Zinio Order Confirmation > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----=_Part_655_1692531.1118931783874" > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on blade3.cesmail.net > X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: hits=0.2 tests=AWL,HTML_MESSAGE version=3.0.2 > X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.103 63.110.28.125 63.110.28.34 > X-SpamCop-Disposition: Blocked bl.spamcop.net > From jeffg at spamcop.net Thu Jun 16 12:20:59 2005 From: jeffg at spamcop.net (Jeff G.) Date: Thu Jun 16 11:25:16 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Notified Zinio and Spamcop (Re: Why zinio is blocked? Where to notify them?) References: Message-ID: Ilgaz Ocal wrote: > Sorry if I sound harsh, I had my paid Ilgaz@spamcop.net address > rejected as fake on couple of sites, looks like "give them > postmaster@spamcop.net" moronic advice of some lamers started to hurt > us, real spamcop mail customers. The listings at http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=spamcop.net&full=1 don't help. :( -- Best Regards, Jeff G. I have been a SpamCop User/Member/Customer since 1999 and am a Moderator of the new web-based forums (now the primary method for getting help, http://forum.spamcop.net). Please reply via Forum, Group, or List only. From Ilgaz at spamcop.net Thu Jun 16 19:38:10 2005 From: Ilgaz at spamcop.net (Ilgaz Ocal) Date: Thu Jun 16 11:40:22 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: Notified Zinio and Spamcop (Re: Why zinio is blocked? Where to notify them?) References: Message-ID: On 2005-06-16 18:20:59 +0300, "Jeff G." said: > Ilgaz Ocal wrote: >> Sorry if I sound harsh, I had my paid Ilgaz@spamcop.net address >> rejected as fake on couple of sites, looks like "give them >> postmaster@spamcop.net" moronic advice of some lamers started to hurt >> us, real spamcop mail customers. > > The listings at > http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=spamcop.net&full=1 > don't help. :( Well normally its their admins job to notify spamcop about abuse of their services (yes, its an abuse) but they can't figure if a freak like me actually takes time to alert them :) I sent that "blocklist removal request" stating I am a spamcop customer only, I wouldn't go mad if they don't care about it :) I just hope some abusers will at least get a warning from spamcop about their "reporting" I just don't want some non technical people go panic about their mags or billing as it will end up in held mail now, that's all. So I did my best as a end user. Have a nice day Ilgaz From zypher at spamcop.net Thu Jun 16 18:16:30 2005 From: zypher at spamcop.net (Ron B.) Date: Thu Jun 16 18:20:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Re: White listed WebTV Address Held In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ron B. wrote: > Jeff G. wrote: > >>Ron B. wrote: >> >> >>>Ron B. wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Dave Lerner wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Ron B. wrote on 06/15/2005 07:11 AM: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>I am a spamcop subscriber. I have a regular correspondent that >>>>>>>>e-mails me through Web TV. He is not computer savvy; this is his >>>>>>>>only access to e-mail. I find that his mails to me are usually >>>>>>>>sequestered in the "Held Mail" area. I have released this mail >>>>>>>>_countless_ times to be whitelisted, and his address is in my >>>>>>>>whitelist. Is there anything else that I can do to allow his >>>>>>>>e-mails to by-pass the held mail area? >>> >>>Here is a recent sample. See note below headers. >>>No munging done except for e-mail addresses >>> >>>Return-Path: munged_ret@webtv.net >> >> >>Assuming that you have confirmed that the real address represented above >>by "munged_ret@webtv.net" is in your whitelist exactly once, have you >>tried removing and re-adding it? >> > > > > Correct assumption. Will try your suggestion. > Thanks. Seems to work now. Thanks for your help. From poilu0978 at msn.com Tue Jun 28 23:50:55 2005 From: poilu0978 at msn.com (STEPHEN RYAN) Date: Wed Jun 29 01:51:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] Message-ID: From SCNews.5.myspamgobbler at spamgourmet.com Thu Jun 30 18:18:22 2005 From: SCNews.5.myspamgobbler at spamgourmet.com (Brian (SnSR)) Date: Thu Jun 30 20:25:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Mail] spam in my inbox not being tested for spam Message-ID: I've had a couple that have not been checked for spam that end up not being blocked. What's up? http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z780608926zfca91dadd96803eb9510bd7a2eb9e904z Ignore the GNet headers as I've got my gorgenet spamblocker turned off. X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on blade6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: hits=0.0 _*tests=none*_ version=3.0.2 <====