From nobody at spamcop.net Wed Mar 11 01:32:46 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (RW) Date: Wed Mar 11 01:35:09 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Planned Maintenance Window - Thursday, March 12, 2009 Message-ID: Planned Maintenance Window - Thursday, March 12, 2009 Scheduled server maintenance and software upgrades will be taking place starting at 2:00 p.m. PDT Thursday, March 12, 2009. During this time the SpamCop Reporting Service website may not be available for a period of up to two hours in duration. Emailed spam submissions will be accepted, but processing will be delayed during the maintenance process. This will not affect the SpamCop/CESmail email service, newsgroups or forums. Richard From nobody at spamcop.net Wed Mar 11 01:33:25 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (RW) Date: Wed Mar 11 01:35:10 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Re: Planned Maintenance Window - Thursday, March 12, 2009 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RW wrote: > Planned Maintenance Window - Thursday, March 12, 2009 > > Scheduled server maintenance and software upgrades will be taking place > starting at 2:00 p.m. PDT > Thursday, March 12, 2009. During this time the SpamCop Reporting Service > website may not be > available for a period of up to two hours in duration. Emailed spam > submissions will be accepted, > but processing will be delayed during the maintenance process. > > This will not affect the SpamCop/CESmail email service, newsgroups or > forums. This is the awaited upgrade to SC v4.5 :-) Richard From avoozl at spamcop.net Wed Mar 11 20:34:45 2009 From: avoozl at spamcop.net (Chris F. Willoughby) Date: Wed Mar 11 20:35:08 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Re: Planned Maintenance Window - Thursday, March 12, 2009 References: Message-ID: "RW" wrote in message news:gp7if5$tij$2@news.spamcop.net... > This is the awaited upgrade to SC v4.5 :-) > > Richard What's SC v4.5?? From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Wed Mar 11 23:44:35 2009 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Patto) Date: Wed Mar 11 23:45:08 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Re: Planned Maintenance Window - Thursday, March 12, 2009 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RW wrote: > RW wrote: >> Planned Maintenance Window - Thursday, March 12, 2009 >> >> Scheduled server maintenance and software upgrades will be taking place >> starting at 2:00 p.m. PDT >> Thursday, March 12, 2009. During this time the SpamCop Reporting Service >> website may not be >> available for a period of up to two hours in duration. Emailed spam >> submissions will be accepted, >> but processing will be delayed during the maintenance process. >> >> This will not affect the SpamCop/CESmail email service, newsgroups or >> forums. > > This is the awaited upgrade to SC v4.5 :-) > > Richard v4.5 - does it fix anything? Does it improve anything? From nobody at spamcop.net Thu Mar 12 00:50:13 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (RW) Date: Thu Mar 12 00:55:08 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Re: Planned Maintenance Window - Thursday, March 12, 2009 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RW wrote: > Planned Maintenance Window - Thursday, March 12, 2009 > > Scheduled server maintenance and software upgrades will be taking place > starting at 2:00 p.m. PDT > Thursday, March 12, 2009. During this time the SpamCop Reporting Service > website may not be > available for a period of up to two hours in duration. Emailed spam > submissions will be accepted, > but processing will be delayed during the maintenance process. > > This will not affect the SpamCop/CESmail email service, newsgroups or > forums. > > Richard Due to some unexpected hardware problems, this maintenance/upgrade has been delayed until Tuesday March 17. Probably around the same time, but will update once we know for sure. Richard From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Mar 23 21:28:05 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (RW) Date: Mon Mar 23 21:30:08 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Scheduled Maintenance Thursday March 26, 2009 - (SpamCop 4.5.0-084 Release) Message-ID: Let's cross our fingers this is finally going ahead. Scheduled server maintenance and software upgrades Thursday, March 26, 2009, starting at 2:00pm PDT. During this time the SpamCop Reporting Service website may not be available for a period of up to two hours in duration. Emailed spam submissions will be accepted, but processing will be delayed during the maintenance process. This will not affect the SpamCop/CESmail email service, newsgroups or forums. Richard From avoozl at spamcop.net Tue Mar 24 01:24:24 2009 From: avoozl at spamcop.net (Chris F. Willoughby) Date: Tue Mar 24 01:25:09 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Popping Hotmail Message-ID: Popgate2.cesmail.net doesn't seem to want to POP my hotmail/msn accounts anymore. Any idea what's going on there? I've tried all the usual fixes. Thanks, Chris From NO_SPAM at yahoo.com Tue Mar 24 07:23:34 2009 From: NO_SPAM at yahoo.com (Jim) Date: Tue Mar 24 07:25:08 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Re: Popping Hotmail In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Chris F. Willoughby wrote: > Popgate2.cesmail.net doesn't seem to want to POP my hotmail/msn accounts > anymore. Any idea what's going on there? I've tried all the usual fixes. > > Thanks, > Chris > On Hotmail use pop server "pop3.live.com" check "use ssl" On AOL/Aim use pop server "pop.aol.com" and check "use ssl" From EOhrnberger at GMail.com Tue Mar 24 11:23:38 2009 From: EOhrnberger at GMail.com (Erik Ch. Ohrnberger) Date: Tue Mar 24 11:25:09 2009 Subject: [Scmail] SpamCop reporting issues Message-ID: First, I want to say that as a long time spamcop user, I truly appreciate the ability to do something about controlling spam, well, at least reporting it. In the few weeks spamcop has changed how it works for me. Perhaps this is related to the recent system maintenance? Let me describe what I'm talking about. I'm using Outlook, and I've written (or hacked together) a VBA macro which takes the email headers as well as the spam email body (HTML code if HTML email), creates a text file attachment, and send it to my spamcop reporting email. This is rather convenient, as multiple spam emails are processed into a single submission email as multiple attachments. Spamcop used to send back multiple report results emails, where I would have to click on the sent web link to complete the reporting. Everything is great. Works well, and works efficiently. However, the last few weeks, spamcop has stopped sending me the emails to complete the spam reporting. I've changed the destination email for these reports, and occasionally I get one back. So I have to manually report the spam via the web interface, which takes a lot of time. Has there been a spamcop policy change that disallows the type of reporting that I've been doing for years? Could it be a problem with spamcop itself? Please advise how I can get the reporting by email working again. Thanks in advance, Erik. From EOhrnberger at GMail.com Tue Mar 24 11:24:53 2009 From: EOhrnberger at GMail.com (Erik Ch. Ohrnberger) Date: Tue Mar 24 11:25:09 2009 Subject: [Scmail] SpamCop reporting issues Message-ID: First, I want to say that as a long time spamcop user, I truly appreciate the ability to do something about controlling spam, well, at least reporting it. In the few weeks spamcop has changed how it works for me. Perhaps this is related to the recent system maintenance? Let me describe what I'm talking about. I'm using Outlook, and I've written (or hacked together) a VBA macro which takes the email headers as well as the spam email body (HTML code if HTML email), creates a text file attachment, and send it to my spamcop reporting email. This is rather convenient, as multiple spam emails are processed into a single submission email as multiple attachments. Spamcop used to send back multiple report results emails, where I would have to click on the sent web link to complete the reporting. Everything is great. Works well, and works efficiently. However, the last few weeks, spamcop has stopped sending me the emails to complete the spam reporting. I've changed the destination email for these reports, and occasionally I get one back. So I have to manually report the spam via the web interface, which takes a lot of time. Has there been a spamcop policy change that disallows the type of reporting that I've been doing for years? Could it be a problem with spamcop itself? Please advise how I can get the reporting by email working again. Thanks in advance, Erik. From MikeE at ster.invalid Tue Mar 24 12:53:57 2009 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Tue Mar 24 12:55:07 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Re: SpamCop reporting issues References: Message-ID: Erik Ch. Ohrnberger wrote: > I'm using Outlook, and I've written (or hacked together) a VBA macro > which takes the email headers as well as the spam email body (HTML code > if HTML email), creates a text file attachment, and send it to my > spamcop reporting email. This is rather convenient, as multiple spam > emails are processed into a single submission email as multiple > attachments. That sounds like one of the OL addon tools created by Leon Mayne or others described here http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/122.html (Outlook) Email Submission System - Four add-on products have been created by SpamCop users to help streamline this process. > Has there been a spamcop policy change that disallows the type of > reporting that I've been doing for years? Could it be a problem with > spamcop itself? In order for email submission to work properly, everything has to be 'perfectly' constructed. The email arriving at the server for spamparsing has to have a perfect/proper structure consisting of the headers from you to SC, then a body with a mime attachment structure followed by the headers of the spam which are not distorted in any way and properly delimited from the spambody which matches the content type described in the headerlines as well as the NextPart structure delimiters. > Please advise how I can get the reporting by email working again. If we were looking at one of these submissions, we might be able to say what is wrong with its structure. You should find one in your Sent folder. You might want to privatize it and paste it into spamcop.spam or attach it as a .txt file to a message there. The advantage of the .txt attachment over pasting it into the message body is that that avoids the mangling which is caused by newsagent wrapping of news messages. The mangling distorts the headers and can obscure any distortion which might be the problem you are describing. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From user at domain.invalid Tue Mar 24 13:16:59 2009 From: user at domain.invalid (Farelf) Date: Tue Mar 24 13:20:08 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Re: SpamCop reporting issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Erik Ch. Ohrnberger wrote: ... > > Spamcop used to send back multiple report results emails, where I would have > to click on the sent web link to complete the reporting. > ... > > However, the last few weeks, spamcop has stopped sending me the emails to > complete the spam reporting. I've changed the destination email for these > reports, and occasionally I get one back. So I have to manually report the > spam via the web interface, which takes a lot of time. > > Has there been a spamcop policy change that disallows the type of reporting > that I've been doing for years? Could it be a problem with spamcop itself? > ... One possibility is that your provider has recently instituted outwards spam filtering (or changed the implementation). This can and does pick up 'batched' (multiple attachment) submissions - certainly IronPort devices do so and are used this way on some networks. If your provider is WOW then their email conditions specifically provide for this. In any event, a test might be to copy your spam submissions to another address (although there is increasing difficulty in finding ones which won't filter the copy inwards). If the copy doesn't arrive it has been filtered (at one or the other). Or you could ask them (though sometimes they lie.) If the submissions which occasionally get through are larger than those which don't, that might indicate the filtering leaves large messages (say 150k and over) alone. Otherwise maybe the first spam is not recognized as spam by the filter. Or a combination of both. If the first attachment is a largish, old non-spam message it might serve to smuggle the actual spam through and would not be reported by SC due to to age. Don D'Minion has had some success in talking at least one provider into allowing SC submissions through outwards filtering. That would depend a lot on the specific implementation used. See http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2782 From avoozl at spamcop.net Tue Mar 24 18:29:40 2009 From: avoozl at spamcop.net (Chris F. Willoughby) Date: Tue Mar 24 18:30:09 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Re: Popping Hotmail References: Message-ID: "Jim" wrote in message news:gqafru$a96$1@news.spamcop.net... > > On Hotmail use pop server "pop3.live.com" check "use ssl" > > On AOL/Aim use pop server "pop.aol.com" and check "use ssl" Thanks. I'll try that for hotmail. Chris From EOhrnberger at GMail.com Tue Mar 24 21:03:07 2009 From: EOhrnberger at GMail.com (Erik Ch. Ohrnberger) Date: Tue Mar 24 21:05:09 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Re: SpamCop reporting issues References: Message-ID: Farelf, Thanks for your reply. Lots of good information in there. I tried a test where I sent the spam reporting email with multiple attachments through my GMail account, and this worked perfectly and cleanly. I guess WOW has decided to spam check outbound email as well as inbound email. Oh well. I don't think that I'll be able to convince them to change their practices. I'm far from their ideal customer, as I have a Linux mail server of my own dumping the outbound on their SMTP server to deliver (Can't deliver it directly on my own, I keep triggering their zombie spammer alert - but never mind that it's not one, their tools say it's one). Thanks for your help, Erik. "Farelf" wrote in message news:gqb4i7$k2k$1@news.spamcop.net... > Erik Ch. Ohrnberger wrote: > ... > >> >> Spamcop used to send back multiple report results emails, where I would >> have >> to click on the sent web link to complete the reporting. >> > ... >> >> However, the last few weeks, spamcop has stopped sending me the emails to >> complete the spam reporting. I've changed the destination email for >> these >> reports, and occasionally I get one back. So I have to manually report >> the >> spam via the web interface, which takes a lot of time. >> >> Has there been a spamcop policy change that disallows the type of >> reporting >> that I've been doing for years? Could it be a problem with spamcop >> itself? >> > ... > > One possibility is that your provider has recently instituted outwards > spam filtering (or changed the implementation). This can and does pick up > 'batched' (multiple attachment) submissions - certainly IronPort devices > do so and are used this way on some networks. If your provider is WOW > then their email conditions specifically provide for this. > > In any event, a test might be to copy your spam submissions to another > address (although there is increasing difficulty in finding ones which > won't filter the copy inwards). If the copy doesn't arrive it has been > filtered (at one or the other). Or you could ask them (though sometimes > they lie.) > > If the submissions which occasionally get through are larger than those > which don't, that might indicate the filtering leaves large messages (say > 150k and over) alone. Otherwise maybe the first spam is not recognized as > spam by the filter. Or a combination of both. If the first attachment is > a largish, old non-spam message it might serve to smuggle the actual spam > through and would not be reported by SC due to to age. > > Don D'Minion has had some success in talking at least one provider into > allowing SC submissions through outwards filtering. That would depend a > lot on the specific implementation used. > > See http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2782 From EOhrnberger at GMail.com Tue Mar 24 21:04:59 2009 From: EOhrnberger at GMail.com (Erik Ch. Ohrnberger) Date: Tue Mar 24 21:05:09 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Re: SpamCop reporting issues References: Message-ID: Mike, I would also suspect a bug in my code, but it's been working for a long time without any issues. In the other posting to the group, I detail that I found out that WOW was doing outbound spam checking which was catching the spamcop reports. Thanks, Erik. "Mike Easter" wrote in message news:gqb372$cbj$1@news.spamcop.net... > Erik Ch. Ohrnberger wrote: > >> I'm using Outlook, and I've written (or hacked together) a VBA macro >> which takes the email headers as well as the spam email body (HTML code >> if HTML email), creates a text file attachment, and send it to my >> spamcop reporting email. This is rather convenient, as multiple spam >> emails are processed into a single submission email as multiple >> attachments. > > That sounds like one of the OL addon tools created by Leon Mayne or others > described here http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/122.html (Outlook) > Email Submission System - Four add-on products have been created by > SpamCop users to help streamline this process. > >> Has there been a spamcop policy change that disallows the type of >> reporting that I've been doing for years? Could it be a problem with >> spamcop itself? > > In order for email submission to work properly, everything has to be > 'perfectly' constructed. > > The email arriving at the server for spamparsing has to have a > perfect/proper structure consisting of the headers from you to SC, then a > body with a mime attachment structure followed by the headers of the spam > which are not distorted in any way and properly delimited from the > spambody which matches the content type described in the headerlines as > well as the NextPart structure delimiters. > >> Please advise how I can get the reporting by email working again. > > If we were looking at one of these submissions, we might be able to say > what is wrong with its structure. You should find one in your Sent > folder. You might want to privatize it and paste it into spamcop.spam or > attach it as a .txt file to a message there. The advantage of the .txt > attachment over pasting it into the message body is that that avoids the > mangling which is caused by newsagent wrapping of news messages. The > mangling distorts the headers and can obscure any distortion which might > be the problem you are describing. > > > -- > Mike Easter > kibitzer, not SC admin > From EOhrnberger at GMail.com Wed Mar 25 11:01:28 2009 From: EOhrnberger at GMail.com (Erik Ch. Ohrnberger) Date: Wed Mar 25 11:55:08 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Re: SpamCop reporting issues References: Message-ID: OK, job done. I tweaked my macro so that it specifically uses my GMail account for sending spam reports to spamcop, which doesn't block this type of spam reporting email, so all is well and working again. Thanks for the pointers and info. It really helped me track this issue down. Cheers, Erik. "Erik Ch. Ohrnberger" wrote in message news:gqbvsb$l0a$1@news.spamcop.net... > Farelf, > Thanks for your reply. Lots of good information in there. > > I tried a test where I sent the spam reporting email with multiple > attachments through my GMail account, and this worked perfectly and > cleanly. > > I guess WOW has decided to spam check outbound email as well as inbound > email. Oh well. I don't think that I'll be able to convince them to > change their practices. I'm far from their ideal customer, as I have a > Linux mail server of my own dumping the outbound on their SMTP server to > deliver (Can't deliver it directly on my own, I keep triggering their > zombie > spammer alert - but never mind that it's not one, their tools say it's > one). > > Thanks for your help, > Erik. > > "Farelf" wrote in message > news:gqb4i7$k2k$1@news.spamcop.net... >> Erik Ch. Ohrnberger wrote: >> ... >> >>> >>> Spamcop used to send back multiple report results emails, where I would >>> have >>> to click on the sent web link to complete the reporting. >>> >> ... >>> >>> However, the last few weeks, spamcop has stopped sending me the emails >>> to >>> complete the spam reporting. I've changed the destination email for >>> these >>> reports, and occasionally I get one back. So I have to manually report >>> the >>> spam via the web interface, which takes a lot of time. >>> >>> Has there been a spamcop policy change that disallows the type of >>> reporting >>> that I've been doing for years? Could it be a problem with spamcop >>> itself? >>> >> ... >> >> One possibility is that your provider has recently instituted outwards >> spam filtering (or changed the implementation). This can and does pick >> up >> 'batched' (multiple attachment) submissions - certainly IronPort devices >> do so and are used this way on some networks. If your provider is WOW >> then their email conditions specifically provide for this. >> >> In any event, a test might be to copy your spam submissions to another >> address (although there is increasing difficulty in finding ones which >> won't filter the copy inwards). If the copy doesn't arrive it has been >> filtered (at one or the other). Or you could ask them (though sometimes >> they lie.) >> >> If the submissions which occasionally get through are larger than those >> which don't, that might indicate the filtering leaves large messages (say >> 150k and over) alone. Otherwise maybe the first spam is not recognized >> as >> spam by the filter. Or a combination of both. If the first attachment >> is >> a largish, old non-spam message it might serve to smuggle the actual spam >> through and would not be reported by SC due to to age. >> >> Don D'Minion has had some success in talking at least one provider into >> allowing SC submissions through outwards filtering. That would depend a >> lot on the specific implementation used. >> >> See http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2782 > > > From user at domain.invalid Wed Mar 25 19:49:46 2009 From: user at domain.invalid (Farelf) Date: Wed Mar 25 19:50:08 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Re: SpamCop reporting issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Erik Ch. Ohrnberger wrote: > OK, job done. > > I tweaked my macro so that it specifically uses my GMail account for sending > spam reports to spamcop, which doesn't block this type of spam reporting > email, so all is well and working again. > > Thanks for the pointers and info. It really helped me track this issue > down. > > Cheers, > Erik. > Thanks for the feedback Erik. Glad it worked. WOW-WideOpenWest added to the list at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=2782&view=findpost&p=18297 , vide http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=2782&view=findpost&p=70072 From kenbrody at spamcop.net Thu Mar 26 11:26:53 2009 From: kenbrody at spamcop.net (Kenneth Brody) Date: Thu Mar 26 11:30:08 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Re: SpamCop reporting issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Erik Ch. Ohrnberger wrote: [...] > I guess WOW has decided to spam check outbound email as well as inbound > email. Oh well. I don't think that I'll be able to convince them to > change their practices. I'm far from their ideal customer, as I have a > Linux mail server of my own dumping the outbound on their SMTP server to > deliver (Can't deliver it directly on my own, I keep triggering their zombie > spammer alert - but never mind that it's not one, their tools say it's one). [...] Of course you're a zombie spammer. Why else would you send e-mail with direct-to-SMTP, other than to get around your ISP's spam filters? :-) -- Kenneth Brody From nobody at spamcop.net Thu Mar 26 13:09:24 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (RW) Date: Thu Mar 26 13:10:08 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Re: Scheduled Maintenance Thursday March 26, 2009 - (SpamCop 4.5.0-084 Release) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RW wrote: > Let's cross our fingers this is finally going ahead. > > Scheduled server maintenance and software upgrades Thursday, March 26, > 2009, starting at 2:00pm PDT. During this time the SpamCop Reporting > Service website may not be available for a period of up to two hours in > duration. Emailed spam submissions will be accepted, but processing will > be delayed during the maintenance process. > > This will not affect the SpamCop/CESmail email service, newsgroups or > forums. > > Richard AFAIK everything is still a go and this process will be starting in a couple of hours. Visitors will see the SpamCop reporting website in "Maintenance Mode" through the process. Emailed spam submissions will still be accepted, but processing will be delayed. It will no doubt take a few hours to catch up with the backlog when things are brought back up. Richard From nobody at spamcop.net Thu Mar 26 19:29:11 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Ellen) Date: Thu Mar 26 19:30:08 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Re: Scheduled Maintenance Thursday March 26, 2009 - (SpamCop 4.5.0-084 Release) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RW wrote: > RW wrote: > Visitors will see the SpamCop reporting website in > "Maintenance Mode" through the process. > > Emailed spam submissions will still be accepted, but processing will be > delayed. It will no doubt take a few hours to catch up with the backlog > when things are brought back up. > > Richard The maintenance is running longer than expected. Thanks for your patience. Ellen SpamCop From nobody at spamcop.net Thu Mar 26 20:18:32 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (RW) Date: Thu Mar 26 20:20:07 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Re: Scheduled Maintenance Thursday March 26, 2009 - (SpamCop 4.5.0-084 Release) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ellen wrote: > RW wrote: >> RW wrote: >> Visitors will see the SpamCop reporting website in "Maintenance Mode" >> through the process. >> >> Emailed spam submissions will still be accepted, but processing will >> be delayed. It will no doubt take a few hours to catch up with the >> backlog when things are brought back up. >> >> Richard > > > > The maintenance is running longer than expected. Thanks for your patience. > > > Ellen > SpamCop We're told another 1/2 hour or so Richard From nobody at spamcop.net Thu Mar 26 21:55:42 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Steven Underwood) Date: Thu Mar 26 22:00:08 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Re: Scheduled Maintenance Thursday March 26, 2009 - (SpamCop 4.5.0-084 Release) References: Message-ID: "RW" wrote in message news:gqh60n$g71$1@news.spamcop.net... > > We're told another 1/2 hour or so > > Richard While I see that the reporting site appears to be up, I am getting the following error trying to reach the VER site from my logged in account: Cannot find login information. Not logged in? VER tends to be a lot quicker getting messages into the queue as opposed to forwarding from webmail, but I will revert back to that if necessary. From nobody at spamcop.net Thu Mar 26 22:48:08 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (RW) Date: Thu Mar 26 22:50:09 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Re: Scheduled Maintenance Thursday March 26, 2009 - (SpamCop 4.5.0-084 Release) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Steven Underwood wrote: > > > "RW" wrote in message > news:gqh60n$g71$1@news.spamcop.net... >> >> We're told another 1/2 hour or so >> >> Richard > > While I see that the reporting site appears to be up, I am getting the > following error trying to reach the VER site from my logged in account: > > Cannot find login information. Not logged in? > > VER tends to be a lot quicker getting messages into the queue as opposed > to forwarding from webmail, but I will revert back to that if necessary. I'm getting some 'failed to load spam header' error when parsing. Reloading once or twice gets the parse. I suspect the error your seeing is also the databases catching up with each other. I suspect the servers are overloaded with trying to catch up. I'm not going to ring any alarm bells just yet. Things look good in the crons, though one cron that normally takes a minute or so has been running for an hour. Only apps 4 and 7 are showing room to take on load, but not much. The other 10 must be churning away. Richard From me at privacy.net Fri Mar 27 17:43:31 2009 From: me at privacy.net (Michael R N Dolbear) Date: Fri Mar 27 17:45:08 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Re: Scheduled Maintenance Thursday March 26, 2009 - (SpamCop 4.5.0-084 Release) References: Message-ID: <01c9af1e$f71073a0$LocalHost@default> Steven Underwood wrote > While I see that the reporting site appears to be up, I am getting the > following error trying to reach the VER site from my logged in account: > > Cannot find login information. Not logged in? > > VER tends to be a lot quicker getting messages into the queue as opposed to > forwarding from webmail, but I will revert back to that if necessary. I'm still getting that at 1800 GMT , but only if I go to (from SC mail or bookmark) http://mailsc.spamcop.net/reportheld?action=heldlog (and I can look at my old reports so it does know I'm logged in) If I login at the "cannot find login ..." message I get sent to a different VER url http://www.spamcop.net/reportheld?action=heldlog Which works. What's going on ? -- Mike D From ecm2001.download at xxxx54545.rapidshare.com Fri Mar 27 23:35:23 2009 From: ecm2001.download at xxxx54545.rapidshare.com (ecm2001 rapidshare download torrent ) Date: Fri Mar 27 23:40:08 2009 Subject: [Scmail] ecm2001 crack torrent rapidshare download 53467477781408081126 Message-ID: We can crack or emulate any protection type: Dongle, Hardlock, Hasp, Serial, Password, Hasp4, Flexlm, Sentinel, Wibu, Eutron Smartkey, Hasphl, Proteq, All the Protections!! email = xshowsoft@gmail.com email = xshowsoft at gmail.com ecm2001 download ecm2001 rapidshare ecm2001 torrent ecm2001 crack ecm2001 v 5.3 ecm2001 v 5.4 ecm2001 v 5.5 ecm2001 v 6.0 ecm2001 v 6.1 ecm2001 v 6.2 ecm2001 v 6.3 ecm2001 v5.3 ecm2001 v5.4 ecm2001 v5.5 ecm2001 v6.0 ecm2001 v6.1 ecm2001 v6.2 ecm2001 v6.3 If you have some protected program, and want to crack it, we can help you! Ecm2001 v6.3 professional, all checksums enabled download email = xshowsoft@gmail.com email = xshowsoft at gmail.com g#SO,]_g*y1(,qgJJeZO From EOhrnberger at GMail.com Sun Mar 29 07:33:59 2009 From: EOhrnberger at GMail.com (Erik Ch. Ohrnberger) Date: Sun Mar 29 07:35:08 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Re: SpamCop reporting issues (Way Off Topic) References: Message-ID: Yea, starting to get rather frustrated with the artificially imposed limitations of all of these cable operators. I've not been investigating competitive alternatives, but I wonder how much a corporate type Internet connection could be? Anyone have any recent prices of what those run like? "Kenneth Brody" wrote in message news:gqg6ru$jeh$2@news.spamcop.net... > Erik Ch. Ohrnberger wrote: > [...] >> I guess WOW has decided to spam check outbound email as well as >> inbound >> email. Oh well. I don't think that I'll be able to convince them to >> change their practices. I'm far from their ideal customer, as I have a >> Linux mail server of my own dumping the outbound on their SMTP server to >> deliver (Can't deliver it directly on my own, I keep triggering their >> zombie >> spammer alert - but never mind that it's not one, their tools say it's >> one). > [...] > > Of course you're a zombie spammer. Why else would you send e-mail with > direct-to-SMTP, other than to get around your ISP's spam filters? :-) > > -- > Kenneth Brody From MikeE at ster.invalid Sun Mar 29 08:48:59 2009 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Sun Mar 29 08:50:08 2009 Subject: [Scmail] Re: SpamCop reporting issues (Way Off Topic) References: Message-ID: Erik Ch. Ohrnberger wrote: > Yea, starting to get rather frustrated with the artificially imposed > limitations of all of these cable operators. I've not been > investigating competitive alternatives, but I wonder how much a > corporate type Internet connection could be? > > Anyone have any recent prices of what those run like? I don't know how to interpret what question you are asking, so I'll just throw out some isolated observations and opinions of my own: - regarding such 'extras' or (free/vlaue added services) as email and newsservice; I don't think one should make any decisions about their connectivity provider based on the quality or presence of whether they do or don't offer news, or any kind of email or webmail or what its quality is^1 - regarding deciding between broadband connectivity of DSL vs cable modem; I believe that the one most important quality which should be 'guessed at' in advance and then judged only on the basis of proven performance, not promises, is the integrity/reliability of the service; is it going to be reliably established in a timely fashion; is it going to be reliably delivered in terms of bandwidth as expected; is it going to be maintained in a reliable fashion in terms of service, maintenance, and genuinely effective local support of a technically competent nature which has a method of being effectively communicated with^2 - there is not any way that any kind of decision about commercial vs residential pricing for connectivity would enter into any picture I have of making any connectivity decisions. ^1 Long long ago I changed the name of my cable modem provider based on my opinion of how well they were providing newsservice. The reality was that I didn't actually change the infrastructure of that/my connectivity, so no 'harm' was done. The true minor benefit of the name of the service provider change from roadrunner to earthlink was that I got a slightly different mailservice connectivity provider supplied which turned out to be a little better. Today I would never change my ISP based on mail or news, because I can get whatever kind of mail and news I want as a completely separate decision making process. Thus the only thing which is really important is the quality of the connectivity. ^2 In my area, there is no choice as to infrastructure for my connectivity. There is only one available cable infrastructure which is TimeWarner. One can name their provider as roadrunner or earthlink, but the cable modem and the connectivity stay the same, TW underneath. In my immediate area, there is no choice as to DSL because of the distance to the CO, which for whatever reason is great enough that DSL speed would not be as great as cable. In my immediate area, I do not have a problem with bandwidth hogs taking up available last mile cable bandwidth, so my bandwidth/speed is not adversely affected by such as P2P neighborhood hogs or other similar influences. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From iwantsex at 0.1269007nowathome.com Sun Mar 29 10:19:52 2009 From: iwantsex at 0.1269007nowathome.com (iwantsex@0.1269007nowathome.com) Date: Sun Mar 29 10:20:08 2009 Subject: [Scmail] 0.1803073 Want It? ... 0.6101516 Message-ID: 0.8517771 Want It? ... 0.1269007 0.1803073 Now Visit http://www.clicklinknow.com/dating/ 0.6101516 From iwantsex at 0.1602085nowathome.com Sun Mar 29 15:11:34 2009 From: iwantsex at 0.1602085nowathome.com (iwantsex@0.1602085nowathome.com) Date: Sun Mar 29 15:15:08 2009 Subject: [Scmail] 4.271382E-02 Now Look Here ... 0.6688672 Message-ID: 5.598623E-02 Now Look Here ... 0.1602085 4.271382E-02 Now Visit http://www.clicklinknow.com/dating/ 0.6688672 From iwantsex at 0.0525651nowathome.com Sun Mar 29 15:15:35 2009 From: iwantsex at 0.0525651nowathome.com (iwantsex@0.0525651nowathome.com) Date: Sun Mar 29 15:20:09 2009 Subject: [Scmail] 0.3969588 I Have An Interest ... 0.5866317 Message-ID: 0.4864545 I Have An Interest ... 0.0525651 0.3969588 Now Visit http://www.clicklinknow.com/dating/ 0.5866317 From iwantsex at 0.9553361nowathome.com Sun Mar 29 15:15:59 2009 From: iwantsex at 0.9553361nowathome.com (iwantsex@0.9553361nowathome.com) Date: Sun Mar 29 15:20:09 2009 Subject: [Scmail] 0.2997298 Take A Peek Inside 0.4894027 Message-ID: 0.3892255 Take A Peek Inside ... 0.9553361 0.2997298 Now Visit http://www.clicklinknow.com/dating/ 0.4894027 From iwantsex at 0.86584nowathome.com Sun Mar 29 15:55:34 2009 From: iwantsex at 0.86584nowathome.com (iwantsex@0.86584nowathome.com) Date: Sun Mar 29 16:00:08 2009 Subject: [Scmail] 0.286457 Now Look Here To See ... 8.351171E-02 Message-ID: 0.6923476 Now Look Here To See ... 0.86584 0.286457 Now Visit http://www.clicklinknow.com/dating/ 8.351171E-02 From iwantsex at 6.942081E-02nowathome.com Sun Mar 29 16:08:00 2009 From: iwantsex at 6.942081E-02nowathome.com (iwantsex@6.942081E-02nowathome.com) Date: Sun Mar 29 16:10:08 2009 Subject: [Scmail] 0.1228275 I Want To Look In Here ... 0.5526718 Message-ID: 0.7942973 I Want To Look In Here ... 6.942081E-02 0.1228275 Now Visit http://www.clicklinknow.com/dating/ 0.5526718