No longer getting back spam reporting link emails

Post by Michael Fullerton
I am no longer getting back spam reporting link emails. I recently did
some changes to my email accounts and there might have been a few
bounces but I can login to SC and there are no alerts. My ISPs do not
block any email.

Try putting your own address or alternate address of yours as an
additional To or CC to the submit and see if you get that.

--
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin

Michael Fullerton

2006-03-24 17:10:41 UTC

Try putting your own address or alternate address of yours as an
additional To or CC to the submit and see if you get that.

I just tried it and I got the CC email. The link also came back so I
guess complaining here works. (:

___
VirusCop - Free Windows virus reporting utility
http://www.viruscop.org/

Michael Fullerton

2006-03-26 15:11:14 UTC

Try putting your own address or alternate address of yours as an
additional To or CC to the submit and see if you get that.

I just tried it and I got the CC email. The link also came back so I

There is still a problem. I sent in two reports early this morning and
nothing has arrived yet. I have had this problem sporadically for the
last month or so. It has gotten really bad this last several days.

___
VirusCop - Free Windows virus reporting utility
http://www.viruscop.org/

Mike Easter

2006-03-26 15:30:29 UTC

Michael Fullerton

"Mike Easter"

Post by Michael Fullerton
I am no longer getting back spam reporting link emails. I recently
did some changes to my email accounts and there might have been a
few bounces but I can login to SC and there are no alerts. My ISPs
do not block any email.

Try putting your own address or alternate address of yours as an
additional To or CC to the submit and see if you get that.

I just tried it and I got the CC email. The link also came back so I

You may have more than one pattern of trouble. Troubleshooting
inconsistent problems requires that the entire troubleshooting operation
be performed each time, or during a problem and also not a problem.

You have to keep checking the SC login and make sure there are no
alerts. You have to keep CCing an address you control.

Trying a 'trick' and not having the problem show itself during the
troubleshooting trick doesn't actually contribute to understanding the
solution or making a diagnosis.

--
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin

Michael Fullerton

2006-03-30 03:06:22 UTC

Michael Fullerton

"Mike Easter"

Post by Michael Fullerton
I am no longer getting back spam reporting link emails. I recently
did some changes to my email accounts and there might have been a
few bounces but I can login to SC and there are no alerts. My ISPs
do not block any email.

Try putting your own address or alternate address of yours as an
additional To or CC to the submit and see if you get that.

I just tried it and I got the CC email. The link also came back so I

I switched to a different SMTP server instead of Shaw and all reports
are now coming back. Does that mean SC is blocking Shaw?

BTW regarding the backwards smiley, I just do that to be different and
to annoy those that cannot stand those who are.

___
VirusCop - Free Windows virus reporting utility
http://www.viruscop.org/

Mike Easter

2006-03-30 04:17:59 UTC

Post by Michael Fullerton
I am no longer getting back spam reporting link emails.

I switched to a different SMTP server instead of Shaw and all reports
are now coming back. Does that mean SC is blocking Shaw?

No. More likely that shaw was involved in interfering with the
circle -- where the circle is that you email a bunch of spam attachments
via your shaw provider's server and then SC mails you back the links via
your shaw provider. The circle passes thru' shaw twice. If there
wasn't a bounce caused SC suspension of the reporting account, the most
likely problem is related to provider interference with one of the two
way traffics.

Post by Michael Fullerton
BTW regarding the backwards smiley, I just do that to be different and
to annoy those that cannot stand those who are.

You get to do whatever you want to do -- I was just telling you about
the traditional models in case you weren't aware.

--
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin

Michael Fullerton

2006-03-30 12:55:34 UTC

Post by Michael Fullerton
I am no longer getting back spam reporting link emails.

I switched to a different SMTP server instead of Shaw and all reports
are now coming back. Does that mean SC is blocking Shaw?

Shaw seems to be saying that SC is blocking because there are no
errors on sending so that means the email was sent out. SC does not
receive them. If SC did receive them there would be an indication that
there are unreported links but there isn't. The Shaw tech I talked to
said one of the Shaw servers is on SORBS but shawmail.cg.shawcable.net
seems to be pretty clean.

___
VirusCop - Free Windows virus reporting utility
http://www.viruscop.org/

Don Wannit

2006-03-30 14:10:23 UTC

Post by Michael Fullerton
I am no longer getting back spam reporting link emails.

I switched to a different SMTP server instead of Shaw and all reports
are now coming back. Does that mean SC is blocking Shaw?

Almost certainly SpamCop does not block or refuse incoming
spam report emails sent to a reporting address, even if the
sending IP is listed on a blocklist. Almost certainly the
problem here is that the outgoing email is silently dropped
by Shaw, perhaps because it contains detectable spam.

--
Don Wannit <edb2000 -at- spamcop.net>
A paid SpamCop user since 1999

JohnL

2006-03-30 14:43:42 UTC

Post by Michael Fullerton
The Shaw tech I talked to
said one of the Shaw servers is on SORBS but shawmail.cg.shawcable.net
seems to be pretty clean.

Uh, you might want to check...
http://spews.org/ask.cgi?x=24.71.223.43

Or directly... http://spews.org/html/S3163.html
Shaw has just about all their I.P.'s listed.

Mike Easter

2006-03-31 12:19:18 UTC

"Mike Easter"

Post by Michael Fullerton
I am no longer getting back spam reporting link emails.

I switched to a different SMTP server instead of Shaw and all
reports are now coming back. Does that mean SC is blocking Shaw?

No. More likely that shaw was involved in interfering with the
circle -

Shaw seems to be saying that SC is blocking because there are no
errors on sending so that means the email was sent out.

I disagree with Shaw saying SC blocks them.

Remember the troubleshooting you were supposed to do from the
conversation earlier and that when you get differing results that you
are supposed to perform the troubleshooting over again under the changed
conditions.

What happens when you copy the SC submits to yourself at an alternate
address? Remember that step?

--
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin

caballo loco

2006-04-20 22:30:37 UTC

Who is Shaw????

BTW I have been having same problem for the last month or so ( I mean having
beenn getting spam reporting link).

Michael Fullerton

"Mike Easter"

Post by Michael Fullerton
I am no longer getting back spam reporting link emails. I recently
did some changes to my email accounts and there might have been a
few bounces but I can login to SC and there are no alerts. My ISPs
do not block any email.

Try putting your own address or alternate address of yours as an
additional To or CC to the submit and see if you get that.

I just tried it and I got the CC email. The link also came back so I

I switched to a different SMTP server instead of Shaw and all reports
are now coming back. Does that mean SC is blocking Shaw?
BTW regarding the backwards smiley, I just do that to be different and
to annoy those that cannot stand those who are.
___
VirusCop - Free Windows virus reporting utility
http://www.viruscop.org/

Mike Easter

2006-04-21 00:27:07 UTC

Post by caballo loco
Who is Shaw????
BTW I have been having same problem for the last month or so ( I mean
having beenn getting spam reporting link).

Your remarks lack context and therefore meaning.

In order to carry on a conversation in which you are referring to
something you saw in a prior post, you should put your remark or
question into context with the remark which you have only in /you/r
mind, not the mind of the reader, that you are thinking about when you
start typing.

That is, the first thing you do when you hit 'Reply' is to eliminate all
of the words and lines from that previous post which you aren't replying
to -- that way your reply or question or remark has context and meaning,
instead of not having context or meaning.

Then, the next thing you do after you have trimmed away everything which
you aren't talking about, so that the only thing/s which is/are left are
the things you /are/ talking about, is to put your question, such as
'Who is Shaw' right under some currently unknown Shaw remark to which
you refer. After leaving an empty line between the previous post and
your question which comes after the earlier remark.

Then, if you need to leave some other words previously posted about
'same problem' also not in context or meaning - you put your 'same
problem' remark right under the part which is talking about whatever
problem you are having the same of so that it has some meaning to
someone reading here besides you.

When you stick your remarks up there in the top of nowhere while pushing
a bunch of space occupying junk down below your words as if your words
were not only the most important, but also everyone here knows exactly
what you have in your mind when you start typing -- then your words here
are actually not important at all, because they don't mean anything to
anyone but you.

Here is an article for new news users about trimming, contextualizing,
and attributing. None of which you did.

http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/nquote.html
news.newusers.questions - Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings

--
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin

Mike Easter

2006-04-21 00:41:43 UTC

re: trimming, contextualizing, and attributing, .like this
hand-reformatting of your post to lend clarity to the old conversation.

"Michael Fullerton"

Post by Michael Fullerton
I am no longer getting back spam reporting link emails.

BTW I have been having same problem for the last month or so ( I mean
having beenn getting spam reporting link).

Try putting your own address or alternate address of yours as an
additional To or CC to the submit and see if you get that, as mentioned
earlier when we were conversing in this old thread almost a month ago.

Post by Michael Fullerton
I switched to a different SMTP server instead of Shaw and all reports
are now coming back. Does that mean SC is blocking Shaw?

Who is Shaw????

Shaw Communications of Calgary Alberta Canada.

68.144.145.20 = a shawcable.net user IP
Shaw High-Speed Internet

--
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin

Mike Easter

2006-03-26 15:48:17 UTC

A word on smileys, since you make yours like a friend of mine who is a
.nz kiwi -- which is 'upside down' or 'left handed' as well as
'abbreviated'

The most popular smiley is made with the eyes on the left, a nose, and
then the smile :-)

I most often use a winking smiley ;-)

The ever-popular and lovely wife, mother, radiohost and computer
columnist Kim Komando has been known to use the abbreviated smiley,
which is missing a nose, except Kim made hers in the normal right-handed
fashion. :)

I searched thru' Kim's website and newsletter archives to see if I could
find an example of the 'short' noseless smiley, but I couldn't. She has
written articles and made giant lists of different emoticons in which
she displays the 'correct' or classic smiley :-) so perhaps the copy of
the KK newsletter which a friend of mine sent me with the little
noseless smiley was an error or something.

So, in summary, I would encourage a right handed classic smiley -- a
left handed one causes the parenthesis to look like a frown or unsmiley,
and then the emoticon 'reader' has to re-orient themselves about the
smile vs frown based on the eyes which are missing a nose. Overall, the
confusion interferes with the instant 'impact' of an emoticon. An
emoticon is supposed to convey an 'immediate' message in a picture, not
a sense of confused interpretation of a 'mixed message'.

--
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin

Mike Easter

2006-03-26 16:02:06 UTC