[SC-Help] Re: No source IP address found, cannot proceed.

[Mike Easter]

Anon_ wrote:
> "Mike Easter"

>>> Why did it parse correctly for me (now) and failed for the OP?
>>
>> The mailhost condition which was causing the parser to handle the
>> headers improperly was corrected.

> Are you saying that something that a third party did to their server
> made the SC parser complete the parsing of all the header lines?

I'm saying that the tracker points to a spam which is 'attached' to a
particular mailhost.  When called, the parser reparses the spam and uses
current information, which includes databases, whois, and mailhost
condition.

In the first parsing, something was whacky with the mailhost status, as
a server had apparently changed behavior from the time the OP configured
the mailhost.  Then the OP or some combination of the OP and SC admin
corrected the mailhost configuration.  Nothing changed about the spam of
course.

When the parser was called by the tracker to parse the item according to
the recipient OP's properly configured mailhost, the item parsed
satisfactorily.

> But
> when the OP originally tried the parser had failed.

Correct.

> If that is true then when a poster has complained about an SC parser
> failure and gives the tracking URL - and I then click on the tracking
> URL the parser COULD then do its job completely and satisfactorily.

Correct.  Sometimes it is actually necessary to copy some part of the
verbose output of the parser's results in addition to the tracker in
order to say what the parser said at the time -- usually that is
unnecessary.  Usually by providing a tracker which can access the
original spam, all of the necessary information can be conveyed.

Occasionally it is desirable to reparse an original spam with a
non-mailhosted account.  I keep a nonmailhosted account just for the
purpose of experimentally parsing spams whose trackers have been posted
and which tracker shows the result of a mailhosted recipient's parse.

> If this is true then there is no way for the ng reader to see what
> the OP was talking about (the problem has evaporated.)

The original spam will always be present.  Its age may have changed to
too old.  Databases may have changed their results of the parse.  Very
very rarely the configuration of a mailhost will have changed.  99+% of
the time, the tracker 'alone' without copying of any verbose information
from the parse is quite sufficient.  Those of 'us' tinu who can
sometimes predict the future <joke> can sometimes anticipate when the
result of a parse is going to change and 'we' might copy a little bit of
the verbose so that we can show what it said at the time.

But very rarely.

-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin