[SC-Help] Re: Understanding SC's Reports

[antioch]

Hello Mike
And thank you for the response - you not understanding my explanations will 
happen, until the 'geek/lingo' speak is more familiar.
The spam I am getting is, I am told, in .gif format and so message rules do 
not apply, although there is a very long workaround I believe.
When I have received the email reply to a spam report, what am I looking 
for, where do I find it, what do I do with the info contained within this 
report, what actions do I do or SC do for me.
Of the first 8 sent, some have extra bits added to it, like

Quoting: Reports re this spam have already been sent to....
If reported today, would be sent to....
Abuse at .......
Re144 ... ... ...
spamcop at imaphost

Sorry this email is too old etc etc but goes on and gives more info plus 'If 
reported....then at bottom Re 144 ... ... 3rd party interest in email 
report.
Another, towards the bottom asks if this email IS Spam with a name and email 
address.
Then I have three choices Send Spam - Report Now - Preview Report and Cancel
Underneath is a warning box - avoid checking any boxes left empty...false 
reports etc
Quotes End

I have interspliced/clipped my responses and yours just to pick out the 
salient points.  Hope it works ;-)
Hope you don't mind - and as a result, I have top-posted. :-(

"Mike Easter" <MikeE at ster.invalid> wrote in message 
news:e3q8q5$d81$1 at news.spamcop.net...

> That is a very useful activity.

Not according to 'Her indoors'

> I also 'recommend' using the webparser first for most people.  To me it is 
> simpler and cleaner to 'troubleshoot'.  The person needs to know how to 
> access the raw spam with complete headers with their mailuser agent, and 
> then they paste it into the webparser, and then they immediately see the 
> result of the parse.

I will do as you suggest with the next 8 to 10 waiting in my 'Kill Folder'. 
I will need to read-up on that.

>> Reports started to fly back as fast as I could send.
>> I also had a try at searching those IP numbers.
> I'm losing you.  I don't know what you mean.

As I was doing attachments to each email to send to SC, I started to get the 
email replies with the links like you put below as an example. And I was 
also doing searches re the IP numbers - I do these from time to time on 
other search engines, as it is a neat practice to have.

> Let's do something different.
> Let's talk about a spam by your posting its tracking URL.  That is, you 
> submit a spam to the parser;  I recommend the webparser, but you can also 
> use email if it is working for you.  The tracker and its environment looks 
> like:
>
> Here is your TRACKING URL - it may be saved for future reference:
> http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z939018156zce3ff9ab3b5765265194cea1472a5ccez
> at the top of the webparse before reporting or cancelling, which you would 
> copy for pasting here, or in the email that SC sends you in this 
> environment:

> May be saved for future reference:
> http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z939018156zce3ff9ab3b5765265194cea1472a5ccez

Both the above are the same? - its the info contained in them I don't 
understand. That is what I was asking

>> It's probably there somewhere.  If anybody knows then a prod in the right 
>> direction would be appreciated.
> I'm not sure what you are trying to find out.
> When you submit a spam to the webparser, it can give you its verbose 
> output if you configure for that in the preferences.  That verbose output 
> tells you a lot about what is the parser's logic in its processes.  If you 
> think the faq was difficult to understand and navigate, you'll find the 
> parser verbose particularl confusing.
But it too is worth getting oriented with.

Configure - I don't remember reading about that - I cant believe I missed 
something!!!! So you can get a condensed reply of info if you want??

> -- 
> Mike Easter
> kibitzer, not SC admin

Thank you again for the help.  I will leave it there for the moment.
Better to take things in stages.  I will have a go at the web parse.
Rgds
Antioch
'You cant educate pork' - The bagpipes seem a better alternative.