[SpamCop-List] Re: No data / Too much data

[no1]

just tried again - went through just fine.

sorry for posting the spam on the discussion group, but as you sad, there was
no way for me to get a tracker...

Thanks again


"Mike Easter" <MikeE at ster.invalid> wrote in message news:d8012s$o55$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> no1 wrote:
>> sorry forgot to attach the spam
>
> Errm.  That's actually not the ideal way to share/show the problem.
>
> Here's what I get when I parse that item:
>
> http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z771710584z487368b1360f818b9efd7c6be8a17816z
>
> That link is a tracker to SC's storage of the spam and it will freshly
> reparse the item whenever it is accessed.
>
> Before cancelling, the parse declined to resolve the spamvertised urls
> and offered to report the source:
>
> Resolving link obfuscation
> http://pfb.bra1ns.com/p2.asp
> http://whrl.vo1ces.net/p2.asp
> http://pcxb.vo1ces.net/p2.asp
>
> Report Spam to:
> Re: 82.32.105.39 (Administrator of network where email originates)
>   To: abuse at blueyonder.co.uk (Notes)
>
>
>>> Any idea what's wrong?
>
> A hiccup?
>
> The tracker is the most efficient way to post a spam;  posting spam
> pasted into the body of the discussion groups or attached has
> traditionally been a no-no.  That tradition has partly been based on the
> fact that some people access the discussion groups by email -- but that
> probably doesn't happen very much at all anymore.  The tracker is best,
> but if you can't get enough parse to get a tracker, you have to put the
> item somewhere somehow.
>
> Personally I don't care whether it goes into .spam or not.  Personally I
> don't care if it is an attachment or not, in fact I would rather see
> there be an attachment than a bent spam pasted into a message body.
>
>
>
> -- 
> Mike Easter
> kibitzer, not SC admin
>