Re: No source IP address found, cannot proceed.

"Mike Easter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>

****
That clears up a lot of things (misc. posts that do not 'sound' as if they
are talking about the same spam - spam's the same but the underlying
database got changed - so the discussions don't track.)

Thanks for the clarification.

-- 
A SpamCop user and forum reader,
Not Admin
***

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