Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Outlook 2002 "conflict" with Spamx
hsc message board > Main > hsc Software Support
Codger
Jeff,
I know this isn't your responsibility, but it's driving me nuts. I can't get Microsoft's self-help system to cough up a cause or a solution.. I hope you can help because it could cause me to stop using SpamX.
It seems that a relatively recent Outlook 2002 security update causes Outllook to seek permission each time SpamX tries to generate a report and again (!) before sending it. When you combine this with some SpamX behavior it leads to sputtering, impotent rage.
The details:

QUOTE
What Outlook Does:

I.  Open Outlook 2002
II.  Open SpamX (1.2.6).
III.  Start processing.  Outlook Dialogue pops up.
     A.  "A program is trying to access email addresses in Outlook."  Contains: Check box to allow, drop down list to specify 1-10 minutes, Yes-No-Cancel buttons.
     B.  SpamX begins to process the message.
     C.  When finished, another popup shows progress bar while messages are generated.
          i.  Meanwhile the yes button is greyed out until all messages have been generated.
IV.  Start over for the next message.

Now add SpamX behavior:

I.   In batch mode, messages are deleted as soon as the complaint messages have been sent for each Spam message.
     A. This means that if I see inappropriate complaint recipients, I must select “No” when Oulook asks if I want to send the message.
         i. The Spam is deleted and I can't process it manually, so the message goes unreported.
     B. Or there is a mixture of appropriate and inappropriate recipients.
         i. Then the appropriate recipients don't get a report either.
         ii. Or I send the report and someone like IANA gets a spam report they shouldn't get.
II.  Despite great recent improvements, SpamXii still gets a fairly high proportion of wrong complaint recipients.
     A.  Today for example, I had more than 70 spams to process.
         i.  At least one-in-five had IANA as the only recipient.
         ii.  Several others had IANA addresses followed by some others.
     B.  None of those in the first category was reported and several of those in the second were also unreported.
     C.  There is another type of problem.
         i.  I've noticed that spams that generate a large number of recipients tend to have a lot of undeliverable addresses.
         ii.  I've accumulated quite a list of these and for most, I have looked up the correct abuse address using Spam.net.
         iii.  SpamX has no simple way of incorporating these into the “Do not send” list.
         iv.  It would be even better if SpamX had its own conversion table so that when a known undeliverable address was generated, it could be translated to the correct one(s).  I would be happy to send you my list, if you think you could use it.


I'm sorry for dumping this all at once, but all this has all be
Jeff Hendrickson
Hi Codger,

Thanks for taking the time to report these complaints.

Let's take a look at them one at a time.

Regarding the accursed Outlook security nag, try this, http://www.express-soft.com/mailmate/clickyes.html, it's a free download, and should address this problem.

Regarding the IANA problem. If you put the entry IANA.ORG in your 'do not send', and any other entries you want SpamX to ignore (I also use .MIL), it should help you with this problem, and give you better lookup results.

I can put in a feature that allows you to select whether or not to delete the item after processing, or maybe move the processed items to the deleted items folder.

I like the idea of using an external resource for the best abuse address, thanks for the offer of your list, but I can look these up per domain.

If you can give me a couple of days, I should be able to cobble something together that takes care of these items.

Thanks again for taking the time to report them...

Regs,
-Jeff
Codger
Hi Jeff,

First, thanks for directing me to ClickYes, it's a terrific convenience!
Second, regarding IANA, it was one of the first things in my 'do not send' list, but it is still the first item to appear in the recipients list as many messages are processed.
Third, the "Configure" dialogue not not seem to add new items to the 'do not send' list. As I add new items using the dialogue, they appear in the appropriate space when I click "Add", then "OK" and they remain there as long as SpamX is open. When I close SpamX and re-open it later, the added items have vanished and they don't seem to be in the list when I open it with Notepad.
Fourth, there does seem to be a lower percentage of inappropriate recipients, but I still do 60-70% of processing manually. That's about how many get to the real sender's IP and stop processing with the message that that IP is in CBL. I end up having to look them up myself using ARIN, RIPE and other websites. (As you know, Windows 2000 has no WHOIS utility.)
Fifth, some messages generate a large number of obscure-looking e-mail addresses. I usually end up looking up their domains using ARIN, RIPE and the others. I then have to add most of them to the 'do not send' list (q.v. under item "Third" above) after I've looked up the correct abuse address on Abuse.net. Then I put them all in my 'conversion' file, followed by the correct reporting address.
All-in-all, this is way too much work for what I thought would be a mostly automated process with SpamX.

Is anyone else having similar problems? Bazz came up with some that I found earlier (but he reported sooner), but lately I don't see many like the above.

QUOTE
I can put in a feature that allows you to select whether or not to delete the item after processing, or maybe move the processed items to the deleted items folder.


I like the option to move them, especially if I'm not in Batch mode and in my Inbox.

Thanks again,
Jeff Hendrickson
Thanks for the feedback Codger...

There's something funny going on with your installation. The 'do not send' list is very important. You see, if SpamX has an answer (i.e. a bogus abuse@iana.org) then it will not go back and take a second look at this email message.

Could you please try starting SpamX from the folder where it resides, double check it's version 1.2.6, and then try adding items to the 'do not send' list, and make sure they are recorded. Unless this is working, nothing else will work correctly.

With this list:

IANA.ORG
ARIN.NET
VALUEWEB.NET
CIPS_IP-REGISTRATION
.GOV
ARIN.POC
.MIL
AFFINITY.COM

in my 'do not send' list, I'm getting OVER a 95% match with Visual Route, SpamCop, and checking them by hand.

I'll look for your response.... ph34r.gif
Codger
Jeff,
I reinstalled SpamXii and, so far at least, the items I added using "Configure" are still there after closing and re-opening SpamX. I'm about to try to process a few more spams. --Here's hoping... cool.gif.

It's also showing v 1.2.6 in the Title bar. Until now, it was 1.2.5 even though selecting Properties|Version showed 1.2.0.6.
Jeff Hendrickson
Amen, version 1.2.7 is on the Web site, and ready for testing.

I'm hoping it's further progress to address some of your concerns...
Codger
Jeff, I found the problem. Somehow (I haven't a clue how) my Quick Launch shortcut pointed to an old version of the SpamX exe in Recovery Bin! I've corrected that. All should be well now. tongue.gif
Jeff Hendrickson
That's great! I'm sure not finding the 'do not send' items had a major negative impact on your processing.

Do you feel brave enough to help test v1.2.7??
Tifferg
QUOTE (Jeff Hendrickson @ May 10 2004, 10:37 PM)
> http://www.express-soft.com/mailmate/clickyes.html, it's a free download, and should address this problem.


> I can put in a feature that allows you to select whether or not to delete the item after processing, or maybe move the processed items to the deleted items folder.

Great Jeff, that auto-Yes is just what I've been dreaming of while I've been clicking 3 requesters per post %-)

Currently I sort all Spam report feedback to a Spam reports folder and manually move the messages from Deleted to that folder so that I have them for reference if needed later - a few times a week, Spamcop takes care of 99.9% of my 600+ a day spams, but a few get through still, hence the 2nd line of defence: SpamX

It would be handy if the reported messages could be archived to a user selected folder instead of instant deletion as at present. Don't you hate people building your To Do list? ;-)
Jeff Hendrickson
Don't mind 'tall my friend. wink.gif

It's the feedback that I get on this board, and via email that keeps the product evolving to serve the users.

I think I am going to do something about the 'delete', and folder use. Maybe even have a predefined folder like before. Though I think its kind of neat to be able to process an individual email from any folder I like...
Codger
QUOTE
I think I am going to do something about the 'delete', and folder use.

Great! That would help. I especially would like the messages saved, perhaps even as 'Sent Items'. It is nice to process from anywhere, but better to have a choice to keep processed items for analysis or follow-up if a provider should want it to take action on an abuser. I used to move all processed items to their own folder and save them once a month using Outlook's Save As .txt option. That puts all selected messages into a single text file for easy storage and serchability.
Keep up the good work!
If we're talking about a wish list ...
You had mentioned something about using outside sources to find the best reporting addresses. That would address my biggest headache. I have many addresses in my 'donontsend' list that have valid alternates but no way to get SpamX to use them. If I want to report them I have to process and look them up by hand.
Tifferg
QUOTE (Jeff Hendrickson @ May 28 2004, 11:56 PM)
I think I am going to do something about the 'delete', and folder use.  Maybe even have a predefined folder like before.  Though I think its kind of neat to be able to process an individual email from any folder I like...



The facility to process from any folder is good, though I only run the Batch mode on the Junk Mail folder in Outlook, anything else, I can use

SmartWhois address look up program to get the abuse mail address and send it in directly. I got a query from an ISP today asking for the original message and it's been zapped through SpamX reporting ohmy.gif I'm not complaining exactly ... okay I am ;-)

Perhaps if the flexible approach is just TFD ;-) maybe a standard "Reports and Spam Archive" folder that will hold the sent report alongside the original message?. Would Outlook's conversation threading take care of keeping them together?

Regards,

Chris cool.gif
full of ideas ... I don't have to do the hard work laugh.gif
Jeff Hendrickson
Love the feedback....

Probably should have some kind of option to delete or store processed messages.

You should have a copy of the complaint in your 'Sent Items' folder. I'll work on some type of option for the archive of processed messages....

Thanks! biggrin.gif
Tifferg
QUOTE (Jeff Hendrickson @ May 30 2004, 01:06 AM)
You should have a copy of the complaint in your 'Sent Items' folder.

Yes, but tracking down which report relates to the comment from the ISP ... wink.gif they don't usually use threading info that I can see so I end up having to manually search for the date/time of the report message in Sent to see which message it refers to ... then to dig out that original again ... if it still exists ;-)

<thinks> .... Jeff's bored, let's give him something else to do ... maybe ;-) </enough thinking for one day!>

How about giving each Spam Report a serial number local to the user in the report subject line eg: Spam Report #00043? There is a remote possibility that the autoresponders and humans at the other end may reply with "Re: Spam Report #00043" ... or shall I just buy a lottery ticket, more chance of success! <grin> For newbies and experts alike, making everything as simple as possible at the front end has to be a benefit.

As an aside, is there a simple way to ensure that forwarded e-mail contains the full headers of the original message, when reporting an e-mail manually, other than to open it, view message options and copy the Internet headers info in full from there?

Regards,

Chris
Codger
Tifferg,
I just process manually with SpamX then click "Copy Complaint" and paste it into a new message. The processed report has all the needed information.
Codger
Jeff,
I'm using 1.2.7. So far, all is going smoothly. I now have enough confidence to using batch processing regularly. Along with ClickYes, this makes it all much easier.
Jeff Hendrickson
This is great!

Thanks for the help with the testing tongue.gif
William
Codger,

Manual processing would be cumbersome if you have a large amount of spam. I have hundreds, and even batching ties up my computer for as much as an hour.

Jeff,

One thing that would be handy is the ability to process the spam outside of outlook. outlook is such a piece of work. One thing you can do, though, is pull messages out of outlook and put them in a folder on your desktop (or wherever). If we could process from that directory on the disk, then perhaps move the processed emails to some other folder (from a pending to a processed folder) that would be handy, and it would avoid interacting with outlook at all. It would also clear out your outlook database, and just keep the spam you want to hang on to on your hard disk.

Final note: I'm using ClickYes, which works nicely, but Outlook XP has a time delay in the silly message about someone trying to use your email. ClickYes or the human at the PC must wait until the little blue bar fills up before the pop-up can be dispelled. This adds a serious amount of time to the batching, even with ClickYes. Does anyone know if the current version of Outlook has a more configurable security environment?
Codger
Willliam,
In no way am I advocating the use of individual processing alone. I also use batch processing for large numbers of mesages. It's just that I had the opportunity today and used it to try to help Jeff refine his lookup routines.
Tifferg
QUOTE (Codger @ May 30 2004, 04:35 PM)
I just process manually with SpamX then click "Copy Complaint" and paste it into a new message.  The processed report has all the needed information.

Waaaay too simple for me Codger <grin> Thanks a lot for pointing out the obvious cool.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2012 Invision Power Services, Inc.