 [Resolved] Reporting defaults have changed |
Other words, data, places --> SpamCop Pages
FAQs & Words
Newsgroups
WebMail
News-Recent Stuff
Poll on menu
This is a User to User Support Forum
The primary mode of support here is peer-to-peer, meaning users helping other users. (please remember this at all times!)
Another try:
This forum is composed of people who have used spamcop and those who are learning about anti-spam efforts.
  |
| Nisse |
 Oct 31 2005, 08:17 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Member  Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 20-June 05 Member No.: 4206  |
Why are all the user-defined recipients now checked by default? They used to be unchecked.
|
   |
 
|
| StevenUnderwood |
Oct 31 2005, 08:41 PM
Post
#2
|
|
What Life?  Group: Membersph Posts: 5141 Joined: 20-January 04 From: Whitinsville, MA USA Member No.: 12 |
QUOTE(Nisse @ Oct 31 2005, 08:17 PM) Why are all the user-defined recipients now checked by default? They used to be unchecked.  Check the setting: Log into http://www.spamcop.net/ Preferences tab, Report Handling Options, 3rd party report default, Send by default? Have not heard of any recent change in this, other than perhaps your default changed somehow (glitch)? -------------------- Steven P. Underwood, DNRC
Whitinsville, MA underwood+forum[at]spamcop.net -No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.- |
|
|
|
| Jeff G. |
Oct 31 2005, 08:57 PM
Post
#3
|
|
T-shirt wearing out Group: Membersph Posts: 3730 Joined: 2-July 04 From: Northeast New Jersey (New York Metro Area), USA ... Please read my sig. :) Member No.: 2041 |
The same thing just happened to me. My "3rd party report default" was still set to "Do not send by default". I set it to "Send by default", saved my Preferences, found the situation the same, set it back to "Do not send by default", and the checkboxes were still checked. Sending a flare up...
-------------------- Best Regards, Jeff G. (full signature)
|
|
|
|
| Jeff G. |
Oct 31 2005, 09:29 PM
Post
#4
|
|
T-shirt wearing out Group: Membersph Posts: 3730 Joined: 2-July 04 From: Northeast New Jersey (New York Metro Area), USA ... Please read my sig. :) Member No.: 2041 |
To be clear:
Every potential Reportee under the "Re: Forwarded Spam (User defined recipient)" heading is now checked by default, despite any setting of "3rd party report default" to the contrary. On the other hand, "(Third party interested in email source)" (in most cases, "Cyveillance spam collection") DOES respect that setting. I renew my call for a User Defined Recipient Report Default section in User Defined Recipient Report Default capability. I have emailed SpamCop Deputies and SpamCop Admin. -------------------- Best Regards, Jeff G. (full signature)
|
|
|
|
| Richard W |
Oct 31 2005, 10:13 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Member  Group: SpamCop Staff Posts: 49 Joined: 20-January 04 From: Canada Member No.: 11 |
QUOTE(Jeff G. @ Oct 31 2005, 07:57 PM) The same thing just happened to me. My "3rd party report default" was still set to "Do not send by default". I set it to "Send by default", saved my Preferences, found the situation the same, set it back to "Do not send by default", and the checkboxes were still checked. Sending a flare up... There seems to be two topics under discussion here. The original question was "user defined recipients", the second is referring to third party checkbox/settings. I just changed my preferences to third party off by default and the box is unchecked when I parse spam. Changing the preference back to default on, the box is checked. The third party report preference setting seems to be working as designed. I added a user defined address into my preferences and the box is in fact checked by default, which IIRC is opposite of what used to be done. Changes to the user-defined report handling went live today after about a week of testing on the beta system. Obviously the changes (which I think Don posted about earlier) did change the default behaviour. I'll put through a bug report on that. Richard |
|
|
|
| Jeff G. |
Oct 31 2005, 10:47 PM
Post
#6
|
|
T-shirt wearing out Group: Membersph Posts: 3730 Joined: 2-July 04 From: Northeast New Jersey (New York Metro Area), USA ... Please read my sig. :) Member No.: 2041 |
Thanks, Richard!
-------------------- Best Regards, Jeff G. (full signature)
|
|
|
|
| mrmaxx |
 Nov 2 2005, 08:53 AM
Post
#7
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Memberp Posts: 407 Joined: 13-February 04 From: Dalton, GA Member No.: 369 |
Any update on this situation, as in when it'll be resolved??? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
| bobbear |
Nov 2 2005, 02:59 PM
Post
#8
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Membera Posts: 193 Joined: 23-January 04 Member No.: 36 |
I like the new preferences options and defaults. AFAICS the 'Personal copies of outgoing reports' options is now split off from the '3rd party report default' and the system is much more flexible with a new 'Public standard report recipients'. All I know is that I now no longer have to tick every report to get my personal copy of each report while leaving the cyveillance copy option unchecked so it saves me time....thank you....
-------------------- Fraudsters Log.. http://www.bobbear.net/
|
|
|
|
| Jeff G. |
Nov 2 2005, 03:43 PM
Post
#9
|
|
T-shirt wearing out Group: Membersph Posts: 3730 Joined: 2-July 04 From: Northeast New Jersey (New York Metro Area), USA ... Please read my sig. :) Member No.: 2041 |
This behavior is considered to be a bug by at least two Deputies, and has been reported as such.
-------------------- Best Regards, Jeff G. (full signature)
|
|
|
|
| turetzsr |
Nov 2 2005, 04:07 PM
Post
#10
|
|
T-shirt wearing out Group: Membersph Posts: 3575 Joined: 26-January 04 From: Michigan USA Member No.: 59 |
QUOTE(bobbear @ Nov 2 2005, 02:59 PM) I like the new preferences options and defaults. AFAICS the 'Personal copies of outgoing reports' options is now split off from the '3rd party report default' and the system is much more flexible with a new 'Public standard report recipients'. All I know is that I now no longer have to tick every report to get my personal copy of each report while leaving the cyveillance copy option unchecked so it saves me time....thank you.... QUOTE(Jeff G. @ Nov 2 2005, 03:43 PM) This behavior is considered to be a bug by at least two Deputies, and has been reported as such. ...But you could request a New Feature for a user preference which works for user-specified recipients in the same manner as does "Report Handling Option" "3rd party report default" for third party report recipients.-------------------- ..Regards,
...Steve T ...A Happy SpamCop.net user (not an employee) ...Please avoid replying via e-mail, as it is not secure |
|
|
|
| Jeff G. |
Nov 2 2005, 04:13 PM
Post
#11
|
|
T-shirt wearing out Group: Membersph Posts: 3730 Joined: 2-July 04 From: Northeast New Jersey (New York Metro Area), USA ... Please read my sig. :) Member No.: 2041 |
QUOTE(turetzsr @ Nov 2 2005, 04:07 PM) ...But you could request a New Feature for a user preference which works for user-specified recipients in the same manner as does "Report Handling Option" "3rd party report default" for third party report recipients. Been there, done that, didn't even get a lousy t-shirt. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)Ref: User Defined Recipient Report Default capability -------------------- Best Regards, Jeff G. (full signature)
|
|
|
|
| DCSmooth |
Nov 3 2005, 09:58 AM
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 12-February 04 Member No.: 357 |
I understand this bug already has been reported and the topic has been pinned. However, since someone above has expressed a preference for keeping the default as all checked, I just wanted to point out a very important argument for restoring the default to all unchecked.
This may already be obvious, but I think needs to be stated in this thread: The original default of all user-defined boxes being unchecked will result in fewer SpamCop reports going to an inappropriate 3rd Party address. For example, my user-defined report recipients include not only the spam[at]uce.gov (where I send all spam), but also recipients who are only interested in specific types of spam such as webcomplaints[at]ora.fda.gov for prescription-related e-mails and spoof[at]ebay.com for Ebay Phishes. I imagine many user's lists also include addresses for specific types of spam. If a hurried SpamCop user reporting one spam after another forgets to check the boxes for user-defined recipients from an unchecked list, no harm is done. Meanwhile, the paralel scenario of forgetting to UNCHECK user-defined recipients would result in Viagra e-mails going to the Nigerian Scam address, university diploma ads being reported to software piracy folks, etc etc etc. The checked defaults would result in less efficient reporting and less overall respect and attention for SpamCop reports. |
|
|
|
| mrmaxx |
Nov 3 2005, 10:57 AM
Post
#13
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Memberp Posts: 407 Joined: 13-February 04 From: Dalton, GA Member No.: 369 |
QUOTE(Jeff G. @ Nov 2 2005, 03:43 PM) This behavior is considered to be a bug by at least two Deputies, and has been reported as such. And has anyone heard back about a possible ETA on when it'll be fixed or at least a user-preference set up in the SpamCop configs? This is getting ridiculous... I'm VERY concerned that I'll accidentally send a user-defined report to someone who doesn't need it. Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure I probably have already done so, despite my best intentions not to do so. |
|
|
|
| Jeff G. |
Nov 3 2005, 11:03 AM
Post
#14
|
|
T-shirt wearing out Group: Membersph Posts: 3730 Joined: 2-July 04 From: Northeast New Jersey (New York Metro Area), USA ... Please read my sig. :) Member No.: 2041 |
QUOTE(mrmaxx @ Nov 3 2005, 10:57 AM) And has anyone heard back about a possible ETA on when it'll be fixed or at least a user-preference set up in the SpamCop configs? No, sorry.-------------------- Best Regards, Jeff G. (full signature)
|
|
|
|
| turetzsr |
Nov 3 2005, 11:17 AM
Post
#15
|
|
T-shirt wearing out Group: Membersph Posts: 3575 Joined: 26-January 04 From: Michigan USA Member No.: 59 |
QUOTE(mrmaxx @ Nov 3 2005, 10:57 AM) And has anyone heard back about a possible ETA on when it'll be fixed or at least a user-preference set up in the SpamCop configs? ...Historically, we discover that things have been fixed when they start behaving "properly." We almost never get progress reports. Personally, I prefer having something "fixed" in, say, seven days but without progress reports than to have them fixed in, say, four weeks but with timely progress reports. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) <g><snip> -------------------- ..Regards,
...Steve T ...A Happy SpamCop.net user (not an employee) ...Please avoid replying via e-mail, as it is not secure |
|
|
|
| mrmaxx |
Nov 3 2005, 11:51 AM
Post
#16
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Memberp Posts: 407 Joined: 13-February 04 From: Dalton, GA Member No.: 369 |
QUOTE(turetzsr @ Nov 3 2005, 11:17 AM) ...Historically, we discover that things have been fixed when they start behaving "properly." We almost never get progress reports. Personally, I prefer having something "fixed" in, say, seven days but without progress reports than to have them fixed in, say, four weeks but with timely progress reports. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) <g> True... Then again, it would be "nice" to have someone (say Julian or Don D'Minion) poke their head in here to say "Oops. Sorry. Should be fixed shortly" or something. :-) Oh, well... as long as it's fixed eventually. Then again, I do believe in the old aphorism, "The Squeaky Wheel Gets the Grease!" so maybe if we keep the heat on The Powers That Be, (not too much heat... just a friendly reminder once in awhile) it'll get pushed higher on the priority list to get us to shut up about it! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) |
|
|
|
| turetzsr |
Nov 3 2005, 12:09 PM
Post
#17
|
|
T-shirt wearing out Group: Membersph Posts: 3575 Joined: 26-January 04 From: Michigan USA Member No.: 59 |
QUOTE(mrmaxx @ Nov 3 2005, 11:51 AM) <snip>... Then again, it would be "nice" to have someone (say Julian or Don D'Minion) poke their head in here to say "Oops. Sorry. Should be fixed shortly" or something. ...You mean something like Richard's post, above?QUOTE(Richard W @ Oct 31 2005, 10:13 PM) <snip> Changes to the user-defined report handling went live today after about a week of testing on the beta system. Obviously the changes (which I think Don posted about earlier) did change the default behaviour. I'll put through a bug report on that. Richard -------------------- ..Regards,
...Steve T ...A Happy SpamCop.net user (not an employee) ...Please avoid replying via e-mail, as it is not secure |
|
|
|
| mrmaxx |
Nov 4 2005, 09:11 AM
Post
#18
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Memberp Posts: 407 Joined: 13-February 04 From: Dalton, GA Member No.: 369 |
QUOTE(turetzsr @ Nov 3 2005, 12:09 PM) ...You mean something like Richard's post, above? Nooo, not really. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) I mean a real "Oops. We see the problem, we know where the problem is, should be fixed in a bit." That was just a "Oops. I can verify the problem. Bug Report filed." I do that all the time with MY users, so I know exactly what that means... it means "I've informed someone who can actually DO something about the problem and it'll get fixed when they get around to fixing it." What I would recommend doing is backing out the changes until you can fix it so that there are no unintended consequences, such as those that we are seeing. That's just my 2¢ though. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif) |
|
|
|
| turetzsr |
Nov 4 2005, 10:16 AM
Post
#19
|
|
T-shirt wearing out Group: Membersph Posts: 3575 Joined: 26-January 04 From: Michigan USA Member No.: 59 |
QUOTE(mrmaxx @ Nov 4 2005, 09:11 AM) Nooo, not really. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) I mean a real "Oops. We see the problem, we know where the problem is, should be fixed in a bit." That was just a "Oops. I can verify the problem. Bug Report filed." I do that all the time with MY users, so I know exactly what that means... it means "I've informed someone who can actually DO something about the problem and it'll get fixed when they get around to fixing it." ...Okay, you're entitled to that view. For my part, since I am not a paying customer, I have no complaints. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) <g>What I would recommend doing is backing out the changes until you can fix it so that there are no unintended consequences, such as those that we are seeing. That's just my 2¢ though. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif) -------------------- ..Regards,
...Steve T ...A Happy SpamCop.net user (not an employee) ...Please avoid replying via e-mail, as it is not secure |
|
|
|
| Jeff G. |
Nov 4 2005, 10:24 AM
Post
#20
|
|
T-shirt wearing out Group: Membersph Posts: 3730 Joined: 2-July 04 From: Northeast New Jersey (New York Metro Area), USA ... Please read my sig. :) Member No.: 2041 |
Sorry, the people "who can actually DO something about the problem" don't post here. I wish they did.
-------------------- Best Regards, Jeff G. (full signature)
|
|
|
|
|
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st November 2009 - 06:11 PM |
Invision Power Board
- Apple IIGs Powered © 2009 IPS, Inc.