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)?

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...

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.

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

Thanks, Richard!

Any update on this situation, as in when it'll be resolved??? Thanks.

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....

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.

Been there, done that, didn't even get a lousy t-shirt.

Ref: User Defined Recipient Report Default capability

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.

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.

No, sorry.

...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. <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!

...You mean something like Richard's post, above?

Nooo, not really. 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.

...Okay, you're entitled to that view. For my part, since I am not a paying customer, I have no complaints. <g>

Sorry, the people "who can actually DO something about the problem" don't post here. I wish they did.

Yeah... me too. *sigh* Oh, well... Wish I could remember Julian's email... Hmm... <EVIL GRIN>

Just to clarify my expressed preference, (perhaps I did not express myself very clearly!), I am not in favour of any third party reports settings being set by default, what I am in favour of is the extra options that have been implemented which allow me to unset the 'third party copies option' whilst having the 'personal copies option' set which was not previously the case. I agree entirely that default settings of all options should be for the 'fail-safe' option of unset, but, (to allow the user to modify the settings as he pleases), radio buttons could be available for 'Personal copies of outgoing reports' and 'Public standard report recipients' to allow flexibility for the people like me who prefer the 'Personal copies of outgoing reports' to remain checked for all spam.

So two weeks have passed, and the bug is still present. I just accidentally sent report copies to several inapplicable addresses, because I forgot to uncheck them.

I agree. OTOH there may be some value in sending the SEC reports about penis enlargers...

...Please remember that now, as has always been the case, it is your responsibility to ensure that the addresses to which SpamCop offers to send reports on your behalf are reasonable. Thanks!

turetzsr, that was a little condescending.

This concerns a known bug in the reporting interface. The people who maintain that interface also have a responsibility, to ensure that it works properly.

Hi, Dave_L,
..."turetzsr" is simply my login ID. Please address me as "Steve T." <g> [ <-- not a serious complaint ] Thank you!...I'm sorry (I think) that you found my reminder, which was a simple factual statement, condescending. It was not intended to be....Not really, IMHO. I have seen no such obligation stated anywhere. Since I am not paying for this service, I have absolutely no legitimate claim on their time or any particular feature of the service. Whether it is a bug has not been fully discussed and despite an earlier post by a SpamCop representative that he believes it to be, I would be willing to accept a claim that the way it used to work was a bug and that bug has been fixed. In any event, be this bug or feature, it is the responsibility of us users to ensure that reports sent by SpamCop on our behalf are sent to e-mail addresses that seem reasonable.

http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...ber/106401.html
Though I'd really suggest reading the whole thread. The "one can assume" thing has been the 'norm' for years.

Well, I am paying for the service, and I think it's only common courtesy to let us know whether this is going to be fixed, and if not, why not.

I also pay for the service, and have been doing so for several years.

Over and above the "The primary mode of support here is peer-to-peer, meaning users helping other users. (please remember this at all times!)" placed at the top of the pages here, please see Section 8 - SpamCop's System & Active Staff

...IMHO, paying customers like you, Nisse, and Dave_L have the right to expect whatever level of service you feel appropriate for the money you are spending and if you don't get it, you should find a provider who will provide that level of service. We say that about ISPs and MSPs and it seems to me the same should apply to SpamCop. Please just weigh the advantages you do receive against the (IMHO, exceedingly minor) expectation that is not being met.

Maybe you're missing my point.

I'm not whining about Spamcop's service.

I encountered a problem with the reporting service, and came over here to see if there was any info about it. I found this thread. Since two weeks had elapsed since the problem was first reported, and the problem is still present, I posted an update.

Oh nice, leaving me as the only one who complains? <g>

There is no known IronPort staffer currently posting here, the last was during a bit of changes taking place on the www.spamcop.net web-site and that was a long, long time ago. Julian hasn't posted publically in any of the SpamCop.net venues in ages. I have provided links that state the current 'logic' of posting "inside information" as expressed by one of the "official" staff members. There's no intent to give you a hard time, but you are scratching on a point of known frustration. I once again point to an item found in the Announcements section, started off by a posting from Don about a "fix" that was made .. that eventually got tracked down "here" to the original query/report/complaint on that issue .... but the "time passed" is the best that anyone "here" can offer to answer the "when will it get fixed" questions of late.

...No, I understood that point. But you also wrote: and then you objected to my reminder that it was the responsibility of us users to avoid that mistake as condescending. Then you wrote to which I replied to which you repliedwhich is what prompted my most recent reply.

I am a paying customer of the Email service which gets me an included reporting account. Having been here for several years now, do not hold your breath waiting "to let us know whether this is going to be fixed, and if not, why not." In general, you will know if it has been fixed when it starts working differently.

This still hasn't been fixed. Can't we at least be told why not?

Apparently, much of the information in even the last batch of posts in this Topic have yet to be made clear enough. How about giving Miss Betsy's last attempt at explaining / offering some data that was posted as and into the Announcements section a read ... Welcome to the SpamCop Forum. Please then follow the links provided.

...That's a perfectly good answer for matters affecting relatively few users or are not acknowledged by a SpamCop employee as bugs, but this doesn't fall into those categories -- it affects everyone who uses user-defined report recipients and has been acknowledged to be a bug by a SpamCop employee way back on October 31. Three months seems even to me, as a non-paying member, to be too long to have been allowed to elapse with nary one official public word on the matter ("sorry, the one SpamCop programmer has not yet had an opportunity to address this bug but hopes to be able to do so before the end of the second quarter of 2006" or "we have decided that the effort required to fix this bug is not worth the benefit, so it will not be fixed" or "we have decided that the current behavior is actually the behavior we prefer to impose on our users, so it will not be changed" would all be acceptable, at least to me).

As Wazoo has pointed out several times in this topic, this is a user forum. And what Steven Underwood has said is my experience also.

It is useless to complain or comment in the Help forum. It would be helpful if you have discovered a workaround. Or sometimes one misses something and needs to ask.

However, If you want to, take to the Lounge and vent your frustration! You might find some people who will join in.

The next post in this topic should only be that someone has discovered that it is working differently or asking a question of clarification on how the bug affects reports or suggesting an easier way of working with what is there.

Miss Betsy

How are you getting checkboxes to so many different reporting addresses? I can only fit four agencies' addresses in the box on the preferences page because of the limitation of characters. All my reports go to FTC and DOJ, then drug and pump and dump spams go to FDA and SEC respectively. I'd like to have more options.

Of course, if I could have more addresses to report to, it would be even more important to have the default be "unchecked" Unchecking a dozen boxes for every report would get old really fast.

...As long as your space-separated list of reporting addresses is less than 100 characters, you can have as many reporting addresses as you wish. <g>

Of course, it helps if the reporting addresses' ISPs don't reject the Reports as spam.

that's not many characters:
spam[at]uce.gov AskDOJ[at]usdoj.gov webcomplaints[at]ora.fda.gov enforcement[at]sec.gov

No, it's not. I have webcomplaints[at]ora.fda.gov in "Personal copies of outgoing reports" and "otcfraud[at]cder.fda.gov ct-abuse[at]abuse.sprint.net SPAM[at]UCE.GOV JEFF[at]EXAMPLE.COM level3[at]admin.spamcop.net" in "Public standard report recipients", giving me a choice of five.

...It appears that the bug has been fixed. Please see SpamCop Admin Don D'Minion's reply in thread "Public Standard Report Recipients now unchecked by default". Therefore, I am marking this thread as "Resolved."