I have been wondering why the FTC (spam @ uce.gov) is not one of the places that receive a spam complaint when processing spam with SpamCop. Could this email (spam @ uce.gov) be added to SpamCop?

Julian added the FTC's UCE reporting email address back when that address was uce[at]ftc.gov, but the FTC's email system couldn't handle the load and its admins asked him to stop, so he did. Now that uce.gov has its own email system, I think it's appropriate to revisit this capability.

SpamCop FAQ seen at the top of this page
Other information, help and links
spam uce.gov replaces uce ftc.gov

Some history, details, direct from the target office

...While you are waiting to see if this New Feature Request is actioned, you might want to have a look at thread "forwarding spam to spam[at]uce.gov ?".

Bump. Still waiting. Anything new?

...Generally, the way we find out that the programmers have adopted, coded and deployed such requests is that it suddenly starts working. They don't hang out here. The only other recourse is to contact the SpamCop Deputies at deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net to see if they know anything.

It's not a big deal. I have spam[at]uce.gov (and enforcement[at]sec.gov) in my list of optional "report recipients."

In a world full of real problems, having to check the checkbox each time is not a big deal.

Instead of emailing deputies, I guess I was looking for a lower-priority way of finding out if this were being pursued.

Maybe someone will happen across this thread...

IIUC, the FTC requested that they not be automatically added to spamcop reports because they were overwhelmed. They couldn't handle the volume of all the spamcop reports.

IMHO, anyone who is collecting samples of spam has ways to do it (via spamtraps) without additional reporters. For those who want to report to the FTC, there are enough of them to fill any gaps that their collection methods miss.

Miss Betsy

Hi Miss Betsy,

You wrote:

I read something similar in the SpamCop forum. If I recall correctly, their problem arose when all the spam-reports went to their FTC domain and swamped their main server.

Then they moved their reporting address to uce.gov; was that a couple of years ago, yet? Regarding their ability to handle SC's input, their domain-move was intended to improve their capabilities. Is that something we [and they] can take advantage of?

Could be. Rhetorically I ask, have they done the statistical analysis to give them the confidence that they have enough spamtraps to provide accurate percentages of spam received around the world? To cut to the chase, computers have come a long way the last couple of years, and at some point, I think the FTC "should" be upgraded sufficiently to gracefully handle copies of everything going thru SpamCop. (Excepting of course the problem that The Gears of Government Grind Slowly.) I mean, SpamCop is generally able to handle all the spam we're sending in, so the FTC should be able to, too.

This is just my un-informed view of the way things "should be." No criticism of SpamCop here. It just feels like "something's missing" when our work is not being shared with the FTC by default.

At most, I would hope that SpamCop is keeping the lines of communications open with the FTC. Coordinating with the FTC on this point is something we could be proud of. And I imagine the gov't could use all the help they can get, if they're ready to handle it.

The impression I get is that it's been a couple of years -- back in the spam[at]uce.gov days -- that SpamCop and the FTC discussed the issue. I don't think it would be too pushy to ask the FTC for an estimate of when they expect we'll be allowed to start sending them all reports by default, now that they've improved their system. For all we know, the answer might be, "We're ready for you now!"

Thanks,
-Nei1-

"My" last dialog with a technical support guy at the FTC is documented within this Forum. The change of address is documented in the SpamCop FAQ here.

One alos has to note that it is known tht some spam submittals to this address have in fact appeared in some court records as 'evidence' .. so that there is a question as to how much weight/impact a copy of a SpamCop.net parsed report might have beyond trends, scores, etc. based on the data mung situation involved in receiving that type of submittal. And even that question isn't necessarily answerable by the FTC folks themselves, as they are basically just the maintainers of that humomgous "collection of stuff" (not sure if I want to use the word 'database' .. as I have no idea how these submitals actually get cataloged) ....

OTOH, they would be getting lots more than spamcop reports. I hadn't thought about the munging part which might be a factor.

You can just copy the FTC if you report via email.

Miss Betsy

Going by (my impressions of) the membership of the forum and NGs there's a significant proportion of non-US reporters - even if we are in the minority. The FTC is unlikely to be interested in those; though it is fair to say much of what "we" get is probably attributable to US interests one way or another and that may add some passing relevance. But, in my experience, gov't funded regulators aren't sufficiently resourced even for the directly relevant. Still, they (FTC) have computers and you can do anything with a computer.

It's a global phenomenon (recently added .KZ and .MD to my "collection" of sender's TLDs - still looking for .AQ ). It would be really nice if the US authorities would get more dinkum even so. The biggest economy has the biggest share and the biggest responsibility. Tell 'em I said so, that should fix it. In the meantime ...That would seem to be the best solution for US citizens, if they (FTC) accept stark forwarded-as-attachment(s) submissions.

Forgot that factor as well - that there are enough non-US reporters to make automatic submission not a good idea.

So there are three factors that might still make the FTC unwilling to accept automatic submissions by spamcop reporters: volume, munging, and non-US reporters.

It may not be the actual volume as much as it is sorting out those that can't be used by the FTC.

Miss Betsy