Suggested Change to Emailed spam Processing

[cciu]

[Re-posted with minor changes here, after discussion in SpamCop Reporting Help]

I recently starting submitting a lot more spam via email and then processing it via the website and wondered why the process isn't streamlined.

For example, after I receive the confirmation that SpamCop has received my emails for processing, I go to the website and login, then click the Report Now link. That gives me a spam to look over and report, which I do, using the Send spam Report(s) Now button.

At that point, since I have other messages waiting to process, I'd expect the site to just process another spam and present me with the details page and another Send spam Report(s) Now button. But instead I'm back to the original start page, having to click the Report Now link yet again. It's a wasted page-load for the server, a wasted wait and click for the user, and wasted time all around; while it isn't much, when you do it daily for 15-30 spam messages, it really gets old.

Could the processing be changed to automatically load the next spam for processing, if there's one waiting?

Thanks,

John

[ronsmithmd]

I wish there was a list of all the spam reported for our account which we could simply checkbox to mark for reporting. I hate going through the repeated loop. I usually don't need to see all that information, and if I did then I should be able to click a link in the list and open up a separate window with the details.

Ron

[cciu]

I agree; while I understand the need to review the information for each spam (to ensure that we're not reporting legit links that are used as part of spam, like news stories), it could be much more condensed. Even without the "technical details" option, it's still way too verbose for what we need.

[Lking]

Even without the "technical details" option, it's still way too verbose for what we need.

What is verbose for some, is succinct or terse for others.

[turetzsr]

I wish there was a list of all the spam reported for our account which we could simply checkbox to mark for reporting. I hate going through the repeated loop. I usually don't need to see all that information, and if I did then I should be able to click a link in the list and open up a separate window with the details.

I agree; while I understand the need to review the information for each spam (to ensure that we're not reporting legit links that are used as part of spam, like news stories)

<snip>

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp cciu, I think you've expressed here, although a bit too narrowly, why the "repeated loop" that Ron abhors is necessary -- SpamCop does not want you to just take your spam and "chuck it over the wall" for SpamCop to deal with; SpamCop is just helping you to identify the sources of spam and, to a lesser degree, the Spamvertized links in the spam and abuse addresses to whom to report the spam on your behalf. It is all too easy, even for those who carefully review the parse results, to report innocent bystanders, victims of "Joe jobs" and even your own ISP or e-mail Provider!

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Although I hesitate to add this because it is dangerous, there is a facility allowed for experienced reporters called "Quick Reporting" that makes reporting a bit less involved. Please see the link in the SpamCop FAQ labeled "What is Quick Reporting?" but please read the warnings carefully.

[cciu]

What is verbose for some, is succinct or terse for others.

Hence the need for, and presence of the checkbox. But the checkbox should either do what it claims (remove all the technical details when they're not desired, which it does not currently do), or be changed to something more granular, perhaps a technical detail level of 1 through 3, for example.

The technical details are not required to properly report spam....I don't need to see Routing Details or watch SC Recursing the Multipart, blah, blah, blah unless I'm particularly interested in those details (which I sometimes am)....yet they often still show up when the checkbox is unchecked.

The feature is semi-broken.....the typical logging options are well-established and well-understood in many systems and apps; it's not all that subjective.

Regardless, even if it is that subjective, a proper control for it is needed to handle that subjectivity....that's the point of user-controlled options.

[cciu]

cciu, I think you've expressed here, although a bit too narrowly, why the "repeated loop" that Ron abhors is necessary -- SpamCop does not want you to just take your spam and "chuck it over the wall" for SpamCop to deal with; SpamCop is just helping you to identify the sources of spam and, to a lesser degree, the Spamvertized links in the spam and abuse addresses to whom to report the spam on your behalf. It is all too easy, even for those who carefully review the parse results, to report innocent bystanders, victims of "Joe jobs" and even your own ISP or e-mail Provider![/tab]

The loop is necessary. The double-loop that I originally posted about is definitely not: it's just unfortunate or obsolete design.

I agree that it's often all too easy to report innocent bystanders, which is why it's all the more important to give the option of a clean, minimalist design that doesn't require incessant scrolling up and down, etc.

All the extraneous stuff on the screen doesn't enhance the reporting process and the need to visually distingush between what should and shouldn't be reported, it impairs that process.

The web devs need to take a hard look at the output of a spam report and whittle it down to the necessities (what is and isn't required for accurate reporting) and make that an option for normal spam reporting. Do we sometimes need all the gory details to figure something out? Absolutely. But not with every....bloody....spam.

It's been this way forever and sometimes it's difficult to step back and rethink the original assumptions, but it's time.

       Although I hesitate to add this because it is dangerous, there is a facility allowed for experienced reporters called "Quick Reporting" that makes reporting a bit less involved. Please see the link in the SpamCop FAQ labeled "What is Quick Reporting?" but please read the warnings carefully.

Thanks, but I'm not a SpamCop Mail user and have no aspirations as such: I just want to contribute to the effort as quickly and efficiently as possible, while keeping a very high level of accuracy and a very low level of false reporting. The current reporting interface needlessly impedes that process.

[turetzsr]

The loop is necessary. The double-loop that I originally posted about is definitely not: it's just unfortunate or obsolete design.

<snip>

The web devs need to take a hard look at the output of a spam report and whittle it down to the necessities (what is and isn't required for accurate reporting) and make that an option for normal spam reporting. Do we sometimes need all the gory details to figure something out? Absolutely. But not with every....bloody....spam.

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Ah, okay, I think I see what you're saying, now. As I always use the "Show technical data" option because the "Simple output" seems too brief for my tastes (and because I rarely report spam any more), I can't see the extra, unnecessary content to which you refer but I'll take your word for it.

<snip>

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Although I hesitate to add this because it is dangerous, there is a facility allowed for experienced reporters called "Quick Reporting" that makes reporting a bit less involved. Please see the link in the SpamCop FAQ labeled "What is Quick Reporting?" but please read the warnings carefully.

Thanks, but I'm not a SpamCop Mail user and have no aspirations as such:

<snip>

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Ah, I think I see why you replied thus. However, as I understand it, contrary to the implications of some of the content of the FAQ article, you do not have to be a "SpamCop" e-mail user to be a "quick reporter." And, as I understand it, if you are not already a "SpamCop" e-mail subscriber, there's no longer any way to become one!

[Lking]

Thanks, but I'm not a SpamCop Mail user and have no aspirations as such: I just want to contribute to the effort as quickly and efficiently as possible, while keeping a very high level of accuracy and a very low level of false reporting. The current reporting interface needlessly impedes that process.

I think you have miss read the reference turtzsr suggested. If you will read a little farther down in http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/topic/163-faq-entry-what-is-quick-reporting/#entry32909 you will see there is a quick reporting by email option that has nothing to do with the now defunct SpamCop Mail.

[turetzsr]

I think you have miss read the reference turtzsr suggested.

<snip>

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp My guess would be that cciu read the unambiguous (and, I think, incorrect) statement that "Web-based Quick Reporting is an exclusive feature of the SpamCop Parsing and Reporting System which only SpamCop Email System Customers may access" [bolded emphasis mine]. Perhaps that used to be true...?

[Lking]

Not to my knowledge. I have been using quick reporting for 8-10 years and have never had spamcop email. But that is only anecdotal.

[cciu]

Ok, even though apparently the Quick Reporting feature is not dependent on SpamCop Mail (the statement at that link must be incorrect), I'm really not jonesing to submit spam without a verification step: that seems dangerous to me, from a mis-reporting, friendly-fire perspective.

I truly think the verification step is necessary and I'm not advocating avoiding it.

I just think that step should be made to Not Suck™, by:

1. fixing the needless details that vertically pollute the UI (even when "Technical Details" is unchecked)
2. fixing the useless step where it takes you back to "Report Now" even when there's more spam in the queue to report.

[cciu]

It's been a couple of months, so just thought I'd check in to see if there's any love on this request.... :-)

[turetzsr]

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Not to speak for them but my suspicion is that the SpamCop staff are not looking for ways to tweak the parser other than to make changes necessary to keep up with spammer advances. But you never know, sometimes such recommendations are adopted, often without comment in the SC Forums.

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp You could inquire directly of the SpamCop staff by writing to deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net.

[lucyjohn987]

Thanks for sharing