loafman Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 See this link.... http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/373.html Last-Modified: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 21:12:55 GMT If it does not at least feed the blocklist, then what good is it? ...Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 See this link.... http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/373.html Last-Modified: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 21:12:55 GMT If it does not at least feed the blocklist, then what good is it? ...Ken Hi, loafman! Reports from users who choose to be mole reporters will count only in the statistics and aggregate counts. Don't the statistics and counts help determine what goes on the BL? See SpamCop FAQ: What is on the list?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loafman Posted June 10, 2004 Author Share Posted June 10, 2004 Read the last line from the FAQ entry. No, they do not count towards the blocklist. "Mole reporting was an experiment that presented many problems in the operations and integrity of SpamCop, so is mostly being disabled. Reports from users who choose to be mole reporters will count only in the statistics and aggregate counts. Reports are not sent and can only be viewed by SpamCop administrators. Mole reports do not count in the stats used to determine listing and delisting of IP addresses in the SpamCop Blocking List. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 That "last modified" date must have been due to a spelling change, update or something, as I know I posted somewhere about this "downgrade" of mole-reporting a couple of months back, and noting in that post that I couldn't tell when the change had actually occurred (maybe the "last modified" date was placed there because of my comment???) I remember conjecturing that possibly mole-reporters were advised of the change, but seeing the fall-out of my "correction" post over in one of the newsgroups, it appears that no, they weren't. I'm standing by my original post (whenever, wherever I put it up, again, thinking a newsgroup post) that mole-reporting data use was changed at least a couple of months back, but apparently, that data was not advertised, and one would guess that new sign-ups still have the block checked as the default. Decisions made on high is all I can suggest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 <blush> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loafman Posted June 10, 2004 Author Share Posted June 10, 2004 That "last modified" date must have been due to a spelling change, update or something, as I know I posted somewhere about this "downgrade" of mole-reporting a couple of months back, and noting in that post that I couldn't tell when the change had actually occurred (maybe the "last modified" date was placed there because of my comment???) I remember conjecturing that possibly mole-reporters were advised of the change, but seeing the fall-out of my "correction" post over in one of the newsgroups, it appears that no, they weren't. I'm standing by my original post (whenever, wherever I put it up, again, thinking a newsgroup post) that mole-reporting data use was changed at least a couple of months back, but apparently, that data was not advertised, and one would guess that new sign-ups still have the block checked as the default. Decisions made on high is all I can suggest. I wish they had notified us. I just recently changed back from mole reporting, but get the distinct impression that a couple of months reporting effort may have been totally useless, work that should have fed the blocklist, but did not. ...Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.