Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Nisse

[Resolved] Reporting defaults have changed

46 posts in this topic

Why are all the user-defined recipients now checked by default? They used to be unchecked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are all the user-defined recipients now checked by default? They used to be unchecked.

35291[/snapback]

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)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

35295[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Richard!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This behavior is considered to be a bug by at least two Deputies, and has been reported as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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....

35399[/snapback]

This behavior is considered to be a bug by at least two Deputies, and has been reported as such.

35400[/snapback]

...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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...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.

35402[/snapback]

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

Ref: User Defined Recipient Report Default capability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This behavior is considered to be a bug by at least two Deputies, and has been reported as such.

35400[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

35436[/snapback]

No, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

<snip>

35436[/snapback]

...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>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...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>

35441[/snapback]

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! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<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.

35444[/snapback]

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

35300[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...You mean something like Richard's post, above?

35445[/snapback]

Nooo, not really. :D 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. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nooo, not really. :D 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.  <_<

35478[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, the people "who can actually DO something about the problem" don't post here.  I wish they did.

35485[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

35431[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This behavior is considered to be a bug by at least two Deputies, and has been reported as such.

35400[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just accidentally sent report copies to several inapplicable addresses, because I forgot to uncheck them.

36127[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

36127[/snapback]

...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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0