Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Nisse

[Resolved] Reporting defaults have changed

46 posts in this topic

...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!

36153[/snapback]

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.

Edited by Dave_L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...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!

36153[/snapback]

turetzsr,

36158[/snapback]

Hi, Dave_L,

..."turetzsr" is simply my login ID. Please address me as "Steve T." :) <g> [ <-- not a serious complaint ] Thank you!

that was a little condescending.

36158[/snapback]

...I'm sorry (I think) that you found my reminder, which was a simple factual statement, condescending. It was not intended to be.
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.

36158[/snapback]

...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.

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."

35478[/snapback]

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.

36158[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since I am not paying for this service, I have absolutely no legitimate claim on their time or any particular feature of the service.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Dave_L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since I am not paying for this service, I have absolutely no legitimate claim on their time or any particular feature of the service.
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.

36165[/snapback]

...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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not whining about Spamcop's service.

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

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.

36170[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

36170[/snapback]

...No, I understood that point. But you also wrote:
<snip>  I just accidentally sent report copies to several inapplicable addresses, because I forgot to uncheck them.
and then you objected to my reminder that it was the responsibility of us users to avoid that mistake as condescending. Then you wrote
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.
to which I replied
Since I am not paying for this service, I have absolutely no legitimate claim on their time or any particular feature of the service.
to which you replied
I also pay for the service, and have been doing so for several years.
which is what prompted my most recent reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

36165[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This still hasn't been fixed. Can't we at least be told why not?  :angry:

39789[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This still hasn't been fixed. Can't we at least be told why not?  :angry:

39789[/snapback]

<snip>

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.

39792[/snapback]

...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 35300[/snapback] 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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

36175[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

Edited by AlphaCentauri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

<snip>

40740[/snapback]

...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>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...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>

40747[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...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>

40747[/snapback]

that's not many characters:

spam[at]uce.gov AskDOJ[at]usdoj.gov webcomplaints[at]ora.fda.gov enforcement[at]sec.gov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100
that's not many characters:

spam[at]uce.gov AskDOJ[at]usdoj.gov webcomplaints[at]ora.fda.gov enforcement[at]sec.gov

40749[/snapback]

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.

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