"EXPERTS ONLY" reports

[mshalperin]

Today the parser generated type of report I've never seen in: http://www.spamcop.net/scid=z831537371ze5c...24ca98e36318d1z

It is an unchecked report labeled:

(EXPERTS ONLY: SpamCop deputy will review this website.)

Internal spamcop handling: (appeals)

If I checked the box, there was a popup warning box stating I should check it only if I am certain that this is a spam related site. However, in this case the report was was to go to "Internal Spamcop", not the website itself, so I'm unclear why it needed to be unchecked, and why for "experts only" (I left it unchecked). Is this a new type of report or just very rare. I did a FAQ and forum search but couldn't find anything.

[Lking]

I think since you left it unchecked the reports did not go anywhere. As in "you were not certain that this is a spam related site."

As a result when I follow the link you provided I get "404 Not Found."

Do you still have the original message so you can submit it again? I would like to see what caused this EXPERTS ONLY response.

[mshalperin]

Do you still have the original message so you can submit it again? I would like to see what caused this EXPERTS ONLY response.

36653[/snapback]

I re-reported it checking the "experts only" boxes

http://www.spamcop.net/scid=z831573979z662...1f3e8e91a62ac6z

[dbiel]

A few questions and comments.

The tracking URL's list are not formated in a form usable on this forum, they seem to be linked to an ISP account.

The adjusted URL's are:

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z831537371ze5...24ca98e36318d1z

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z831573979z66...1f3e8e91a62ac6z

[StevenUnderwood]

If I checked the box, there was a popup warning box stating I should check it only if I am certain that this is a spam related site.  However, in this case the report was was to go to "Internal Spamcop", not the website itself, so I'm unclear why it needed to be unchecked, and why for "experts only" (I left it unchecked).  Is this a new type of report or just very rare.  I did a FAQ and forum search but couldn't find anything.

36650[/snapback]

I've seen something similiar when a site has been marked as IB (Innocent Bystander) then paid reporters can appeal that standing (once) and the deputies will take a look and make a final determination.

In other words, the site received a spam report, they stated they were not involved with the spam run, you stated...oh yes they were, and the deputies now need to confirm one or the other story.

ISP does not wish to receive reports regarding http://www.donor.org.ua/main.html - no date available

http://www.donor.org.ua/main.html has been appealed previously.

That appeal is what you just did.

[Lking]

Now I see. Thanks Steven. Now that I've learned something, I can go back to bed.

[mshalperin]

A few questions and comments.

The tracking URL's list are not formated in a form usable on this forum, they seem to be linked to an ISP account.

The adjusted URL's are:

36656[/snapback]

The tracking url's I posted were copied/pasted from my reports. The spam was submitted from my SpamCop Email account VER - what ISP account could they be linked to?

[mshalperin]

In other words, the site received a spam report, they stated they were not involved with the spam run, you stated...oh yes they were, and the deputies now need to confirm one or the other story.

That appeal is what you just did.

36657[/snapback]

Thanks, that makes sense. Maybe the wording of the "Experts Only" report could reflect what you stated, i.e. indicating it's an appeals process for an IB claim.

[Miss Betsy]

I think that it is marked 'Experts Only' because the deputies want to have detailed information about the site before making a change. IOW, unless one knows how to show that the site in question is truly a spam site and thus can back up an 'appeal,' one shouldn't make an appeal.

That's only my interpretation. I know that it is true for routing changes.

Miss Betsy

[Wazoo]

The tracking url's I posted were copied/pasted from my reports. 

36673[/snapback]

http://www.spamcop.net/scid=z831573979z662...1f3e8e91a62ac6z - mshalperin

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z831573979z66...1f3e8e91a62ac6z - dbiel

Any idea where the "question mark" went in your copy of a "copy/paste" of a Tracking URL?

[mshalperin]

http://www.spamcop.net/scid=z831573979z662...1f3e8e91a62ac6z - mshalperin

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z831573979z66...1f3e8e91a62ac6z - dbiel

Any idea where the "question mark" went in your copy of a "copy/paste" of a Tracking URL?

36678[/snapback]

I have no idea. I did a standard Windows (right mouse click) copy and paste - not a manual one. I can't explain how a "?" could be deleted by this by this process - especially since it's not at the beginning or end.

[mshalperin]

Any idea where the "question mark" went in your copy of a "copy/paste" of a Tracking URL?

36678[/snapback]

I think I know how this happened. It has to do with the editor in the "Enter Your Post" box. When I pasted the tracking URL's in the post box they line wrapped into 2 lines. When I edited the post I "un-line wrapped" them back into one line. somehow the message editor deletes the "?" when this is done. I've duplicated this effect several times. In each case the url wrapped at the "?", regardless of where it was placed. When un-wrapped (by backspacing at the beginning of the 2nd line) the lines rejoin less the "?".

Here is an example - pasted at the beginning of a line with no wrapping:

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z831792368zfb...316e0811b4534dz

Pasted in mid line with wrapping and left alone: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z831792368zfb...316e0811b4534dz

Pasted in mid line and un-wrapped:

http://www.spamcop.net/scid=z831792368zfbe...316e0811b4534dz. The line length in the final posted message is different than the "enter" box, so it really wasn't necessary to unwrap the url in the first place. However, the editor shouldn't delete anything.

[Jeff G.]

The answer is very simple: please stop doing that. The URLs should come out just fine without your "unwrapping".

[mshalperin]

The answer is very simple: please stop doing that.  The URLs should come out just fine without your "unwrapping".

36689[/snapback]

Didn't I say that in my last post?

[Jeff G.]

Didn't I say that in my last post?

36690[/snapback]

Not exactly.

[dbiel]

Just to make the point a bit clearer, the URL will function just fine regardless of wether it appears on a single line or line wraps into two lines, it remains a clickable link.

The problem with trying to "unwrap" the line is that it actually is only one line which will normal wrap at the "?". Using the back space to unwrap the line actually only deletes the "?" which just happens to have the effect of unwrapping the line due to the method used by this program to wrap lines. If the program can not find a "proper" place to break a line (such as the "?") it will simply cause the line to extend beyond the standard screen width.

[Miss Betsy]

For the technically minded, dbiel's explanation probably does clear things up. For the more pragmatic, mshalperin's demonstration was probably sufficient.

I think, too, for the pragmatic, it would be obvious that trying to unwrap lines is not a good thing to do. The next step would be to see if the link worked when the program wrapped it. If so, then there is no need to start a new line - unless one likes the esthetics. (and that's where dbiel's post helps - it is not necessary to conduct the experiment).

Miss Betsy

[mshalperin]

The problem with trying to "unwrap" the line is that it actually is only one line which will normal wrap at the "?".  Using the back space to unwrap the line actually only deletes the "?" which just happens to have the effect of unwrapping the line due to the method used by this program to wrap lines. 

36692[/snapback]

Thanks for the explanation.

[mshalperin]

Not exactly.

36691[/snapback]

So when I said:

so it really wasn't necessary to unwrap the url in the first place

you thought I was still planning to do this in the future?

[Jeff G.]

you thought I was still planning to do this in the future?

36706[/snapback]

Yes, it looked that way. Sorry if I misunderstood.

[Miss Betsy]

Some people want to be misunderstood.

Miss Betsy

[mshalperin]

Some people want to be misunderstood.

Miss Betsy

36736[/snapback]

Only from the perspective of the self rightous

[Miss Betsy]

Only from the perspective of the self rightous

36773[/snapback]

Do you really think so? I don't know what I was thinking when I typed that, but there are some people who like being a 'victim' and misunderstood. I don't think that applies here - which is why I don't know why I said it.

However, I understood mshalperin and I said so and I also said that I understood that it was not explicitly stated so it was necessary to clarify it. I doubt that the technically minded would have understood that because it wasn't explicit, but I expected mshalperin to understand it.

My civil engineer associates would throw up their hands at that last paragraph so I don't expect anything but kidding comments on my lack of clarity 0r whatever is lacking! (and I am not blonde).

I think, now, that mshalperin was 'experimenting' to make sure what it was that was misunderstood.

Miss Betsy

[btech]

Part of the problem is that you're reporting that "donor" link that really has nothing to do with the message. If it's the same one that I've received several times, it's a Russian message about a child that needs an organ transplant and the email is asking for $$.

You should report the image link and to the ISP, with a copy to the 419 Secret Service link, but I would leave the other IB links out of it (which I have in past reports).

[mshalperin]

However, I understood mshalperin and I said so and I also said that I understood that it was not explicitly stated so it was necessary to clarify it.  I doubt that the technically minded would have understood that because it wasn't explicit, but I expected mshalperin to understand it. 

I think, now, that mshalperin was 'experimenting' to make sure what it was that

36782[/snapback]

I think that now I understand that you understand that I understand that you understand that I didn't intend to be misunderstood.