bachus Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 This is for whomever sets the reporting criteria. If that's not you, then don't respond. Three items. (1) Please tell me why Spamcop refuses to respond to emails which "appear" to be viruses? It would seem to me - that the only thing worse than regular old spam is spam with a vicious intent - spam meant to cause harm to my system or yours. Why would that not be worthy of the most aggressive "spamcopping" possible? (2) Similarly, spam disguised as a bounce - these are clearly not bounces - just a work-arounds for spam filters - hoping receivers will take the time to review the bounced message. I want to be able to report this crap as well. (3) Lastly, give me a switch to turn off the auto responder! OK - you accepted/denied a particular email - I don't care! Why increase traffic with useless responses. Give me the choice to turn off that "feature". I spend enough time cleaning my mailboxes without having the clutter of your auto responses.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spambo Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 This is for whomever sets the reporting criteria. If that's not you, then don't respond. Three items. (1) Please tell me why Spamcop refuses to respond to emails which "appear" to be viruses? It would seem to me - that the only thing worse than regular old spam is spam with a vicious intent - spam meant to cause harm to my system or yours. Why would that not be worthy of the most aggressive "spamcopping" possible? (2) Similarly, spam disguised as a bounce - these are clearly not bounces - just a work-arounds for spam filters - hoping receivers will take the time to review the bounced message. I want to be able to report this crap as well. (3) Lastly, give me a switch to turn off the auto responder! OK - you accepted/denied a particular email - I don't care! Why increase traffic with useless responses. Give me the choice to turn off that "feature". I spend enough time cleaning my mailboxes without having the clutter of your auto responses.. And who appointed you "King of the Board"? You have no right to barge in and tell others whether or not they can respond in a public forum. (1) SpamCop doesn't report virus emails because the founder said he didn't want his service used for reporting virus emails and so far the company that recently purchased SpamCop doesn't seem to want to stray from that policy. (2) When bounces contain two sets of headers the software isn't capable of accurately determining which set of headers needs to be analyzed, and when true bounces don't contain the full headers there is no way to analyze the missing headers. Spammers can and do fake bounces. (3) If you don't like the way SpamCop operates then don't use it. If you think you can do better then do it and prove your superiority. It's not like it's difficult to set up a simple filter to send the auto-responses to the trash bin and unless you're on a 14.4 modem connection or have a particularly lousy mail server you'd have to make it a point to even notice the auto-responses on their trip to the bit bucket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Since he didn't want any response except from the "Criteria setters" I didn't respond, but the subject might be of interest to others who look at this forum. A couple of additions: IIRC, ISP's asked Spamcop NOT to report either (or both) viruses and bounces through spamcop. The major problem is that responding and fixing the problems are not the same as for spam and it is too complicated to make the bl algorithym fit all three cases. spamcop does not send email that it has been requested not to send (that's spamming). Several people have suggested setting up a VirusCop and/or a BounceCop. The main reason, according to a source close to Julian, that Spamcop doesn't, at least, make it possible for reporters to report these (though not putting them on the bl), is because spamcop's resources are already stretched to the utmost. As Spambo said, anyone is welcome to set up a reporting system that reports virus/worms to the proper place - and to create blocklist. Although it is easy to create a filter to send spamcop auto-responses to trash, there might be a spamcop option. Perhaps it is a email option. I thought I saw a reference to that somewhere recently. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaCentauri Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 (3) Lastly, give me a switch to turn off the auto responder! OK - you accepted/denied a particular email - I don't care! Why increase traffic with useless responses. Give me the choice to turn off that "feature". I spend enough time cleaning my mailboxes without having the clutter of your auto responses.. Do you mean you are going to visit SpamCop certain times a day to confirm your submissions and don't need to be notified? Or were you thinking you could mail them in and they would all be taken care of? If you don't go back to confirm them, you might as well not submit them -- no action is taken without confirmation, and they don't count as spam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachus Posted March 4, 2004 Author Share Posted March 4, 2004 First Spambo, I am just NOT interested in opinions - not that they are not valid or informational or appreciated. It just that I want to have a response from someone who make these decisions. This talking to the wall or the choir, never gets anything done. Next, I am a paying member, as I hope you all are - certainly before discovering Spamcop a few years ago, it was very painful to track all the sources and report the spammers. Miss Betsy, I agree that when there are multiple headers in bounces, it would actually require some intelligent intervention, aka, confirmation on our part to insure accurate reporting. However, the virus senders don't fall in that category - their headers are usually in tact - and to not report them seems negligent. I didn't mention this earlier, but the same goes for spam without bodies - good headers - no bodies - so we are not going to report these guys either - just another silly rule! "Do you mean you are going to visit SpamCop certain times a day to confirm your submissions and don't need to be notified" Yep, that's exactly what I mean, and, exactly what I do! And, Alpha, where did I say that I didn't want to confirm the spams? I am saying that auto replies that are equal to the number of spam reports is silly and useless. I delete these - I never read them - I never click on the links to confirm. You might, I am only asking for the ability to "op" out of these replies. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 However, the virus senders don't fall in that category - their headers are usually in tact - and to not report them seems negligent. I didn't mention this earlier, but the same goes for spam without bodies - good headers - no bodies - so we are not going to report these guys either - just another silly rule! AFAIK, if you know how to search the newsgroups, you will find posts from Ellen concerning both viruses and bounces. IIRC, ISP's asked that spamcop not report viruses. And as I said, from a source that probably knows more about spamcop internal workings, the reason that Julian doesn't create a report that doesn't go on the bl and is distinctly different than a spamcop report is because his resources are almost stretched to the limit with reporting spam. Also, I think that it is permissible to add "no body found" or something along those lines and the parser will accept it. Or you can use the parser to find addresses and manually report. I don't know what the basis for the rule is, but again, it is probably a matter of time and is just at the bottom of the pile if there is no longer a reason. I know the auto responses can be a pain, and I am almost sure I saw a reference to an option to turn them off. But, again, if I am mistaken it is probably at the bottom of the pile since people can easily filter them to trash. Also, Julian is SpamCop and makes all the decisions. He rarely visits the forums or newsgroups. What you hear from posters who have been around a while is what deputies have posted as being Julian's decision. There may or may not have been an explanation. Some posters may not be as knowledgeable as others. If you hadn't been so adamant about not hearing from anyone who wasn't "in charge" someone may have posted a clarification. I thought about it, but decided it wasn't worth it since you didn't care about anyone else's input. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spambo Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 First Spambo, I am just NOT interested in opinions - not that they are not valid or informational or appreciated. <snip> In this case the answers about #1 and #2 are more than just "opinions" Julian made it abundantly clear that virus emails and bounces were issues that he didn't want SpamCop getting involved with. He was well aware that many users disagreed with his decisions and yet he decided to stick with his policies. Julian created SpamCop and he was CinC, chief cook, bottle washer, and go-fer and for whatever reasons he had the right to decide the diretion his service was focused. Ironport seems to have made some changes but they too don't seem interested in dealing with bounces or viral emails either. Yep, that's exactly what I mean, and, exactly what I do! And, Alpha, where did I say that I didn't want to confirm the spams? I am saying that auto replies that are equal to the number of spam reports is silly and useless. I delete these - I never read them - I never click on the links to confirm. You might, I am only asking for the ability to "op" out of these replies. If your email client is capable of forwarding "as attachment" , or saving emails as plain text files and is capable of sending multiple attachments, you can significantly reduce the number of auto-responses by submitting multiple spams in the same email. Unless you get a lot of spam you can likely submit all your spam and just get back one auto-ack. Just make sure the total size of the email with multiple attachments is less than 100 Kb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 First Spambo, I am just NOT interested in opinions - not that they are not valid or informational or appreciated. It just that I want to have a response from someone who make these decisions. <snip> Hi, Bachus, ...Spambo's point, IIUC, is that if you are posting to this public forum then you are implicitly seeking advice from those of us in the public. If you want a reply only from "someone who makes these decisions," then there is one and only one thing you must do: communicate directly with Julian as (IIUC) the one and only person who "makes these decisions." . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachus Posted March 5, 2004 Author Share Posted March 5, 2004 Spambo, I use Mailwasher Pro to send email to SpamCop, and they are individual not grouped. Before Mailwasher, I did the multiple attachement thing in OE, imported from Eudora - it was the advent of Mailwasher that really brought the problem to the forefront. Turetzer, I would happily have sent my request directly to Julian, just tell me how! It seems that these forums is the only avenue of communications, and if Miss Betsy is correct - this isn't going to help either. Thanks, to you all for your comments. 73 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Hi, Bachus, <snip answer to Spambo> Turetzer, ...Save yourself some typing (and satisfy my mild preference) by referring to me by my name, "Steve," rather than by my user id, "turetzsr." I would happily have sent my request directly to Julian, just tell me how! It seems that these forums is the only avenue of communications, and if Miss Betsy is correct - this isn't going to help either. ...Bingo! Julian seems to prefer to not be contacted directly. That's the point of having deputies and these forums. My guess is that he prefers to have others (and we are very willing, and sometimes even very able) triage things here, first. If the answers aren't forthcoming, they sometimes get to Julian through the deputies or on his occasional scans through the forums, so posting here might actually help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yourbuddy Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 ...Bingo! Julian seems to prefer to not be contacted directly. That's the point of having deputies and these forums. My guess is that he prefers to have others (and we are very willing, and sometimes even very able) triage things here, first. If the answers aren't forthcoming, they sometimes get to Julian through the deputies or on his occasional scans through the forums, so posting here might actually help. SpamCop "King Julian", speaking only through (but no to) the peasants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaCentauri Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Spambo, I use Mailwasher Pro to send email to SpamCop, and they are individual not grouped. Before Mailwasher, I did the multiple attachement thing in OE, imported from Eudora - it was the advent of Mailwasher that really brought the problem to the forefront. You should post your comment in the MailWasher forums. They are working on revisions to the software and solicit users' suggestions. (The creator of MailWasher posts regularly as "RusticDog.") I would also like to be able to send bulk SpamCop submissions. The suggestion forum is at http://www.computercops.biz/forum58.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 SpamCop "King Julian", speaking only through (but no to) the peasants Guess that means he doesn't speak to you. Many others have had conversations with him. In this form speak for yourself and not others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spambo Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 SpamCop "King Julian", speaking only through (but no to) the peasants First, Julian doesn't need to speak in order to know what customers & users are saying. Since he can write computer code it is evident he can read. How could he fairly answer some people and not others? Isn't it kind of obvious that if his email address was published that it would be constantly mailbombed? How do you expect he'd be able to find the real emails among all the garbage? If he spent all his time answering newsgroup, forum posts, telephone calls, and emails from cranks, mad spammers, and people who are too high and mighty to talk to anyone except "the person in charge" how would he find the time to keep the system running smoothly and the code updated? Spammers are constantly trying to find ways to beat the system. Second, you've obviously had little experience with "help desks". Julian's "help" system is a stroke of genius. He gets better qualified helpers for free than he could ever get hope to get by hiring and trying to manage a "help desk" crew to do the job. Some of the "peasants" you're referring to are mail admins, and many others have a hell of a lot more knowledge about SpamCop and how it works than a minimum wage "help desk" clerk reading from a scri_pt could ever provide. Answers to most questions are generally more accurate and arrive faster than any email help desk that I know of, and if you've ever been on "hold" for hours and then had to suffer through four or five levels of scri_pt readers (and more time spent on "hold") before actually getting to talk to someone who knows what's going on you'd appreciate how well this type of system actually works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewv Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Some of the comments on this topic have been very informative on how spamcop is organized and the reasons for certain policies. It should be consolidated and added to the FAQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.