Batch acknowledgements, please

[MikeYates]

Using "MailWasherPro" I can tick dozens of spams at a time to be reported to you.

Please acknowledge only every, say, 15 minutes.

It is a MailWasher issue that I cannot multi-tick by holding shift, perhaps good for error-prevention, but you could help, a little!

Also, "me too" to a count of unreported spams, better still a table from which the most vicious could be reported first.

Also, your "statistics" page could give encouraging news of prosecutions etc. - need a volunteer?

[dbiel]

Since those acknowledgements are basically worthless (at least to me and apparently also to you) why not simply create a filter that deletes them? I doubt that you actually click of the links in each one of them to complete the reporting process. For me there only value is to know that I can open up the reporting window and start clicking on "Report Now". When "Report Now" disappears, then I know that I am done reporting. On a separate note, one advantage of using the VER interface in the SpamCop Email is that the messages are ready for processing almost immediately after they have cleared the VER screen. Using email to submit them results in much longer delays between the time that are sent and the time they are ready to process.

[StevenUnderwood]

On a separate note, one advantage of using the VER interface in the SpamCop Email is that the messages are ready for processing almost immediately after they have cleared the VER screen. Using email to submit them results in much longer delays between the time that are sent and the time they are ready to process.

I did not see anywhere in hos original post that he has an email account. VER is only available with SpamCop email accounts since it is there that the Held Mail folder is located.

[MikeYates]

I did not see anywhere in hos original post that he has an email account. VER is only available with SpamCop email accounts since it is there that the Held Mail folder is located.

You're right. I said I'm using MailWasherPro. If I set up a filter against spamcop messages in that, they would still appear in the list and "might" be reported as spam to spamcop, losing me my reporting account!

I just need batched acknowledgements.

I wonder what the number "1" is doing in the subject line, when it could be, say, "63" ??

[Jank1887]

I wonder what the number "1" is doing in the subject line, when it could be, say, "63" ??

FYI:

It appears that you get your "1 received message" because all of your spam is email-submitted individually to your spamcop reporting address. If you were able to 'submit as attachment' with multiple messages tied to one submission email to your reporting address, you would only get one email acknowledgement stating, as you want, XX messages are ready. My guess is that the email parsing system is currently configured to send a reply to the submittal email immediately after it finishes parsing the contents of that email.

Now, your request for 'summary' acknowledgements seems perfectly valid to me, but it'll probably take a significant rewrite of code for that to happen. I.e., right now the parser can process the submittal, send the reply, forget about the whole thing, and move on to the next email it receives (even though it might be another one of yours). If you want the summary info, it would have to have a stored list of each person's reports generated by email submittal for the past 5/10/15/?etc? minutes. The parser would have to parse a submittal, append any new reports to the list of the appropriate person, and then before moving on to the next submittal, check whether time's up for any of the queued summaries and send any that are, then it moves onto the next submittal.

Not that it's a bad idea. I think it would shave a little off the parser's email overhead. Total load might be reduced. But some people would get annoyed at the delay, so you'd have to make it a user option (or customizable delay length.)

The powers that be would know better, but I wonder how much overhead is generated via emails as you describe, where I submit a whole bunch of single emails, and even a 1 or 2 minute delay/summary would turn XX email replies into a single email summary reply.

Interesting.

By the way, even more interesting is that spam, email, and spamcop are not in the forum spellcheck dictionary

[Wazoo]

By the way, even more interesting is that spam, email, and spamcop are not in the forum spellcheck dictionary

spam, spamcop now there .... technically, the use of SpamCop in one mode and spamcop in another mode had caused me not to add this, but .... I generally use 'e-mail', but didn't want to force this on others ....

When I put the spell-check modification in originally, there was a call for 'needed additional' words. Pretty much ignored/forgotten about by most. As I recollect, adding a word while doing your spell-check would add the word to your cookie, so that it would be there the next time for 'you' ....

[MikeYates]

Ah yes, I noticed the thread about "MIME digests".

That is the obvious solution to my problem with Mailwasher.

I will ask those marvellous Kiwis at Firetrust what they can do about it.

Maybe, as they seem to have some partnership with Spamcop, you guys could ask them too?

In the meanwhile, as option for no acknowledgements would be nice ;-)

[Telarin]

If you do quick reporting, "no acknowledgments" is an option. Of course, with quick reporting, the downside is that you don't report spamvertised site. IMHO, reporting spamvertised sites is not very important, as they are usually killed off by the time the spam arrives in my inbox, but if its important to you, this might not be such a good idea.

[Miss Betsy]

Also, your "statistics" page could give encouraging news of prosecutions etc. - need a volunteer?

The spamcop website and the spamcop forum are not under the same 'leadership' for the want of a better word. Official spamcop (the website) does not encourage volunteers to participate. The spamcop forum is entirely volunteers. Usually what happens is that someone posts in the Lounge when news of prosections, etc. happens.

You could start a thread and keep it updated. And probably, at some point, a volunteer moderator would add a link to it from the FAQ or in the big red announcement.

Miss Betsy

[MikeYates]

Well, actually, I'm amazed how many phising sites are still up when I open a old spam. There's little risk of malware damage if you're not using IE and it's fun filling in the form with a password of f...-off-phishers. Wasting their time is a worthwhile tactic, as demonstated by http://419eaters.com