turetzsr

...Does Don's reply in SpamCop Forum thread "What should I do ??" help?

...It appears that the bug has been fixed. Please see SpamCop Admin Don D'Minion's reply in thread "Public Standard Report Recipients now unchecked by default". Therefore, I am marking this thread as "Resolved."

...Mine are all there back to October 2 9:40:24 -0400.

...Ditto.

"But there was ... "no explosion. "What? "He lied. "Everything [Farelf] tells you is a lie. "Everything [Farelf] tells you is a lie. Farelf: "Listen to this carefully, Norman. Farelf: "I am lying. Norman:"You say you are lying, Norman:"but if everything you say is a lie, Norman:"then you are telling the truth, but ... Norman:"you cannot tell the truth Norman:"because everything you say is a lie. Norman:"You lie -- You tell the truth -- Norman:"But you cannot -- Norman:"Illogical! Norman:"Illogical! Norman:"Please explain."

<snip>Searching for specific strings (daffyduck) would be a terible procedure to start doing just for the overall speed of the parsing....In all fairness to oldskoolflash (although I disagree with his suggestion), that would not be necessary -- just ignore anything that isn't of the form "abuse[at]<host>" for selected hosts, such as hotmail.com and yahoo.com.

...The parser is just a tool. It's our job, as users, to use the tool appropriately. Not all of us (necessarily) want the parser to make decisions such as you propose for us .... <g>

...*shrug* To what e-mail address would you suggest reporting spam from this IP address, given the following? ...Seems to me that the SpamCop parser's decision was consistent with the available information for this IP address ....

...The answer to that question, I believe, is also in the Wazoo's first reply in the aforementioned post in the "lounge" section.

...And welcome back it is, too! <big g>

...And/or try the "Suggested Tools and Applications" SpamCop Forum. ...Good luck!

...And I hope they will band together to commission a tool that will report spamvertized websites and do it well. SpamCop is not that tool and it appears that (unless a miracle happens and the things that have been keeping Julian and the Deputies busy ensuring that the parser works well in finding the source of the spam e-mails) it never will.

...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>

<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).

...Indeed: thanks, especially to dbiel! <g>

...Works fine for me. Did someone fix it or is it a problem unique to dbiel?

...No, I understood that point. But you also wrote: and then you objected to my reminder that it was the responsibility of us users to avoid that mistake as condescending. Then you wrote to which I replied to which you replied which is what prompted my most recent reply.

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.

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

...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!

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

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

...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>

...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.

...Do you have access to the HTML for the registration page? If so, do you need java scri_pt code to keep users from registering with an [at] sign in their user name?