Jump to content

Process all unsent reports at once?


Recommended Posts

I think it would be great if there was a way to process all saved (unsent) reports with one click instead of having to send them individualy (which is time consuming when there are many reports that have been submited in a short period of time).

Just a thought. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then how could you check where each report was going to be sure you were not reporting your own ISP incorrectly? Just because it does not normally do that does NOT mean it wil never do that. The parser uses dynamic information which could be incorrect at any moment in time.

You do know you are supposed to read the submit page before YOU send YOUR reports, correct.

Edited by StevenUnderwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then how could you check where each report was going to be sure you were not reporting your own ISP incorrectly?  Just because it does not normally do that does NOT mean it wil never do that.  The parser uses dynamic information which could be incorrect at any moment in time.

You do know you are supposed to read the submit page before YOU send YOUR reports, correct.

18559[/snapback]

It's never sent one to my own ISP and I would never expect it to if it's set up properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's never sent one to my own ISP and I would never expect it to if it's set up properly.

The parser relies on lookups to external sources and HAS had problems stopping the parse too soon, which is why you are supposed to check the results, even if you use the quick reporting functions. All it takes is a connection problem at an external DNS server (something not under spamcop's control even) and the parser may decide not to trust the header your ISP added and then your ISP gets reported as the source.

And the problem with this is that when it breaks, it usually breaks for a certain amount of time causing EVERY repor during that time to be incorrect. ANd getting multiple reports can cause your ISP to be listed incorrectly, since all listing is done automatically. And if your ISP is listed, YOU will have problems sending email as well as every other customer using that server and your ISP may not be happy that YOU reported their server incorrectly.

Please remember that spamcop is only a tool. That tool needs to be used correctly and the results interpreted by a human (you) to determine if it seems to be a valid answer. Just like using a calculator, you should have an idea of the magnitude of the answer at least so the answer could make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The parser relies on lookups to external sources and HAS had problems stopping the parse too soon, which is why you are supposed to check the results, even if you use the quick reporting functions.  All it takes is a connection problem at an external DNS server (something not under spamcop's control even) and the parser may decide not to trust the header your ISP added and then your ISP gets reported as the source.

And the problem with this is that when it breaks, it usually breaks for a certain amount of time causing EVERY repor during that time to be incorrect.  ANd getting multiple reports can cause your ISP to be listed incorrectly, since all listing is done automatically.  And if your ISP is listed, YOU will have problems sending email as well as every other customer using that server and your ISP may not be happy that YOU reported their server incorrectly.

Please remember that spamcop is only a tool.  That tool needs to be used correctly and the results interpreted by a human (you) to determine if it seems to be a valid answer.  Just like using a calculator, you should have an idea of the magnitude of the answer at least so the answer could make sense.

18562[/snapback]

Well ok. Just saying that it should be an option for when people don't have time to go through all of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't have time to go through all of them properly, there is a "delete all unsent reports" link to use.  That is why it was put there.

If the reports the ISP's receive become unreliable, then they will become useless and ISP's will ignore them.

18564[/snapback]

Well, I personaly have yet to send an unreliable report and wouldn't do so. Not sending the spam reports is akin to "Just hit delete" and solves nothing on my end.

Of course I rarely get a "confirmed kill" reply to any of the reports I do send so they're probably ignoring them anyway...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, PaulKTF,

It's never sent one to my own ISP and I would never expect it to if it's set up properly.

18560[/snapback]

...You'd never know until it is too late, unless you check each and every one. Believe me -- I went for months without a problem, then all of a sudden I saw my own employer's abuse address show up on the list of addresses to which a report was going to be sent.

...Please do check every report you are going to send. And, as StevenUnderwood suggested, if you don't have time, send only those reports you have time to check and cancel the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I see both of your points and I will be checking and double checking all reports I send.  I do not want to be accidentally abusing the system. :)

18634[/snapback]

...Or, more importantly, abusing the abuse desk of your ISP or e-mail provider. :) <g>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that would really be helpful is a depth count of how many unreported spams are waiting in the queue to be reported/sent -- *before* clicking the "remove all unreported spam" link. The Spamcop UI reports how many queued messages it deleted *after* you click on "remove all unreported spam", but it would be very helpful to see that count *before* deciding to blow it all away.

Please pass along to deputies/Julian or whomever should be getting enhancement requests like this.

Thanks!

-- Phil Schwarz

mostly-satisfied paid user (3rd year, now, just renewed)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be a nice addition and if it is possible, I would support this request.

However, it was that request that resulted in the current delete unsent reports link. With that information, it was assumed getting the count calculated for each refresh of the web page would be too resource intensive or some other problem lies between the current configuration and the requested outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't have time to go through all of them properly, there is a "delete all unsent reports" link to use.  That is why it was put there.

I'd really like to see implemented one or both of the following:

1. A number displayed next to the "report spam" link, showing how many spams are waiting in my reporting queue.

2. An option to move the whole reporting queue into the "Held Mail" folder.

The first item above would let me know if it's worth my while to slog through each item in the queue, or just dump the whole thing if I don't have time. I can't believe that a simple count of the queue size is hard to implement.

The second item above would help me when I come back from a couple of weeks vacation and have hundreds of items in my reporting queue, due to my own mail server auto-forwarding spam to my spamcop address during my absence. Then I would have a quick way to examine what's in the queue, I could delete some, re-submit some back into the queue for reporting so I can override some reporting defaults, and do a quick report of the others.

-Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe that a simple count of the queue size is hard to implement.

That is what we all would have thought except when this was implemented several months back, it was implied that it was not that simple due to the format of the submissions (IIRC).

due to my own mail server auto-forwarding spam to my spamcop address during my absence

Auto-forwarding has been discouraged almost every step of the way. I doubt very much that Julian will do anything to make it more useful. Spamcop wants QUALITY reports more than QUANTITY of reports.

Edited by StevenUnderwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auto-forwarding has been discouraged almost every step of the way.  I doubt very much that Julian will do anything to make it more useful.  Spamcop wants QUALITY reports more than QUANTITY of reports.

Exactly so, that's why only quality spams are auto-forwarded. :)

Seriously, what gets forwarded to spamcop from my server is a tiny percentage of the spam received. I agree, quality is more important than quantity.

Only that which manages to get through my existing gauntlet of filters gets forwarded. My filters include dropping spam identified by my ISP's own filter, dropping spam from China and Brazil, and dropping anything sent via BCC that's not in my whitelist. Only after all that, spam containing specific keywords or sent to known spamtraps is auto-forwarded to SpamCop.

The point I tried to make in my earlier message, which seems to have gotten lost, is that there must be some way to convey more information about the reporting queue. I suggested two things, <a> show the queue size, and/or <b> allow the queue to be moved into the Held Mail folder so that it can be examined. If <a> is impractical, then what about <b>?

Another option would be to display a list of what's in the queue by sender and subject, with a checkmark to delete it or let it remain in the queue for later sequential reporting the usual way.

-Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I got your message. I believe your second thought will not work because all of the pending reports are located in the same queue. There is not a specific queue assigned to each user.

I would like a better explanation of the entire process myself, but one has never been offered. Only that even the "simple" delete all pending reports link was a lot of work that took a while to implement.

I like your ideas, but there is only one person who can implement them (Julian) and he has a laundry list of high priority issues keeping the parser ahead of the spammers. I really wish they would add additional people into the code process, not only to get more suggestions implemented but to get other points of view on how to do the programming and someone who can at least deal with it if something drastic happened. I have always found different, possibly better ways to do what is being attempted.

Edited by StevenUnderwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I got your message.  I believe your second thought will not work because all of the pending reports are located in the same queue.  There is not a specific queue assigned to each user.

OK, I suspected something like that. Thanks for the explanation. I guess what's happening is that the server looks ahead in the queue for the next report that belongs to me, and then stops, and what results from that is a "Report Now" link appearing on the page. Doing this for every user would be quite a load, and even more so if it had to look deeper in the queue to find more reports for that user. Submitting the last report in my queue would be the biggest search load of all, because the entire queue must be searched to confirm that I have no more to report.

What we're seeing here is an example of a software concept that wasn't intended to scale very large. It happens all the time, and often it's unexpected, only obvious in hindsight that there was a better way to do it.

I like your ideas, but there is only one person who can implement them (Julian) and he has a laundry list of high priority issues keeping the parser ahead of the spammers.

I agree, that's more important. Keep up the good work.

-Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...