studog Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 See the thread "And the most Stupid Spammer of the week, awarded weekly on a week by week basis is ............" in the newsgroup "spamcop" on Fri Oct 29. I've determined that when one has the "Show simple output" option turned on, the "View Entire Message" link is **NOT** shown on the tracking URL page. Is this a bug? I think so. I repost here because it is my avenue of choice, and because there have been no responses to my newsgroup posting. ...Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Not sure I can answer the "is it a bug" question. Although even posting into the thread you mention over there, your term "show simple output" threw me ... figured it was an e-mail account thing that I had no access to. I've had "show technical details" turned on via the checkbox under the paste-your-spam-in-here box for as long as it's been there. So for some reason, I the now ancient changes that kind of merger free and report-only accounts came to mind, so went into Preferences, and lo and behold, there's a box that syad just what you said. Made the change, went searching for some Tracking URLs, and yes, you are correct .. in simple mode, the option to "view the whole spam" does not appear. Why would one want to see the spam? I do it to analyze what went wrong with other folks' submittals or to try to explain what actually happened. In theory, if there's a question, the spam reporter would have saved his/her own copy one would think. I think what I'm trying to say that if a user doesn't want to know the technical stuff, then there'd not really be a reason to look at the original spam "again" ... Guess I should go back over there, but as I recollect, the "issue" was raised by someone posting something "interesting" .. then complaining a bit because the Tracking URL "didn't allow anyone to see the actual spam" .. which was "corrected" by a number of folks that pointed out the link .... that you pointed out didn't exist in the "simple" configuration. OK, I will head back over there, put in my agreement with your suggested issue, I'll even kick a note to the Deputies to see if they want to hit Julian with it .... but I'm still not sure whether to call it a bug or not ....??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studog Posted November 1, 2004 Author Share Posted November 1, 2004 Why would one want to see the spam? [snip] I think what I'm trying to say that if a user doesn't want to know the technical stuff, then there'd not really be a reason to look at the original spam "again" ... Guess I should go back over there, but as I recollect, the "issue" was raised by someone posting something "interesting" .. then complaining a bit because the Tracking URL "didn't allow anyone to see the actual spam" .. which was "corrected" by a number of folks that pointed out the link .... that you pointed out didn't exist in the "simple" configuration. 19453[/snapback] Which is exactly my point. Even if you want simple output, you may want to be able to get the whole spam at a moment's notice, and this will likely usually be because you're looking at someone else's tracking URL. So simple output does not mean, "also remove all links for me to get full output quickly", it means "give me a short parse now, but throw in a link so I can get the full parse easily". At least, that's my take on it, which may well be wrong. As an example, if you had "Simple output" on, you'd always be switching it off to be able to look at others' URLs. Having the "View entire" link right in there is a good balance between the two desires; to have short output for your own spams, but be able to look at full output of other's. For the record, if it's not a bug (I think it is) then please consider this a feature request. ...Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studog Posted November 1, 2004 Author Share Posted November 1, 2004 Guess I should go back over there, but as I recollect, the "issue" was raised by someone posting something "interesting" .. then complaining a bit because the Tracking URL "didn't allow anyone to see the actual spam" .. which was "corrected" by a number of folks that pointed out the link .... that you pointed out didn't exist in the "simple" configuration.19453[/snapback] Which I'll point out here again, that the one poster clearly had "Simple output" on, and that was the reason for the misunderstanding between him/her and the rest of the thread. If this isn't a bug, then at least the SpamCop Powers That Be should be aware of this difference in the UIs so this sort of misunderstanding doesn't happen in the future. Putting myself in that porter's shoes, the thread would be a clear example of the veterans jumping on the stupid newbie, which is detrimental to everyone; when really it was a misunderstanding to do an erroneous assumption about the UIs. I'll also note that no one in the thread has yet posted an apology to that poster. ...Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Ok, posted over there, sent a note out to Deputies with (probably too much) explanarion and background. I offered no apology as I wasn't a part of that section of the conversation (again, thinking that it dealt with an e-mail account setting at the time) ... on the other hand, I'm suspecting that this news will come be just as much of a surprise to M.E. as it was to me ... and as I recall, M.E. was the one suggesting that the original poster couldn't read <g> .... Of course, now you've got me wondering what it was that I did reply to in that thread .. dang .... off we go again back to there, un0hide all that stuff once again <g> Ah yes, the "Tracking URL" reference and what it used to say, pointers to the Glossary over here, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studog Posted November 1, 2004 Author Share Posted November 1, 2004 Ok, posted over there, sent a note out to Deputies with (probably too much) explanarion and background. Cool, thanks. I offered no apology as I wasn't a part of that section of the conversation (again, thinking that it dealt with an e-mail account setting at the time) ... Sorry, didn't mean to imply you specifically; I was just meaning in general. on the other hand, I'm suspecting that this news will come be just as much of a surprise to M.E. as it was to me ... and as I recall, M.E. was the one suggesting that the original poster couldn't read <g> .... 19456[/snapback] And that's the "jumping on" part that I was referring to. ...Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Put up another post "over there" .. I did make a remark, but that was referencing the "I clicked on it and it looked just like a parse report page" ..... was thinking back to a user "over here" that went on and on about "Tracking URL is not defined" ... and I recall pointing out that if he/she looked at the browser address line, he/she would have noticed that the URL of the page that was displayed was exactly the same as that showing in the (what is now labelled as the) Tracking URL .. and I didn't think this is where instructions on how to use a web browser should be handled .... so the fact that this user clicked on a link that went to the exact page he/she was sitting on at the time just seemed more than a bit silly .... Issue has been noted and forwarded .. best I can do <g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Got a note back from Ellen, stating that she forwarded it on to Julian, asking if it was a bug or a feature. However, it raised its pointy little head again, still in spamcop.help ... Subject Line: Any way to parse a bounce ..... You will note that the "Simple/Technical" mode is now addressed in the answers <g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 It appears to have been a design decision by Julian, deeming a text-only display of the complete spam with headers "Technical" rather than "Simple". I agree with that decision, but it would be nice if it were easier to switch back and forth between "Technical" and "Simple" modes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studog Posted November 2, 2004 Author Share Posted November 2, 2004 It appears to have been a design decision by Julian, deeming a text-only display of the complete spam with headers "Technical" rather than "Simple".19496[/snapback] Fair enough, but what does that have to do with including or excluding a "View entire spam" link in the parse/tracking URL? That link should always appear IMO. ...Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Fair enough, but what does that have to do with including or excluding a "View entire spam" link in the parse/tracking URL? That link should always appear IMO. 19498[/snapback] The Tracking URL shows exactly what you would get if you had just pasted the spam and clicked the "Process spam" button. If you're so interested in viewing the entire spam, why aren't you interested in "Technical Details"? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studog Posted November 3, 2004 Author Share Posted November 3, 2004 The Tracking URL shows exactly what you would get if you had just pasted the spam and clicked the "Process spam" button. If you're so interested in viewing the entire spam, why aren't you interested in "Technical Details"?19499[/snapback] I'll quote my last reply: Fair enough, but what does that have to do with including or excluding a "View entire spam" link in the parse/tracking URL? That link should always appear IMO. 19498[/snapback] If when you view your own spams you want simple output it is not easy nor convenient to switch temporarily to technical output to look at the entirety of someone else's spam. My position is that this problem is caused by the "Simple output" option disabling the "View entire spam" link. NOTE: My issue is that a link is not shown when I think it should be. I think it should be shown because I believe a simple link to something else does not constitute "complex output", and it resolves the above problem. ...Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I think it should be shown because I believe a simple link to something else does not constitute "complex output", and it resolves the above problem. I agree with Studog. As currently implemented, in order to get that useful link, you either have to change your preferences temporarily or you have to log out and go into "www.spamcop.net" anonymously, neither of which are user-friendly, IMO. I think he's got a good point, and that the system should be changed. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I agree with Studog. As currently implemented, in order to get that useful link, you either have to change your preferences temporarily or you have to log out and go into "www.spamcop.net" anonymously, neither of which are user-friendly, IMO. I think he's got a good point, and that the system should be changed. DT 19549[/snapback] ...FWIW, I am in agreement with studog and DT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 My issue is that a link is not shown when I think it should be. I think it should be shown because I believe a simple link to something else does not constitute "complex output", and it resolves the above problem.19548[/snapback] You've talked me into it. It's just a link, after all, so it shouldn't provide too much confusion to those who like simple reporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studog Posted November 4, 2004 Author Share Posted November 4, 2004 You've talked me into it. It's just a link, after all, so it shouldn't provide too much confusion to those who like simple reporting.19571[/snapback] Cool! :-) Thanks. It will be appreciated. ...Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 You've talked me into it. It's just a link, after all, so it shouldn't provide too much confusion to those who like simple reporting.Cool! :-) Thanks. It will be appreciated. ...Stu 19574[/snapback] ...Don't get too excited -- Jeff G. isn't the one who actually does the coding. That person, Julian, still needs to be convinced, find the time and actually code it. <g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Haven't heard a thing bwtonf what I'd already posted (that Ellen had kicked it up to Julian) ... but I even used the word "Standardization" as a bit of a push. The code change might be as simple as cut/paste of a section of code, shifting it down four line, so as to include the "viw entire message" on both screen instances .. but it could also be something that's within some other massive data crunch thing, that moving it will cause havoc .... hard to say from here. But noting the recent (posted) changes to date/time/mailhost thing, the explosion of folks talking about so many reports going to [postmaster][at]IP .... this item is probably not at the top of his list yet <g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.