Idea to help keep people reporting spam

[Miss Betsy]

It ignores the motivational-type messages like Your average reporting time is: 5 hours; Great! in the member page, it doesn't explain the "Yum, this spam is fresh" message for <= 2hours in the parser output and it doesn't address the FAQ

I don't think either one is intended to convey a message to the reporter. It just happened to be what the programmer was thinking when he inserted the comment. I don't know much about comments in code, but pretty much they indicate what the code is supposed to do. Since these comments do show up in the parser output, perhaps they did make them so that they sound like a communication, but the purpose is not to communicate to the reporter, but to the programmer.

Is there an 'official' spamcop FAQ on these parser comments? Otherwise, all of our interpretations are pretty much guesses (some may have been confirmed by deputies, but I bet all are not).

Miss Betsy

[DavidT]

The "Great!" and "Yum, this spam is fresh" comments in the reporting system go *way* back to a time when the system was a bit less professional than it now is. They're informal and cute, but were probably intended to be exactly that, nothing more and nothing less. As for the average spam reporting time....totally meaningless, due to the factors already mentioned, and it should be removed.

DT

[Wazoo]

The "Great!" and "Yum, this spam is fresh" comments in the reporting system go *way* back to a time when the system was a bit less professional than it now is.

The "Yum..." comment also went along with a special tag in the Report Subject: line that offered the hint that it may be a spam run in progress ... but again, that was also in the days that spammers took one e-mail server to its kness at a time, far different than the 'send 100 e-mails each from 10,000 zombies' scenario of today.

[turetzsr]

It ignores the motivational-type messages like Your average reporting time is: 5 hours; Great! in the member page, it doesn't explain the "Yum, this spam is fresh" message for <= 2hours in the parser output and it doesn't address the FAQ

I don't think either one is intended to convey a message to the reporter. It just happened to be what the programmer was thinking when he inserted the comment. I don't know much about comments in code, but pretty much they indicate what the code is supposed to do. Since these comments do show up in the parser output, perhaps they did make them so that they sound like a communication, but the purpose is not to communicate to the reporter, but to the programmer.

<snip>

...These "comments" are actually displayed on the parser output (web page) displayed to the user; they are not just in-code comments.

[Miss Betsy]

As I said I don't remember too much about 'comments' but sometimes they do show up in what the user sees, not for any 'user' purpose, but to indicate 'where' something happens for troubleshooting. The reason I said that was because there is another comment that makes no sense because it can mean something it doesn't say. I can't remember what it is now. IIRC, it can mean more than one thing. And, IIRC, there is another one that is completely cryptic unless you have some idea of how the parser works. Neither one seems to be there to convey any message to the user, but to indicate that this parse was doing something different than ordinary parses.

Miss Betsy

[Farelf]

Average reporting time should be dropped if it cannot be "fixed". It is a source of perplexity in its current implementation. Any in-line "programmer's results" required would/should be written to a programmer's log file, in the time-honoured fashion.

[turetzsr]

As I said I don't remember too much about 'comments' but sometimes they do show up in what the user sees, not for any 'user' purpose, but to indicate 'where' something happens for troubleshooting. The reason I said that was because there is another comment that makes no sense because it can mean something it doesn't say. I can't remember what it is now. IIRC, it can mean more than one thing. And, IIRC, there is another one that is completely cryptic unless you have some idea of how the parser works. Neither one seems to be there to convey any message to the user, but to indicate that this parse was doing something different than ordinary parses.

Miss Betsy

...Oh, sure, quite true. However, in the case of the "comment" messages we're discussing here, I don't think that's the case (at least, it wouldn't be if I were coding it <g>).

[nei1_j]

Dear Y'all,

The Average Reporting Time is a great "motivator" for me! I hope that doesn't suggest I'm simple minded.

By sending in only my "freshest" spam, I've gotten my Average Reporting Time down to 3 hours, and reduced the time spent with my SpamCop-reporting-obsession from hours down to less-than-an-hour per day.

I never noticed gross inconsistencies in the reported Time. When the time dropped from 4 hours to 3, I reported a few older spams, and my time went back up to 4. Took a few dozen more reports to get the time back to 3, as expected.

Keeps me off the street. Yes, when I tell my friends, they say I have too much time on my hands.

My issues are few:

1) How is the Average calculated? If calculations include all the spams I've reported since I created my username (as implied), then SpamCop must have the total number of spams I've ever submitted to calculate my Average. Also, if I were provided the same data, then I would be able to accurately predict what effect reporting an old spam would have on my Average (reporting stock / security spams is more important than my silly Average), or how many more 0-hour spams I'd have to submit to get my average down to 2 hours.

2) The Average is displayed without decimal places. And I think it’s going to be a few years before my “3 hour” Average finally drops to 2. (Perhaps I’ll throw a party.) After having submitted a million spams, every Fresh spam I submit only reduces my Average by a fraction, perhaps in the 1/1000 or 1/10,000 decimal place, so it’s going to be a while before my "3" changes to a "2." However, if the Average were displayed with more decimal places, it would help to provide further Motivation as I could [at least] watch the fractional numbers drop. Even without being provided my Total Number of Spams, I could use the increased accuracy of Change in Average due to a single report to roughly predict the effect of additional reports; and then again, approximately how many additional reports to get the desired change, etc., thank you.

[Farelf]

...The Average Reporting Time is a great "motivator" for me! I hope that doesn't suggest I'm simple minded.

Not to me - if you're interested, use the search box with "average reporting time" for some more history, supporting sentiments, including http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...ost&p=32048 and http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...post&p=1384

Decimal places or not, the accuracy of the calculation is an issue (so the question "how is it calculated" is a little moot). I've never had any problem with my own numbers (in terms of apparent accuracy), same as you, but others have reported monumental, even "impossible" figures appearing in their own ART stats. I guess there are some complexities involved.

[StevenUnderwood]

Decimal places or not, the accuracy of the calculation is an issue (so the question "how is it calculated" is a little moot). I've never had any problem with my own numbers (in terms of apparent accuracy), same as you, but others have reported monumental, even "impossible" figures appearing in their own ART stats. I guess there are some complexities involved.

I think if it helps some people, it might not be a bad idea. I think there was a problem with the calculation for a while and they never reset the stats (which they should have). My stats on my paid account currently shows: Your average reporting time is: 9.0 days; Not bad.

[nei1_j]

I guess I forgot #3: Eliminate all inaccurate Average Reporting Times.

First, I assume the problem leading to gross-inaccuracies has been resolved.

At first glance, eliminating all inaccurate Averages might seem to be an impossible task. However, a shortcut might be sufficient: Reset everybody's Average.

Consider someone like myself who has reported a million spams. My Average ("3") is a pretty good reflection of my reporting times. If my Average -- a reflection of years of hard labor -- were reset (gasp!!) and newly-calculated based only on further reports I make starting today, my new Average would most likely become "3" again, in short order, because that's just the way I do my spam.

Stated another way, the way I handle my spam is not likely to change if the Average records are wiped clean, so my average -- which never had a gross inaccuracy problem -- is going to wind up pretty much the same as it was before the Great Wipe, in short order.

Another person who has been submitting spam for years but whose Average was subjected to gross inaccuracies along the way would probably be delighted to have their Average wiped clean, now that the method has been straightened out. (It has been straightened out, right?)

Another person who is newer at this, and didn't realize the value of reporting as soon as possible -- but does now -- would be delighted to have their newbie-slow reports wiped from his/her record. (Actually, I think that's my personal situation, so I would personally benefit from a Great Wipe.)

The only person I can imagine who might object to having their Average record wiped clean would be someone who is rather new, but most of their reporting was done quickly. They got off to a good start, but are unsure it's something they can sustain into the future, and they're going to loose a lot of quick reporting times.

However, it's not like taking away their wallets. Recommend email-broadcasting a statement along this line: "... There have been gross errors in many Users' Average Reporting Times. The only way to clean up the mess is to re-initialize everyone's Average Reporting Times. We hope this won't give anyone a cow. After the process is completed, everyone will be able to enjoy useful Average Reporting Time data..." That should help keep most of the ugly reactions to a minimum, I think. Personally, give me a small statement intelligently explaining why, and I'm happy.

And then, the Average Reporting Time can be displayed to 15 decimal places. It could give birth to a whole new generation of statistitians.

Thanks again,

-Neil-

[nei1_j]

Wow. This thread has had 10,107 "views." People are interested.

Searching the forum for "Average Reporting Time" turned me on to this thread. It's name is "Idea to help keep people reporting spam." Seems we're still On-Topic.

-N-

[QuantumMechanic]

it would be nice to see a counter for all the spam submitted whilst using thine own account.

[Wazoo]

it would be nice to see a counter for all the spam submitted whilst using thine own account.

Merger this 'new' Topic into an existing Diecussion that includes the same thoughts. PM sent to advise of this action.

[QuantumMechanic]

a counter to see how many spam have been reported.

Before any 1000+post members chime in with blah blah blah its not possible/feasible, I request that you please do not bother.

[agsteele]

a counter to see how many spam have been reported.

You might like to clarify whether you're requesting a running total of your own reports or the running total of all reports by all reporters.

The latter already effectively exists for paying users - 4,842,789,907 when I just looked but increasing rapidly so not a very useful figure - but interesting for the curious I guess.

Andrew

EDIT

OK, I can see you asked the same question back in 2007 but clarified that you were seeking the number for your own reports. I don't see you got a response then but good luck with your aspirations.

[QuantumMechanic]

had forgotton that post, must lookit up in a min I guess.

Yes for personal account.

I darent say all the other stats I'd like to see.

[QuantumMechanic]

hmm, moved to irrelevant topic, thanks I guess are in order anyway.

It would be nice to see the total number of spam submitted and it seems like a truely trivial feature implementation wise.

Whether it would improve reporting - who knows, at this point I dont really care - it would just be a nice thing to have access to as a significant? spam speciemin contributor to Spamcop DNBL.

Quite who you think will review this entire thread after being stale for 4 (!) years at Cisco/Ironport is unknown to me and I suspect to your selves. I suspect even the most ardent fan of Spamcop would be very hard pushed to spend the time to trawl through this thread putting up with reading all the troll putdowns.

Please accept that fact that this pointless grouping of various improvement requests serves none a service.

[turetzsr]

hmm, moved to irrelevant topic, thanks I guess are in order anyway.

<snip>

...How soon they forget! <g>

it would be nice to see a counter for all the spam submitted whilst using thine own account.

<snip>

OK, I can see you asked the same question back in 2007 but clarified that you were seeking the number for your own reports. I don't see you got a response then but good luck with your aspirations.

had forgotton that post, must lookit up in a min I guess.

<snip>

New section

...Next point:

Quite who you think will review this entire thread after being stale for 4 (!) years at Cisco/Ironport is unknown to me and I suspect to your selves.

<snip>

...Yes, and that's the point! Your request has been asked in several different ways in this "thread" and not implemented. No point beating a dead horse, is there? Yet, hope remains, however faint -- the SpamCop folks could always come here, find the ardor and frequency with which this feature is requested, and decide to grant it! <g>

[Lking]

I suspect even the most ardent fan of Spamcop would be very hard pushed to spend the time to trawl through this thread putting up with reading all the troll putdowns.

Sometime ago I discovered the "View New Post" button so I don't start in the beginning and thereby don't have 'to spend the time...

On the other hand I, for one, do appreciate the grouping. The effort saves me the time of doing a search for related topics to see any background, if i'm interested.

[rconner]

I'm a paid user, and every message sent to me that goes through SpamCop gets a serial number (displayed when I show the held spam). This works well for me as a counter (I use it in my own spam statistics). Of course, it includes false positives that SpamCop detains, and also excludes false negatives that get by SpamCop, but both of these numbers are sufficiently low for me as to be negligible. This counter is pretty reliable, although there was one small hiccup a couple years back.

-- rick

[michaelanglo]

I'm a paid user, and every message sent to me that goes through SpamCop gets a serial number (displayed when I show the held spam). This works well for me as a counter (I use it in my own spam statistics). Of course, it includes false positives that SpamCop detains, and also excludes false negatives that get by SpamCop, but both of these numbers are sufficiently low for me as to be negligible. This counter is pretty reliable, although there was one small hiccup a couple years back.

Yes, these serial numbers are generated per folder by SC Webmail (Horde) so you can not only see them (for the Held folder) in VER, you can also get them by a right click and copy shortcut in webmail view.

http://webmail.spamcop.net/horde/imp/messa...hp?index=326200

Thus you can also see the serial number for your Inbox which may be useful to keep track of

http://webmail.spamcop.net/horde/imp/message.php?index=58703

Thus 85 % of my email to date was spam.

This also help to explain what happens when Horde gets confused about what folder is current.

[Wazoo]

Before any 1000+post members chime in with blah blah blah its not possible/feasible, I request that you please do not bother.

Just noting that at present, all 1000+ post members are just users, like yourself.