Dave_L Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 (edited) ...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! 36153[/snapback] turetzsr, that was a little condescending. This concerns a known bug in the reporting interface. The people who maintain that interface also have a responsibility, to ensure that it works properly. Edited November 16, 2005 by Dave_L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 ...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!36153[/snapback] 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! that was a little condescending.36158[/snapback] ...I'm sorry (I think) that you found my reminder, which was a simple factual statement, condescending. It was not intended to be.This concerns a known bug in the reporting interface. The people who maintain that interface also have a responsibility, to ensure that it works properly.36158[/snapback] ...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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Nooo, not really. I mean a real "Oops. We see the problem, we know where the problem is, should be fixed in a bit." That was just a "Oops. I can verify the problem. Bug Report filed." I do that all the time with MY users, so I know exactly what that means... it means "I've informed someone who can actually DO something about the problem and it'll get fixed when they get around to fixing it." 35478[/snapback] This concerns a known bug in the reporting interface. The people who maintain that interface also have a responsibility, to ensure that it works properly. 36158[/snapback] http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...ber/106401.html Though I'd really suggest reading the whole thread. The "one can assume" thing has been the 'norm' for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nisse Posted November 16, 2005 Author Share Posted November 16, 2005 Since I am not paying for this service, I have absolutely no legitimate claim on their time or any particular feature of the service. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_L Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 (edited) I also pay for the service, and have been doing so for several years. Edited November 16, 2005 by Dave_L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Over and above the "The primary mode of support here is peer-to-peer, meaning users helping other users. (please remember this at all times!)" placed at the top of the pages here, please see Section 8 - SpamCop's System & Active Staff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Since I am not paying for this service, I have absolutely no legitimate claim on their time or any particular feature of the service.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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_L Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Maybe you're missing my point. I'm not whining about Spamcop's service. I encountered a problem with the reporting service, and came over here to see if there was any info about it. I found this thread. Since two weeks had elapsed since the problem was first reported, and the problem is still present, I posted an update. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 I'm not whining about Spamcop's service. Oh nice, leaving me as the only one who complains? <g> I encountered a problem with the reporting service, and came over here to see if there was any info about it. I found this thread. Since two weeks had elapsed since the problem was first reported, and the problem is still present, I posted an update. 36170[/snapback] There is no known IronPort staffer currently posting here, the last was during a bit of changes taking place on the www.spamcop.net web-site and that was a long, long time ago. Julian hasn't posted publically in any of the SpamCop.net venues in ages. I have provided links that state the current 'logic' of posting "inside information" as expressed by one of the "official" staff members. There's no intent to give you a hard time, but you are scratching on a point of known frustration. I once again point to an item found in the Announcements section, started off by a posting from Don about a "fix" that was made .. that eventually got tracked down "here" to the original query/report/complaint on that issue .... but the "time passed" is the best that anyone "here" can offer to answer the "when will it get fixed" questions of late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Maybe you're missing my point. I'm not whining about Spamcop's service. I encountered a problem with the reporting service, and came over here to see if there was any info about it. I found this thread. Since two weeks had elapsed since the problem was first reported, and the problem is still present, I posted an update. 36170[/snapback] ...No, I understood that point. But you also wrote:<snip> I just accidentally sent report copies to several inapplicable addresses, because I forgot to uncheck them. and then you objected to my reminder that it was the responsibility of us users to avoid that mistake as condescending. Then you wroteThis concerns a known bug in the reporting interface. The people who maintain that interface also have a responsibility, to ensure that it works properly. to which I repliedSince I am not paying for this service, I have absolutely no legitimate claim on their time or any particular feature of the service. to which you repliedI also pay for the service, and have been doing so for several years.which is what prompted my most recent reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 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] I am a paying customer of the Email service which gets me an included reporting account. Having been here for several years now, do not hold your breath waiting "to let us know whether this is going to be fixed, and if not, why not." In general, you will know if it has been fixed when it starts working differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nisse Posted January 28, 2006 Author Share Posted January 28, 2006 This still hasn't been fixed. Can't we at least be told why not? :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 This still hasn't been fixed. Can't we at least be told why not? :angry: 39789[/snapback] Apparently, much of the information in even the last batch of posts in this Topic have yet to be made clear enough. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 This still hasn't been fixed. Can't we at least be told why not? :angry:39789[/snapback] <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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Having been here for several years now, do not hold your breath waiting "to let us know whether this is going to be fixed, and if not, why not." In general, you will know if it has been fixed when it starts working differently. 36175[/snapback] As Wazoo has pointed out several times in this topic, this is a user forum. And what Steven Underwood has said is my experience also. It is useless to complain or comment in the Help forum. It would be helpful if you have discovered a workaround. Or sometimes one misses something and needs to ask. However, If you want to, take to the Lounge and vent your frustration! You might find some people who will join in. The next post in this topic should only be that someone has discovered that it is working differently or asking a question of clarification on how the bug affects reports or suggesting an easier way of working with what is there. Miss Betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaCentauri Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 (edited) For example, my user-defined report recipients include not only the spam[at]uce.gov (where I send all spam), but also recipients who are only interested in specific types of spam such as webcomplaints[at]ora.fda.gov for prescription-related e-mails and spoof[at]ebay.com for Ebay Phishes. I imagine many user's lists also include addresses for specific types of spam. If a hurried SpamCop user reporting one spam after another forgets to check the boxes for user-defined recipients from an unchecked list, no harm is done. Meanwhile, the paralel scenario of forgetting to UNCHECK user-defined recipients would result in Viagra e-mails going to the Nigerian Scam address, university diploma ads being reported to software piracy folks, etc etc etc. The checked defaults would result in less efficient reporting and less overall respect and attention for SpamCop reports. How are you getting checkboxes to so many different reporting addresses? I can only fit four agencies' addresses in the box on the preferences page because of the limitation of characters. All my reports go to FTC and DOJ, then drug and pump and dump spams go to FDA and SEC respectively. I'd like to have more options. Of course, if I could have more addresses to report to, it would be even more important to have the default be "unchecked" Unchecking a dozen boxes for every report would get old really fast. Edited February 24, 2006 by AlphaCentauri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 How are you getting checkboxes to so many different reporting addresses? I can only fit four agencies' addresses in the box on the preferences page because of the limitation of characters. <snip> 40740[/snapback] ...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> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 ...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>40747[/snapback] Of course, it helps if the reporting addresses' ISPs don't reject the Reports as spam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaCentauri Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 ...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> 40747[/snapback] that's not many characters: spam[at]uce.gov AskDOJ[at]usdoj.gov webcomplaints[at]ora.fda.gov enforcement[at]sec.gov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 100that's not many characters: spam[at]uce.gov AskDOJ[at]usdoj.gov webcomplaints[at]ora.fda.gov enforcement[at]sec.gov 40749[/snapback] No, it's not. I have webcomplaints[at]ora.fda.gov in "Personal copies of outgoing reports" and "otcfraud[at]cder.fda.gov ct-abuse[at]abuse.sprint.net spam[at]UCE.GOV JEFF[at]EXAMPLE.COM level3[at]admin.spamcop.net" in "Public standard report recipients", giving me a choice of five. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 ...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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.