Miss Betsy Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 I think that now I understand that you understand that I understand that you understand that I didn't intend to be misunderstood. 36785[/snapback] That's a great reply!! <still chuckling> Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mshalperin Posted November 28, 2005 Author Share Posted November 28, 2005 That's a great reply!! <still chuckling> 36787[/snapback] Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mshalperin Posted November 28, 2005 Author Share Posted November 28, 2005 Part of the problem is that you're reporting that "donor" link that really has nothing to do with the message. You should report the image link and to the ISP, with a copy to the 419 Secret Service link, but I would leave the other IB links out of it 36783[/snapback] I'm not sure what you mean by "donor" and "image" links. What I was discussing was parser generated reports to SpamCop administration for "review" which were labeled "EXPERTS ONLY" and default unchecked. I have no way of determining which link is an IB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mshalperin Posted November 28, 2005 Author Share Posted November 28, 2005 Yes, it looked that way. Sorry if I misunderstood. 36708[/snapback] No problem. Sorry if I was unclear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 I'm not sure what you mean by "donor" and "image" links. What I was discussing was parser generated reports to SpamCop administration for "review" which were labeled "EXPERTS ONLY" and default unchecked. I have no way of determining which link is an IB. 36799[/snapback] Ahhhh, but you've now keyed on what the "EXPERTS ONLY" phrase was all about <g> That was placed there in an attempt to stop those simply checking all the boxes over and over, the suggestion being that one should do some research prior to electing to "appeal" the listing first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 What I usually do when I hit one of those URLs that I might want to appeal to "Internal spamcop handling: (appeals)" is use my Sam Spade for Windows (SSW, spade.exe) to safely browse to the spamvertised URL's page, gather enough evidence to prove that the spamvertised URL's page (or a page linked from a URL on the spamvertised URL's page) is still working and is selling the same crap that the spam is selling, and then paste that evidence into the Notes for the people who read "Internal spamcop handling: (appeals)" (way down near the bottom of the parse page), indicating the correlation (such as "spam and URL's working page are both pushing Viagra"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mshalperin Posted November 28, 2005 Author Share Posted November 28, 2005 use my Sam Spade for Windows (SSW, spade.exe) to safely browse to the spamvertised URL's page, gather enough evidence to prove that the spamvertised URL's page (or a page linked from a URL on the spamvertised URL's page) is still working 36813[/snapback] Thanks. I've used Anonymizer for the same purpose, but there can be indirect connection between the spammer and link not immediately apparant. I never tried to dipute an IB claim and didn't in this case - I was just confused by the wording of the appeal link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mshalperin Posted November 28, 2005 Author Share Posted November 28, 2005 Ahhhh, but you've now keyed on what the "EXPERTS ONLY" phrase was all about <g> That was placed there in an attempt to stop those simply checking all the boxes over and over, the suggestion being that one should do some research prior to electing to "appeal" the listing first. 36803[/snapback] I agree - I was just unfamiliar with the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 I agree - I was just unfamiliar with the process. 36817[/snapback] I'm thinking that the primary purpose was based on all the appeals done on sites that had already been whacked by a caring ISP .... there werre all kinds of other issues, but I seem to recall that this was the big sore point for the Deputies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.