Public Standard Report Recipients now unchecked by default

[amanuensis]

I have been copying uce.gov on spam reports as a Public Standard Report Recipient, and until yesterday, the box on the report was checked by default. Today I see that the box on the report form is now unchecked by default, at least on my form.

Since I only have this one Recipient, I cannot tell if this is only related to uce.gov or if it's something new altogether.

[turetzsr]

...Looks like a bug was fixed. Please see SpamCop forum thread "Reporting defaults have changed."

[amanuensis]

...Looks like a bug was fixed. Please see SpamCop forum thread "Reporting defaults have changed."

To my knowledge and best of my memory, this box has always been checked by default. I added uce.gov quite a while ago and until today they were always checked.

That other thread deals with both what I noted and also default recipients which is something else.

If this was a bug, it was around for a long time. It seems logical to me that if I choose a recipient such as uce.gov that I would want it sent to them by default.

[turetzsr]

<snip>

To my knowledge and best of my memory, this box has always been checked by default.

<snip>

...Apparently since about October 31, 2005, as that was the first post in the aforementioned thread.

That other thread deals with both what I noted and also default recipients which is something else.

...That thread was a complaint that user-defined recipients, which is to what you are referring, were checked whereas prior to that (October 31, 2005) they were unchecked:

Why are all the user-defined recipients now checked by default? They used to be unchecked.

<snip>

It seems logical to me that if I choose a recipient such as uce.gov that I would want it sent to them by default.

...Depends on how you use it. What I do is include recipients to which I ALWAYS want to send reports, such as spam[at]uce.gov, and recipients to whom I only want to send reports SOMETIMES, such as Enforcement[at]sec.gov (pump 'n dump spam only). Therefore, I prefer that they not be checked. What we should really have is a Preferences setting for Public standard report recipients analogous to but distinct from the "3rd party report default" setting.

[dra007]

I have the same problem, still appears as unchecked. A bit anoying since up to this point I got used to having smam.uce checked by default.

[amanuensis]

...Apparently since about October 31, 2005, as that was the first post in the aforementioned thread....That thread was a complaint that user-defined recipients, which is to what you are referring, were checked whereas prior to that (October 31, 2005) they were unchecked:...Depends on how you use it. What I do is include recipients to which I ALWAYS want to send reports, such as spam[at]uce.gov, and recipients to whom I only want to send reports SOMETIMES, such as Enforcement[at]sec.gov (pump 'n dump spam only). Therefore, I prefer that they not be checked. What we should really have is a Preferences setting for Public standard report recipients analogous to but distinct from the "3rd party report default" setting.

That is an excellent idea. If we had separate lines for each PSRR with a yes/no default option for each one, rather than a single line as is presently the case, everyone could be satisfied.

However, it seems that the default "no-checkers" have won this skirmish

[SpamCopAdmin]

There isn't any skirmish.

The "Public standard report recipients" checkboxes are supposed to default to "Off." The idea being that if you want to send reports to somebody that SpamCop isn't recommending, then you have to take extra steps to do it.

It got changed quite a while ago as an unintended consequence of a related bug fix. It's taken until now to free up engineer resources to fix it.

- Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin -

[dbiel]

Don, thanks for the clarification. It definately makes sense.

[turetzsr]

<snip>

What we should really have is a Preferences setting for Public standard report recipients analogous to but distinct from the "3rd party report default" setting.

...Relevant to which, please see thread "User Defined Recipient Report Default capability" in SpamCop Forum "New Feature Request."

That is an excellent idea. If we had separate lines for each PSRR with a yes/no default option for each one, rather than a single line as is presently the case, everyone could be satisfied.

<snip>

...That is how it appears for me (one line per PSRR).

[amanuensis]

...Relevant to which, please see thread "User Defined Recipient Report Default capability" in SpamCop Forum "New Feature Request."...That is how it appears for me (one line per PSRR).

Do you mean one line per PSRR in the report? That is not my concern.

I am referring to the actual section in the reporting preferences area, which, at least for me, has only one line for *all* PSRRs, presumably separated by spaces.

Amending my original thought, two PSRR lines would be sufficient: one for default checked, one line for default unchecked.

[Wazoo]

That is an excellent idea. If we had separate lines for each PSRR with a yes/no default option for each one, rather than a single line as is presently the case, everyone could be satisfied.

I believe you are trying to take things back to as they once were ... years ago, back when Julian was running the whole thing 'from the house' ... problem arose when reporters atrted using things like 'bitchlist' contents to send additional reports. The 'bitchlist' was composed of collected/subitted addresses for anyone/everyone associated with a company ... stockholders, secrataries, vice-presidents, etc. ... problem being that the SpamCop.net reporting tool was being used to 'spam' hundreds of folks that had no connection to the spam, no control or even knowledge of e-mail servers, etc .... first 'limit' put in place was the number of additional addresses .. this continued to be abused, so the next limit was total characters in the list of additional notify addresses ....

The point being, your 'complaint' about the single line situation was actually brought on by activities of your fellow spam reporters ....

[turetzsr]

I believe you are trying to take things back to as they once were ... years ago, back when Julian was running the whole thing 'from the house' ... problem arose when reporters atrted using things like 'bitchlist' contents to send additional reports. The 'bitchlist' was composed of collected/subitted addresses for anyone/everyone associated with a company ... stockholders, secrataries, vice-presidents, etc. ... problem being that the SpamCop.net reporting tool was being used to 'spam' hundreds of folks that had no connection to the spam, no control or even knowledge of e-mail servers, etc .... first 'limit' put in place was the number of additional addresses .. this continued to be abused, so the next limit was total characters in the list of additional notify addresses ....

The point being, your 'complaint' about the single line situation was actually brought on by activities of your fellow spam reporters ....

...Perhaps this could be addressed in the same way as quick reporting for those of us who are not SpamCop e-mail subscribers -- you must demonstrate a level of trustworthiness in your reporting history and appeal to the SpamCop Deputies to allow you a larger list of PSRRs....

[amanuensis]

...The point being, your 'complaint' about the single line situation was actually brought on by activities of your fellow spam reporters ....

Since I started using Spamcop when it first began and used a C/R method many moons ago and am a paying reporter who has never engaged in any of the activities you describe, I do not think your use of "fellow" is entirely proper. I am practically a charter member of SC.

I have no "fellow" reporters. I am a unique individual with no ties or connections to any other spam reporter using SC.

Your use of "fellow" is not unlike the use of "we" or "your." I am not part of any group of reporters using SC.

[Wazoo]

Since I started using Spamcop when it first began and used a C/R method many moons ago and am a paying reporter who has never engaged in any of the activities you describe, I do not think your use of "fellow" is entirely proper. I am practically a charter member of SC.

???? I don't recognise the 'display name' at all ... not that this matters. But yes, I also 'date' back to those days ... yellow screens, AnyBoard 'forum', etc.

I have no "fellow" reporters. I am a unique individual with no ties or connections to any other spam reporter using SC.

Your use of "fellow" is not unlike the use of "we" or "your." I am not part of any group of reporters using SC.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow your 'exception' at all .... All SpamCop.net users are simply users ...????

[dbiel]

Since I started using Spamcop when it first began and used a C/R method many moons ago and am a paying reporter who has never engaged in any of the activities you describe, I do not think your use of "fellow" is entirely proper. I am practically a charter member of SC.

I have no "fellow" reporters. I am a unique individual with no ties or connections to any other spam reporter using SC.

Your use of "fellow" is not unlike the use of "we" or "your." I am not part of any group of reporters using SC.

You are part of the group made up of all reporters, unless of course you are not using the reporting system. Sorry, I do not follow your logic, so I will try to define the terms used in Wazoo's reply

Fellow reporters = An undefined subset of the group made up of all reporters (which could also could in itself be refered to as fellow reporters)

There was no intent to include you in the limited group of fellow reporters who have abused the system, simple that fact that it was reporters using the system rather than hackers or others outside of the system that caused the problems resulting in the change which unfortunately affect all reporters which does include you, if you are still using the reporting system.

You are also a member of the group of users you make use of the part of the reporting system you have refernced as not all users make use of it.

So yes you are an individual, but at the same time you are a member of serveral different groups of reporters. This will be a bit repetative but here it goes.

1) you are a member of the group of all individuals you make use of the internet

2) you are a member of a slightly smaller group of individuals that make use of browsers.

3) you are a member of the group that uses a particual browser

4) you are a member of the group of individuals that use SpamCop reporting services

5) you are a member of the group of individuals that use Public Standard Report Recipients

6) you are a member of the group of registered forum users

7) you are a member of the smaller group of registered forum users who post in the fourms

All of these are your fellow users, reporters, etc.

[Miss Betsy]

You are part of the group made up of all reporters, unless of course you are not using the reporting system.

When I first started posting to the ngs, I noticed that usually when anyone made a statement that included 'everyone' it was followed by (tinw) or (tinu) - there is no we, there is no us. I never understood why that was necessary (or asked).

However, since this poster goes way back, it is obvious that there is/was some kind of feeling that anti-spam fighters are not an organized enough group to be identified as 'fellow' or 'you' or 'we' - not even those who use spamcop. It is not obvious now, but the purpose of the parser was not to be used as a tool to decode headers because one didn't know how to do it, but was simply a tool to make header reading faster. There was no link to other reporters any more than there is a link to other people who might use an online zipcode finder. It probably has something to do with 'my server, my rules'

Re New Features: I think you would find that 'New Feature Requests' are generally ignored (though Julian, when he frequented the ngs occasionally would add a feature that was convenient for the reporter). Changes in the reporting preferences are made, if you looked, to make spamcop more accurate. Since I haven't looked, that is only my impression.

Miss Betsy