Jump to content

Quick reporting fuel use?


Recommended Posts

The FAQ states specifically that quick reporting does not ever parse the body of the spams I report.

The RULES state that I cannot modify the body of spam in any way (with the exception of bae64 decoding).

So, does forwarding the entire body count the full spam message size against my "fuel" usage?

If yes, then when using quick reporting can I remove the body and replace it with a single "Body removed for quick reporting" line? I'm reporting a lot of misdirected bounce mail to one account and they are frequently 30K+ in size because the idjit administrators have set their systems to bounce the entire message (spam that wasn't from me) rather than a truncated version. They shouldn't be accepting then bouncing anyway, bouncing the whole thing rather than just enough to make it identifiable is adding insult to injury.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

... So, does forwarding the entire body count the full spam message size against my "fuel" usage?...
Hi Gerald,

I hope someone has an authoratative answer for you - I would say no, it doesn't count because only the headers are processed. Regardless of this, the full "evidence" is required by SC so it is not in order to truncate the body IIUC (noting though that no-one jumped up and down when carpedie suggested the same, for a different reason, in http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...st&p=49132). I had thought quick reporting performed the truncation itself, but evidently not.

A greater insult would be if the spam header were parsed (costing fuel) but not reported - that has been my experience in trying to report misdirected non-delivery advices from postmasters - "Nothing to do!" says the parse. Only a couple of these attempted, I would have to admit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Specific answer - I don't know. E-mail sent upstream, but this has never been asked before in a public forum. The definition includes "all bytes processed" ... but also noting that this is one of those situations where the 'Official' FAQ data on this item pre-dates Quick-Reporting ....

One could suggest that you could test this yourself by checking your fuel stats prior and post spam submittal/processing, but ... in the case of a truncated=header-header only .. it might take quite a number of those to actually tickle the displayed fuel count. Maybe that's enough to show what's happening? I seem to recall that the measurement was "per megabyte" so I don't know how many (of your typical) spams it takes to 'see' a change in the reported fuel.

From the other side of the coin .. the recipent of the Report ... receiving "only" the headers may not actually be sufficient for them to take any action, locate the source, track down the offending party, etc. Without the "actual, real, complete' spam in the Report, one feeds the fire that "SpamCop.net can be used against innocent parties" ...

Another suggestion is to use the phrase coined up along the way of using a "flat-rate" Reporting Account, which is to get a SpamCop.net e-mail account which includes a (free) Reporting Account as an 'extra feature' ... noting that bad-reporting can cause that part of the e-mail account package to be terminated while the e-mail itself is still a valid account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...