Quick reporting doesn't report URLS- why?

[PaulKTF]

As I understand it, reports submited using Quick Reporting don't report the URLs that are in the body of the spam. Why is that the case? If they're reported using standard reporting, shouldn't they also be reported using the Quick Reporting?

[Lking]

I could pontificate for lines on end about why I think the tool works the way it does. But the bottom line is: Because. Because that is the way the tool was designed.

With little thought it seems to me that sense no one reviews the reports being sent, many faults reports are avoided by only sending reports to the source of the spam. There was a time that lots of spam included many references to news articles about their drug or stock; The equivalent of 'As seen on TV.' As a result The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, would end up on block list. The correct answer is of course to not report references in the body of the spam.

[PaulKTF]

Okay, then if it's going to be disabled in the Quick Reporting, it should be disabled in the standard reporting, too, but I think that any obviously-spamvertised websites should be reported.

[Wazoo]

As I understand it, reports submited using Quick Reporting don't report the URLs that are in the body of the spam. Why is that the case? If they're reported using standard reporting, shouldn't they also be reported using the Quick Reporting?

A bit confusing actually. There is nothing in the Original/Official FAQ about QUick-Reporting .... asking those that are responsible for that documentation have repeatedly ignored my commentary on this specific.

So, there are the alternative FAQ entries that are found in the single-page-access-expanded version of the SpamCop FAQ found here (links at the top of the page) ... Data was also added to the Wiki (also having links provided at the top of this page) .. please see Quick-Reporting

If need be, please explain what we volunteers have left out of the description.

Okay, then if it's going to be disabled in the Quick Reporting, it should be disabled in the standard reporting, too, but I think that any obviously-spamvertised websites should be reported.

Reporting of spamvertised sites is yet another subject that has been beat to death in the newsgroups and this Forum over the years, typically as a result of problems resolving a lot of URLs, be it due to DNS look-up blocking, fast-flux/bot-net hosting, timing between when the spam was sent/read and the length of time the URL actually existed, etc. etc. etc. ..... Again, there are numerous FAQ entries "here" that deal with this issue, the Original/Official FAQ never having been updated to include data like this.