Hi Luis, On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 04:54:20PM -0700, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote: > I guess I'm trying to say is that getting abuse complaints to the right > hands, at scale, is way harder than it seems. "Streamlining" the process is > hard,
No argument from me: no easy-seeming here! It's plain to see that what SpamCop have come up with is a really great resource that must have taken (and take) a lot of effort. The apparent lack of other solutions in this space also suggest it's a tough nut to crack, especially at no cost to the reporter. Something I particularly appreciate is when a spam has come to a mailing list or has fake Received headers inserted, SpamCop will usually still be able to work out the correct source. A real time saver compared to studying the headers every time. > and once you walk that path I'm sure you'll get to a similar > conclusion: Some folks don't deserve the bits used to send the complaint. Some providers certainly don't deserve a report, but once the thing has been fed into SpamCop and the reporting form has been reached, SpamCop has basically done all of its work, right? That is, there isn't much effort to be saved regardless of whether I can then go on to have SpamCop send the report or not? Or is it the case that there's going to be hundreds of reports per day being responded to by this provider's shady customer(s) saying, "we removed the complainant; please close the report" each of which has to be dealt with by some non-automated process at SpamCop? Is that where the issue really lies? If it is, then there must be some ways of avoiding that, but it doesn't seem worth going into unless that is known to be the case. I can only go by what has been said so far that it's because they don't deserve the reports due to allowing their customer(s) to repeatedly listwash. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
