Paul Coleman wrote: > It should never pre-check a recipient of a report that > is either my domain or my provider on behalf of my domain period. Unless > you all can give me a reasonable example of why anyone would want to do > that, I am offering my new proposal. I put your request into the suggestion box. I think I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that Julian will take a dim view of the idea because, as Dollface said, it will foster even more mindless spam reporting. We already have trouble enough with users who check every box in sight, including the appeals boxes, without a second thought about what they're doing. While some Murphy-proofing routines are useful, there's a limit to how easy Julian is willing to make reporting because it reduces flexibility. - Don D'Minion - _______________________________________________ SpamCop-Help mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.spamcop.net/mailman/listinfo/spamcop-help
- [SC-Help] Re: Embarrassing mistake Paul Coleman
- [SC-Help] Re: Embarrassing mistake michael lefevre
- [SC-Help] Re: Embarrassing mistake Paul Coleman
- [SC-Help] Re: Embarrassing mistake Robi
- [SC-Help] Re: Embarrassing mistake Paul Coleman
- [SC-Help] Re: Embarrassing mistake Robi
- [SC-Help] Re: Embarrassing mistake Paul Coleman
- [SC-Help] Re: Embarrassing mistake petet
- [SC-Help] Re: Embarrassing mistake Paul Coleman
- [SC-Help] Re: Embarrassing mistake Robi
- [SC-Help] Re: Embarrassing mistake Argyle
- [SC-Help] Re: Embarrassing mistake Paul Coleman
- [SC-Help] Re: Embarrassing mistake Argyle
- [SC-Help] Re: Embarrassing mistake Paul Coleman
- [SC-Help] Re: Embarrassing mistake Argyle
- [SC-Help] Re: Embarrassing mistake Paul Coleman
- [SC-Help] Re: Embarrassing mistake @>-->-->--
- [SC-Help] Re: Embarrassing mistake Paul Coleman
- [SC-Help] Re: Embarrassing mistake @>-->-->--
- [SC-Help] Are they innocent (was Re: Embarras... me
- [SC-Help] Re: Are they innocent (was Re: Emba... AllenC
