That's not what I said. I said on behalf on my domain. This means if they
see my domain's URL in the body, don't look up the providers, just ignore
it. Your scenario would still get reported.
"Gary Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
9bmm4c$mta$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:9bmm4c$mta$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> How 'bout this scenario?
>
> My ISP is bellsouth.net. If I banned them from all reports, then if
someone
> ELSE from bellsouth.net spammed me, I couldn't report them, no matter how
> hard I tried to do so.
>
> --
>
>
> Gary Henderson
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> "Paul Coleman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> 9bmfb2$k8k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:9bmfb2$k8k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You know, the more I have to think about this the more it becomes
apparent
> > that my request is a must have. Perhaps you can explain why anyone
would
> > want to inform them selves or their own provider that you received a
SPAM
> > and you suspect your self to be the sender of the SPAM. This tool
> provides
> > a list of possible receivers of a SPAM report. It goes through logic to
> > determine if the recipient should be pre-checked or not. It makes
> > absolutely no logical sense at all to pre-check me or my provider as a
> > recipient to notify them that I might be the sender of this SPAM. I am
> now
> > convinced that this should not be an option, it should be a mandatory
part
> > of the application. 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 am no longer asking that this be
> > optional, I am asking that it be mandatory. The application should not
> > pre-check the recipient if it is one of my domains or one of my
providers
> > because of one of my domains.
> > Paul Coleman
> >
> > "dollface" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Paul Coleman wrote:
> > >
> > > >It appears you are and expert in doing this process. I must
> > > >admit I am not, and I hope I never have to become one. I need
> > > >every bit of assistance I can use. I have absolutely no idea
> > > >what "larting" is or means. I can tell you one thing for sure.
> > > > I resent being accused of "click-click-click and not pay
> > > >attention anymore". There is absolutely no truth in that
> > > >phrase. My suggestion still stands and in no way allows anyone
> > > >to go "click-click-click and not pay attention anymore" to
> > > >anything. I can't understand your resentment to my suggesting
> > > >safeguards to help prevent mistakes. I would simply like to be
> > > >able to have the option to not report to my Domian or any of
> > > >the providers up the chain on behave of my domian. That does
> > > >not give me or anyone else the abilty to go "click-click-click
> > > >and not pay attention anymore".
> > >
> > > While you may have noble intentions, there are always those users
> > > who will simply go click click click. To make such an option
> > > available to one would mean making it available to all...and that
> > > simply opens up too many Pandora's boxen.
> > >
> > > --
> > > SpamCop user, not the admin. Ideas expressed are my own.
> > > Please reply to group unless you have a specific issue with
> > > me. Spam will be promptly and happily thwhacked with my
> > > very largest mallet...
> >
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
SpamCop-Help mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.spamcop.net/mailman/listinfo/spamcop-help
