Hi Peter,
I don't completely agree with the logic, but at least it is a reasonable
explanation. Thank you. I think the tactics are excessive and
unreasonable, especially the part about the fear of reporting myself will
make me examine the body more closely. I think it will only make me stop
using the product.
If the boxes are checked by default for items found in the body and they are
not considered reliable, how can I identify them (as being from the body as
apposed to from the header)? I will simply uncheck them all. I would at
least like to see that as an option.
I also have a problem reading the body content for held messages that
contain HTML (most I get are like this). Has this been addressed anywhere?
As far as the ones from the header are concerned, I do hope I am not
expected to evaluate them as well.
Paul Coleman
"petet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > statement like "It would foster mindless ..." something. I need an
> > explanation as to how you feel it is going to adversely affect SC and I
will
> > try to either explain how it wouldn't or adjust my suggestion so that it
> > wouldn't.
>
>
> Paul,
>
> Let me try to summarize.
>
> SC has a problem. As good as you make the program, ultimately SC cannot
> tell whether or not an email is spam. As we all know spam is about
> consent not content. It also cannot tell whether or not an email
> address or web link inside a spam is directly related to the spam or
> just thrown in there by the spammer to throw off those who wish to
> report him/her. As a result of both of these limitations there DOES
> NEED to be human intervention in the reporting process. SC makes
> reporting spam easier but not necessarily easy. The person reporting
> the spam through SC needs to actually look through the body of the spam
> to determine the context in which a weblink or email address appears and
> determine if it is appropriate to report. Yes, it may not be easy for
> the newcomer, but sending false reports negatively affects the
> reputation of SC. If SC gets a bad reputation (and in some circles it
> already has a bad reputation) people (sysadmins and abuse desks) stop
> paying attention to these reports or starts bouncing the reports and SC
> has lost all of its effectiveness.
>
> Right now, I know your saying, "But that's all I want to do, stop false
> reports." I think everybody here understands that, but it isn't as easy
> as that. It's kinda like ballistic missile defense. One the surface it
> seems like such a great idea, but there are deeper issues involved that
> are sometimes quite subtle. In the case of SC the deeper issues are the
> ease in reporting and the number of false reports. The fear of
> implicating oneself forces you to closely pay attention to who exactly
> you are reporting. If it becomes too easy to report, people consciously
> or unconsciously stop paying attention the checkboxes and who exactly
> they are reporting. Maybe the answer is to have none of the checkboxes
> highlighted as a default, but then you would probably get a lot more
> people who would just check them all. Like I said earlier, SC makes
> reporting spam easier not necessarily easy. In the end SC is only as
> good as its users.
>
> -Peter
_______________________________________________
SpamCop-Help mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.spamcop.net/mailman/listinfo/spamcop-help
