Information Request

"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message
...
Sam Hobbs wrote:
Using SpamCop can make things worse for you, not better.

Gordon wrote:
Eh? How do you work that one out?

Sam Hobbs wrote:
This was discussed in this newsgroup about a month ago. If you
don't fnd that discussion then perhaps I will later.

This?
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...ef3a091960a12f

Where you commented, "I used spamcop years ago until I realized that they
include our email address in their complaints. I am not totally sure that
is happening but I did read somewhere that they do. Perhaps they do not
now even if they did in the past, but if they do include our email address
in their complaints then it does not help us to report spam."

Yes, except there was more in that thread. Ignore it if you wish; at least
others have the discussion to judge for themselves.

"Stan Brown" wrote in message
t...
Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:22:44 -0800 from Sam Hobbs
:
"Gordon" wrote in message
...
"Sam Hobbs" wrote in
message
...

Using SpamCop can make things worse for you, not better.

Eh? How do you work that one out?

This was discussed in this newsgroup about a month ago. If you don't fnd
that discussion then perhaps I will later.

In other words, you're just making it up.

Thanks for the clarification.

It is good for you to believe that. Now you will do us all a favor by
insisting to use SpamCop. That will benefit everyone else at least. Thank
you.

For those that choose to believe what I say, SpamCop can be
counter-productive for the person reporting spam.

Sam Hobbs wrote:
Using SpamCop can make things worse for you, not better.

Gordon wrote:
Eh? How do you work that one out?

Sam Hobbs wrote:
This was discussed in this newsgroup about a month ago. If you
don't fnd that discussion then perhaps I will later.

Shenan Stanley wrote:
This?
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...ef3a091960a12f

Where you commented, "I used spamcop years ago until I realized
that they include our email address in their complaints. I am not
totally sure that is happening but I did read somewhere that they
do. Perhaps they do not now even if they did in the past, but if
they do include our email address in their complaints then it does
not help us to report spam."

Sam Hobbs wrote:
Yes, except there was more in that thread. Ignore it if you wish;
at least others have the discussion to judge for themselves.


I looked through said discussion...

Bruce mentioned SpamCop first with:
"One tool that makes forwarding such complaints fairly simple is SpamCop
(http://spamcop.net)."

Followed by your comment (Sam Hobbs):
"I used spamcop years ago until I realized that they include our email
address in their complaints. I am not totally sure that is happening but I
did read somewhere that they do. Perhaps they do not now even if they did in
the past, but if they do include our email address in their complaints then
it does not help us to report spam."

Bruce replied (in reference to Spamcop):
"Well, yes, email address that received is an integral part of the
header information that must be submitted when reporting spam. That's
inevitable and unavoidable."

Followed by your reply (in reference to SpanCop):
"I suggested not using SpamCop. I said don't use it unless they assure
us they don't include our email addresses in their reports."

Poprivet replied there with:
"If you mean spamcop.net, they do munge your address
where it's in the clear. But what they don't/can't do
is look in base64, etc. types of code to see if it's
been hidden somewhere. If you read the FAQs you'll
find it well spelled out. If it botheres you, don't use Spamcop.
Do it manually. And hope."

Where you responded (last response in the thread)(Sam Hobbs):
"So let's get back to what I said. I said that using Spamcop could easily
make things worse for the person reporting spam."


I personally wouldn't call that a very conclusive discussion. Poprivet was
the only one participating that mentioned any sort of documented facts
beyond a loose opinion that I saw. In fact - I followed up on that one
suggested documented fact and located this:

http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/3.html

Where they state:
"SpamCop will parse the headers of unwanted email and (if all goes well)
phrase a complaint to the system administrator responsible for the spammer's
internet access. This complaint will be addressed from a blind SpamCop.net
email address, however any responses to that address will be routed to the
email address you have provided with your SpamCop account. You may be
presented with more than one address to send your complaint to and can
select whether to send to each individual address or not."

Digging just a bit further - SpamCop/IronPort Systems was sued (in 2004) and
one of the 'complaints" was:

"The lawsuit alleges SpamCop deleted the email addresses of complainers from
the complaints the company sent to OptInRealBig's ISPs. According to the
allegations, "Neither Optigate nor the other ISPs could take any corrective
action because SpamCop had rendered the Complaint to be anonymous."
Barrett agrees this is a problem. "SpamCop reports delete the email of the
person who's reporting the spam from servers, so ESPs (email service
providers) have a difficult time removing the people who are reporting the
spam.""

Mo
http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3348241
http://www.spamlaws.com/cases/optinrealbig.shtml
http://www.marketingvox.com/archives..._stop_spamcop/

And more on what I believe was the final decision...
http://lawsuite.word-to-the-wise.com/srannounce.txt


I do not work with SpamCop/for SpamCop nor do I even recommend it currently
in my list of tips... I have never used it - nor likely will I. I have no
plans to recommend it or not. I personally don't see the point of reporting
the email spammers - because if that worked - it would have by now. I get
very little spam that makes it to me - even on an account that, by all
rights, should get 1000's of messages a day (and does, in fact, get - on
average - 100 spam messages a day.) It is all filtered and never gets to me
and the chances that I could lessen said spam never enters my mind. It's a
wasted effort - in my opinion - because of the tricks employed to send said
emails.

However - to each their own - if someone feels they are cleaning up the
world by reporting spammers (or even just cleaning up their inbox) - more
power to them. I personally just take the 'good filter' approach and never
see the problem that collects in my mailbox - somewhere - probably. Do
whatever you like - but do your own research and read up on things before
you try it out.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Mon, 7 Jan 2008 12:42:14 -0800 from Sam Hobbs
:
For those that choose to believe what I say, SpamCop can be
counter-productive for the person reporting spam.

Right -- you repeated the same unsupported statement, so it *must* be
true.

The contrast between your "it must be true because I say so" and
Shenan Stanley's actual research is pretty striking.

Whether Spamcop does or does not include your email address in the
spam report, what does it matter? The spammer already *has* your
email address. And it doesn't matter that you're confirming that it's
good, because they don't care.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"If there's one thing I know, it's men. I ought to: it's
been my life work." -- Marie Dressler, in /Dinner at Eight/

"Stan Brown" wrote in message
t...

Whether Spamcop does or does not include your email address in the
spam report, what does it matter? The spammer already *has* your
email address. And it doesn't matter that you're confirming that it's
good, because they don't care.


Confirmation of validity of an email adderess is valuable to those gathering
and selling email addresses. That is common knowledge among those familair
with spam.

"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message
...

Where you responded (last response in the thread)(Sam Hobbs):
"So let's get back to what I said. I said that using Spamcop could easily
make things worse for the person reporting spam."


I personally wouldn't call that a very conclusive discussion.

I did not claim to be conclusive.

Thank you for all your research. I snipped a lot but I hope everyone
interested will have access to it.

I don't have time to be conclusive. If I am wrong then I apologize for
wasting people's time. Note that my original comment was simple and
suggested that people be skeptical and what to look for. I don't consider
myself obligated to do or say anything more if I am correct.

I see nothing conclusive that I am incorrect.

Sam Hobbs wrote:
"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message
...
Where you responded (last response in the thread)(Sam Hobbs):
"So let's get back to what I said. I said that using Spamcop could easily
make things worse for the person reporting spam."


I personally wouldn't call that a very conclusive discussion.

I did not claim to be conclusive.

Thank you for all your research. I snipped a lot but I hope everyone
interested will have access to it.

I don't have time to be conclusive. If I am wrong then I apologize for
wasting people's time. Note that my original comment was simple and
suggested that people be skeptical and what to look for. I don't consider
myself obligated to do or say anything more if I am correct.



So, you feel free to cast doubt on the validity of several others'
advice, and to cast aspersions upon an organization that provides a
valuable service, all without seeing the slightest need to justify or
substantiate your accusations? The normal term for one who uses such an
operating standard is "troll."


I see nothing conclusive that I am incorrect.


The very fact that you won't even attempt to justify or substantiate
your claims demonstrates that even you know you're unlikely to be
correct. All you've accomplished is to establish your lack credibility.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

"Bruce Chambers" wrote in message
...

So, you feel free to cast doubt on the validity of several others' advice,
and to cast aspersions upon an organization that provides a valuable
service, all without seeing the slightest need to justify or substantiate
your accusations? The normal term for one who uses such an operating
standard is "troll."

There are many frustrated people that use newsgroups such as this to express
frutration, and that is what you are doing here. It might make you feel good
to say these things but you are not accomplishing anything useful.

The very fact that you won't even attempt to justify or substantiate your
claims demonstrates that even you know you're unlikely to be correct. All
you've accomplished is to establish your lack credibility.

I have made it very clear that that is incorrect.

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:58:20 -0800 from Sam Hobbs
:
"Bruce Chambers" wrote in message
...

So, you feel free to cast doubt on the validity of several others' advice,
and to cast aspersions upon an organization that provides a valuable
service, all without seeing the slightest need to justify or substantiate
your accusations? The normal term for one who uses such an operating
standard is "troll."

There are many frustrated people that use newsgroups such as this to express
frutration, and that is what you are doing here. It might make you feel good
to say these things but you are not accomplishing anything useful.

Anybody who's been here for any length of time knows who has more
credibility between you two. You do yourself no service by attacking
a respected contributor in this fashion. It makes you look smaller
and stupider, not bigger and wiser.

An overdue plonk!

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"If there's one thing I know, it's men. I ought to: it's
been my life work." -- Marie Dressler, in /Dinner at Eight/

"Stan Brown" wrote in message
t...
Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:58:20 -0800 from Sam Hobbs
:
"Bruce Chambers" wrote in message
...

So, you feel free to cast doubt on the validity of several others'
advice,
and to cast aspersions upon an organization that provides a valuable
service, all without seeing the slightest need to justify or
substantiate
your accusations? The normal term for one who uses such an operating
standard is "troll."

There are many frustrated people that use newsgroups such as this to
express
frutration, and that is what you are doing here. It might make you feel
good
to say these things but you are not accomplishing anything useful.

Anybody who's been here for any length of time knows who has more
credibility between you two. You do yourself no service by attacking
a respected contributor in this fashion. It makes you look smaller
and stupider, not bigger and wiser.

An overdue plonk!


It is Bruce's words that are unnecessary. People here are really exagerating
this issue. The mature thing to do is to agree to disagree. There are too
many people here that cannot do that, but I certainly am.

No one has yet provided anything conclusive; it is not just me that has not.

"Gordon" wrote in message
...
"Sam Hobbs" wrote in message
...

Using SpamCop can make things worse for you, not better.

Eh? How do you work that one out?

Look at "How is data from spam submissions used?" at:
http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/145.html

Especially the part that says "It is possible that the header may reveal
your email address.".

Sam Hobbs wrote:
"Gordon" wrote in message
...
"Sam Hobbs" wrote in
message ...

Using SpamCop can make things worse for you, not better.

Eh? How do you work that one out?

Look at "How is data from spam submissions used?" at:
http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/145.html

Especially the part that says "It is possible that the header may
reveal your email address.".

Actually: don't look now but if your spammer sees your address, then he
already has it or you wouldn't have done the submission or received the
spam. SC munges the obvious places an address appears but can not get
all of them. However it's very, very seldom a spammer sees the info,
considering how many complaints are normally filed against him, even if
he did care.

Sam Hobbs wrote:
"Gordon" wrote in message
...
"Sam Hobbs" wrote in message
...
Using SpamCop can make things worse for you, not better.
Eh? How do you work that one out?

Look at "How is data from spam submissions used?" at:
http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/145.html

Especially the part that says "It is possible that the header may reveal
your email address.".





Well, duh! We all know that. What you need to do is substantiate your
insinuation that SpamCop sends this information to the spammers. That,
after all, would be the only time the presence of one's email address in
the headers could conceivably (but probably not, as the spammer already
has the info) make things worse.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

"Bruce Chambers" wrote in message
...
Sam Hobbs wrote:
"Gordon" wrote in message
...
"Sam Hobbs" wrote in
message ...
Using SpamCop can make things worse for you, not better.
Eh? How do you work that one out?

Look at "How is data from spam submissions used?" at:
http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/145.html

Especially the part that says "It is possible that the header may reveal
your email address.".





Well, duh! We all know that. What you need to do is substantiate your
insinuation that SpamCop sends this information to the spammers. That,
after all, would be the only time the presence of one's email address in
the headers could conceivably (but probably not, as the spammer already
has the info) make things worse.


I explained that previously.