[SC-Help] Re: false multipart header, Spamcop misses URL in body

[Mike Easter]

Joe Blow wrote:
> "Mike Easter"

>> Yabbut, in case you missed it, that's against the rules.  You can't
>> just ignore the rules, especially when you've been engaged in a
>> conversation about that specific subject.  Ellen will bust your
>> bunny.
>
> To merely state "that's against the rules" is not going to convince
> me that the rule is right.  As I said earlier, the "because I said
> so" line never works.

There are actually two or more different issues we are discussing here
which should be specified more precisely because they don't need to be
murky or confused with each other.

One of them is about 'how come Julian can't fix the parser to properly
body parse these *specific* type spams' - namely those which say
content-type multipart alternative in the header, but are actually simply
text/html.

We'll work on that multipart alternative problem in our other subthread.

The other is 'how come Julian can't write the faq for the rules spelling
out precisely and for all possible permutations and combinations for now
and in the future*why* a particular material change is disallowed'

I'll try to address my theory about the problem of the faq and material
changes - which frustrates others, including me, as well.  But, I'm
apparently more 'understanding' than you are.

First of all, it isn't possible to imagine every single possible change
which might be 'material' and which might not be material 'ahead of
time.'  Secondly, the deputies don't like to take 'liberties' with the
faq, because that creates a slippery slope - if this is all right, why
isn't that all right?  If this isn't all right, why is that all right?
It is impossible - so it becomes imperative that the faq 'stand' as a
rule, or else there would be chaos about which material changes are OK
and which aren't.

The other thing is that SC isn't structured as a 'democracy' or a
townhall governance.  It is a dictatorship;  where the rules come from on
high and it is necessary that people follow the rules.  The reports are
going out as SC reports.  SC is 'important'.  SC is more important than
you are.  If you break the rules and ask SC to send out *ITS* reports on
your spam, then you have to be brought into line or eliminated as a
reporter.  SC has plenty of reporters;  not too many rules.

> And yes...I can ignore the rule.  That is my
> choice.  If punitive action is taken, that is SC choice and it would
> mean I wouldn't report.  If that SC finds that preferable, so be it.

It seems like you want to be able to report better than SC does.  I'm all
in favor of that.  The first few years of my spamreporting I did all
manually because I didn't find the spamcop parse good enough to suit me,
even when I was a baby spamfighter - and also SC's parsing skills were
much worse in those days.

You can report how you like.  You just can't break the rules.  You have
to do some things 'on your own'.


-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin