[SC-Help] Re: spamvertisement reporting & a question...

[Jeff G.]

On 6/8/2005 6:33 PM Mike Easter scribbled:

> Jeff G. wrote:
> 
>>Also, given the 2 methods of choice with reporting - copying and
>>pasting whole msg or forwarding, is there a benefit or preference to
>>using one or the other?
> 
> 
> The advantage of copying and pasting into the parser is that you get
> 'faster' rather quicker/sooner results.  The disadvantage is that there
> is 'deadtime' that you need to manage constructively.  If you can
> develop a 'rhythm' of keypresses to get to the message source and paste
> it into the webparser, or alternatively use a keypress macro, then
> 'feeding' the parser is actually very efficient, one spam at a time, per
> 1.5 second [hypothetical].
> 
> Then, you would need a strategy to manage the deadtime, one of which
> might be to use multiple iterations of parsers -- so your 'macro' of
> keypresses feeds a sequence of parsers so that the individual parser's
> results match up with your approval process.  That can result in no
> deadtime and a continuous sequence of feeding one spam at a time into
> multiple parsers whose results and approvals match up with the speed of
> the parser processing.
> 
> The advantage of forwarding 'masses' of spams at a time is that you
> avoid the above sequence of having to have an efficient series of
> keypresses for each spamitem and of transitioning between parsers and
> their report options.
> 
> The disadvantage is that you have to wait for the mailforwarded items to
> get processed in their own sweet time.  The other disadvantage is that
> you still have to manage the problem of accessing the numerous link/s
> and and the report approval process however efficient or inefficient
> that is.
> 
> Some people who 'move toward' sending masses of spams at a time get
> frustrated by that links portion of the report confirmation and its
> slowdown and decide to 'degenerate' [or accelerate] into quick
> reporting.  Quick reporting dramatically changes the amount of time
> required to report some large number of spams.  It has its dangers and
> its limitations or disadvantages, but it does feed a lot of spamsources
> into the SCbl without as much 'personal' time expenditure [or
> oversight], and there isn't much lost these days by not reporting the
> spamvertisers to their providers.  There's always the ever-present
> danger of reporting your own provider if some kind of changes occur in
> the headerlines of your spams.
> 
Thanks, Mike, that gives me something to mull over.
FWIW, I had already gotten to the first point of coordinating the
keystrokes.  The rest of this missive I need to study a bit - never used
said macros before, but sure am familiar with the "dead time"...