[SpamCop-List] Re: Too many Links?

[Mike B]

"Mike Easter" <MikeE at ster.invalid> wrote in message
news:cggucb$9uf$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> Harry Kiri wrote:
> > "Mike Easter"
> >> That is, if you render the html, you get a promotional graphic from a
> >> website and under the graphic is
> >
<snip>
> My 'standard' practice is to not open or preview spam at all, but to
> identify the source and the links from the raw source.  I frequently
> additionally use the GET function of SSwin to see if there is a site
> redirect.  I am 'anti- spam reading'.

SSwin??

>
> We were 'playing with' this spam experimentally -- not only did I
> 'stomach' reconstructing a eudora/spamcop hack to try to put the spam
> back into a body parseable state, which it wasn't as the original
> tracker, but once it was 'renderable' in the reconstructed version, I
> went ahead and rendered it.  I don't render things that I don't already
> know what is inside and what is going to happen.
>
> But, that being sed, sometimes the 'quickest' way for me to evaluate
> something which I've already examined the raw source is to render it.
> The subject of letting something exercise my browser to a website is a
> whole different kettle of fish.

Pray explain the difference between "render" (which I thought meant the
browser will interpret the HTML) and "exercising" your browser?
>

And an "at large" comment. I think that perhaps SC has the "too many links"
feature to hinder reporting of innocent sites. A few sites are likely to be
only the spam websites. Many links are likely to be camouflage.

What I don't understand is why SC differentiate between (for example)
  http://random.spammer.website/one?string=here    and
  http://another.spammer.website/or?another&string=here

AFAICS, those are both links to spammer.website.

Mike B