[SpamCop-List] Re: SC Parser misses URLs w/ bogus embedded HTML tags

[Thomas Bean]

Not according to the FAQ (http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/283.html):

    SpamCop FAQ : SpamCop Parsing and Reporting Service : Rules - everybody
read! : Material changes to spam

    "SpamCop does what it does and doesn't do for a reason. Do not make any
material changes to spam before submitting or parsing which may cause
SpamCop to find a link, address or URL it normally would not, by design,
find."

I don't see any mention of this only applying in cases that might cause a
misidentification of the sender.  Am I interpreting this too
strictly/literally?

In my case, the spammer was not using a bogus URL, there were simply bogus
HTML tags inserted between characters in the URL that prevented the SC
parser from recognizing it.

"Spam Hater" <dkona7b02 at sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.24.1102010019.4572.spamcop-list at news.spamcop.net...
> Where did you see a rule that says munging the message text is
> forbidden?? AFAIK, you can munge anything you wish in order to hide
> references to yourself in a SPAM item.  If the SPAMmer includes a
> bogus URL of the form www.yourdomain.com I personally don't think
> there is anything wrong with simply removing the entire reference.
> That would be a case of under reporting which shouldn't upset the
> apple cart at all.  It is the same as simply unclicking the checkmark
> next to the report for that website after the parse. The only time
> munging is not an option is when an ISP specifically refuses munged
> reports.
>
> Are you sure you are not confusing this with the "no material
> changes" rule?  That only applies to cases where changing a
> header item might cause SpamCop to misidentify the sender...
>
> On 02 Dec 2004 Thomas Bean wrote:
>
> > Is there any way to get SC to report these
> > sites without munging the message text (which is against SC rules)?
>