[SpamCop-List] Re: getting tired of SC failures

[Glenn Daniels]

"eddie"  wrote in message
> Kenneth Brody scratched out posted it in .spam:
> snip
<really big snip>

Myopic if you don't mind my butting in...
It isn't about one problem spam, it isn't the "thing",
but the process. I have a "feel" only for what SC does.
And worse, you folks are way over my head here.

And I do like to personalize things, so I'm thinking, and
maybe for some other "newbies" too, now what would
be so bad if, when SC despairs of a parse, after all
it is not human, not programmed to "get creative",...
If SC would return a screen saying:
1). SC encountered technical difficulties parsing the submission.
2). It has been entered into a queue for further study in the
interest of improving the parser.

Now, I'm pushing 100 spams a day through the parser, and
I'm not seeing these "problems", but if the fail rate pushes up
to say, 10%, I know that SC needs to be seeing the "fails".
As it stands, there is a "fail" rate, and SC does not cull them
out for further study. Instead it is "in your face" with like
"aack!, not my problem".

As best I can grasp it, the arguments being offered all
point in the same direction: the parser could use a little
work. There will always be room for improvement. But
I am thinking that the "dropped balls" fall in SC's court
and technically are theirs to keep, not push back through
the UI, as if a user might have a clue what to do...

EOR (end of rant), ;-),
Glenn