[SpamCop-List] Re: This message looks like a bounce, will not report.

[eddie]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:24:49 -0400, Glenn Daniels scratched out the
following:

>snip
> This raises a question for me, although I always submit my spams as I get
> them, unmunged. Then, when I see them after SC looks at them, they are all
> munged anyway. I get plenty of spam with nothing at all or random words in
> the "Subject:" header. So the question is, is it a no-no to munge the
> "Subject:" header, as, is that considered a "substantive" alteration, or
> is that an acceptable "fixup"? If indeed it is a "no-no", I could still
> manually report Spammy to his identified ISP, yes?

snap
Beats me. I would naively assume that adding a space in the subject so it
parses is not substantive, but I'm just a user of SC. Someone from the top
should decide. 
Actually though, SC should not be believing the subject of the spam, not
matter what is says. If the spam is really a bounce, I think the header
would indicate that, so I would call it another SC bug.