[SpamCop-List] Re: = 3d in URLs, sounds being loaded to track spam viewing

[Spam Hater]

Not that I agree with SpamCop's "hands off" policy at all, but I can
understand their reasoning...  Eudora and OL may alter the original
but they do so in a consistent/logical manner without changing anything
they shouldn't.  A well meaning end user who decides to alter things
willy nilly just to get something reported is much more likely to screw
something up and force the parser to send out bogus reports.  We
have seen examples over and over again of people crying that they
have misreported non-SPAM items.  We have seen many people in
here so confused about what is going on that it is often difficult to even
understand what it is they are going on about.  SpamCop users come
in many levels of computer literacy.  Some can be trusted to make
"material" changes to an email item while others quite obviously can't be.

Unless you can devise a system where by certain SpamCop users can
be "licensed" to make alterations to SPAM submissions, I can't see
the rules changing without utter chaos erupting and SpamCop losing
whatever credibility it has left.

In the meanwhile, those that know what they are doing will continue to
do so and those that don't will hopefully be cognizant of the rules and
won't attempt to change anything as per Ellen's stern lectures on the
matter!  :)

At 07:20 AM 10/26/2004 -0700, Mike Easter typed:
 
>IMO the Eudora OL 'situation' is one which makes hypocrisy of the SC
>'rules' against making a modification of the body.  OL competely changes
>the body in order to fulfill its role as a MAPI client for MS Office.
>Almost 100% of OL users are /not/ configured to be able to recover the
>original body, so what the OL user submits is a 'bogus' html-ized
>reconstruction of the original;  not the original at all.  Then SC 'turns
>around' and does yet another hack on the OL hack.  The piece has been so
>hacked and re-reconstructed that it bears only slight resemblance to the
>original.
>
>Why someone should be restricted from doing anything they want with the
>body prior to submitting it, such as stripping out those 3Ds and such is
>hypocrisy.
>
>If SC were 'true' to its principles about considering the original
>'evidence' as valued, it would have to deny Eudora and OL body
>submissions to the notified, since they are no longer the original.  I
>think that is what should be done.  If that means no Eudora or OL
>reporting, I guess that's what it means.  If some kind of Eudora OL
>reporting can be accomplished, then good.  But the current hypocrisy is
>wrong.