[SpamCop-List] Re: And the most Stupid Spammer of the week, awarded weekly on a week by week basis is ............

[WazoO]

"Mike Easter" <MikeE at ster.invalid> wrote in message
news:clrg1m$9ds$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> Bodger wrote:
>
> Well, OK.  But you are mistaken about the part about us not being able to
> see the spam.
>
> > I really thought that by using the link to the spam, the subject line
> > and message would have been visible to the viewer, but it looks like
> > I am wrong, the spam cant be seen in the link, only the parsing, so
> > much for the self appointed Hobby Bobbies who insist on "don't post
> > spam to the newsgroups - use the link instead"
>
> The tracker shows the parse *AND* the link 'view entire message' which
> shows the entire spam, headers and contiguous body - the original
> spamitem at
>
http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z686630869z02557b5bd116074a1275620f10a532c5z;action=display
> <make oneline>

OK, this was just brought up over in the Forums, it being pointed
out that the question has not been touched as to whether this
is a bug or not.  As it turns out, if one goes into Preferences
at the www.spamcop.net pages and selects "Simple output"
under "Report Handling Options" ... not only is none of
the "good stuff" shown, but the "View Entire Message"
line/link is also not displayed.

On one hand, the original reporter would/should have a copy
of the spam if there's a question ... and it's "usually" those of
us doing follow-up analysis that this would normally concern,
and to do that, "Show Technical Details" is mandatory.  So
the question boils down to ... is this a bug, an oversight, or
actually a non-issue outside of this one attempted use that
ended up with the owner of the spam not able to see the
"full" copy and therefore feeling the deprivation involved
in the mistaken perception that no one else could see it
either?  I said I'd also drop a not to Deputies, but noticed
both Don and RW "over there" .. so they may have taken
a peek at it while I'm typing "over here" <g>

Again, I'm not sure that this would rate as a "bug" .. but
it is a valid point to keep in mind I suppose in some of
the responses offered.