[SpamCop-List] Re: How can I report SPAM *without* opening the e-mail?

[jg]

On 12/29/2005 8:06 PM Mike Easter scribbled:

> jg wrote:
> 
> 
>>Mike, you can't view msg source with Outlook (as stated in previous
>>post, I don't use it)??
> 
> 
> In most important ways, the so-called message source is gone.
> 
> That is, my concept of message source, as it pertains to OE, is that
> consists of the headers as received continguous with the 'raw' body as
> received, what I call the 'smtp mime' -- which makes a few mime people
> crazy for my terminology.
> 
> In any case, that 'smtp mime' is gone.  History.  OL doesn't save the
> smtp mime which is what SC wants for parsing and reporting -- and the
> reason that SC wants that for parsing and reporting is because that is
> the 'standard' form.  Whether you want to characterize it as some kind
> of unix based mail format or something else is immaterial.
> Traditionally there is a 'respected' and standard form to be talking
> about what is a particular mail item - a particular piece of evidence -
> a particular piece of "this is what I am talking about that was received
> in the mail"
> 
> That particular piece of something is no longer in existence for the OL
> mail receipient.
> 
> For OL to imaginarily recreate an articficial or imaginary piece of
> evidence does not appeal to me.  So, I don't think anyone should even
> bother.  I don't think the recipient should bother and I don't think
> spamcop should bother, and I don't think any abuse desks should bother.
> And I especially don't think that spamcop should be aiding in the
> masquerade in which spamcop does a little dog and pony show in which it
> pretends to help the pretending OL to pretend to submit some pretend
> evidence.
> 
> The bnusines about spamcop being complicit in this charade to submit
> manufactured, false, bogus, so-called 'evidence' to abuse desks about a
> spam is, IMO, shameful and should be beneath the 'dignity' of spamcop.
> It should also be beneath the dignity of anyone who is involved in the
> process, most especially includes the submitter.
> 
> The problem is that the submitter wants to submit and they don't have
> any 'clean' or proper evidence.  So, like the hamstrung prosecutor,
> lacking any 'real' evidence, they submit some bogus or reformulated
> evidence.  That's shameful when you do it as a prosecutor, and it is
> also shameful when you do it as a spamcop.
> 
> The alleged 'redemption' for the cheating and lying is that whatever you
> do against the bad guys is legtimate or fair.  That isn't at all true.
> Spamcop and the OL users shouldn't be manufacturing bogus evidence to
> submit or to use to list servers and other IPs on the SC blocklist.
> That makes the blocklist a lie based on fraudulent information.
> 
Have read that, re-read it, went to bed, and tried to read it this A.M.
/Think/ I have your gist but the bulk of your message escapes me.  But
then, I'm not a mime freak and refuse to config Outlook just to
experiment with it to figure out what you mean (I have Outlook as part
of Office 2000 package but only use Excel, Word, and Access).
I'm glad I gave you the opportunity to vent on the subject, however.
This must relate to some past thread/discussion to which I'm not privy.
Happy New year...