[SpamCop-List] Re: Spamcop Statistics

[Dorian Gray]

In article <ctpk1f$rhk$1 at news.spamcop.net>,
 "WazoO" <nobody at devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:

> "Dorian Gray" <D.Gray at picture.oscar.wilde> wrote in message
> news:D.Gray-041775.14350301022005 at news.cesmail.net...
> > In article <ctmke6$cqi$1 at news.spamcop.net>,
> >  "WazoO" <nobody at devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Julian .... those charts track whatever he's got them pointed to,
> > > > > and what's behind that curtain has been described in the past
> > > > > as "not for public discussion" ...
> > > >
> > > > Been described in the past, by whom?  I only recall WazoO saying such
> > > > things as "not for public discussion".
> > >
> > > Dialog between Julian, Don, Deputies and myself have included
> > > facts and conditions described as "not for public discussion" ...
> >
> > What dialog?  Described by whom?  Show me.
> 
> Your request doesn't make a lot of sense, but here's some background;
> http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1939
> http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2030
> http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2559

None of the those forum threads even go close to answering the question 
about the statistics, and only one actually mentions the statistics.  
But they do confirm my point that only WazoO has used words like "not 
for public discussion".  The comments by Richard, Ellen and Julian that 
appear there (forwarded by WazoO) seem as helpful as possible, and don't 
say anything about restricting information.  However they are talking 
about mole reporting, not the statistics, so don't help us with the 
question about the stats.

So, does anyone *else* know of any explanations, that they are willing 
to share?  Alternatively, does anyone from Spamcop know the explanation, 
but can't share it, and are willing to say so?

Cheers.