[SpamCop-List] Re: nomaster found confection8fossilized.com

[Mike Easter]

nospam wrote:
> I've been watching the spamvertized sites
> on stats after submissions, I almost never see the ones I've
> submitted, so the list that some are fetching from the stats page is
> filtered or weighted in some way, and in no way complete, the numbers
> should give that away anyhow.
>
> If there are some 5 or more reports per second and say 10% are
> reporting spamvertized sites, then in 1/2 an hour there should be way
> more sites than are listed there.

I don't know what the stats page is showing on the spamvertised websites
page http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=inprogress;type=www which sez
Abuse report sent to and Reported web site.  That is, I know what it is
saying, but I don't know where it is getting it and what it is leaving
out.  And I think I think it should be done differently.

I think, but I'm not sure, that I believe that the stats page should be
'showing' every link whether it was reported or not.  If it was not
reported by the reporter because all was unchecked, then if the page
/must/ say 'abuse report sent to' then that can say devnull or
something.

I think that because I think there is a difference between calling
something a spamsource and calling something a spam which also contains
URLs.  That is, if a reporter unchecks all of the notifies for a source,
then it shouldn't be considered a source in terms of the spamcop
blocklist;  but if a reporter unchecks all of the notifies for a
spamvertised site, then the site should still be published on the
statistics page.

There is currently consequence if spamcop reports a source.  There is
currently no consequence if spamcop reports a spamvertiser except for
the consequence of sc-surbl seeing it on the stats page.  sc-surbl has a
variety of its own internal methodology to handle the issues of innocent
bystanders and such, so I think the stats page can include the innocent
bystanders who have been 'unreported' by the spamcop reporter as well as
the guilty spamvertisers who may have been unreported by the reporter.

I think there are reporters who would like to be the equivalent of moles
as regards spamvertisers, but are willing to be simply spamcop munged as
regards spamsources.  Those reporters are going to be unchecking all of
the notifies to 'undesirable' spamvertiser providers, but it would be
good if sc-surbl picked them up anyway.

-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin