[SpamCop-List] Re: Interested party...

[Mike Easter]

jg wrote:

> So one must use the tracker but also copy and paste - that is
> intuitive. And then you act like one should know that said tracker is
> pretty useless sometimes.

Yes;  in this case the tracker provided something valuable, namely
access to the original spam;  but it was yet another example of a time
when pasting something which was seen in the verbose was essential.

Sometimes something which is seen in the verbose is never to be seen
again -- because some condition changes and it is not going to change
back.  Some other times we are dealing with a parser behavior which is
very variable.  We've been discussing some examples of that in another
thread in this group

Subject: SC does not see URL's in spam because =3 is there instead of
=3D

>> In this case, it would have been better to have pasted in the lines I
>> pasted in [shown below] after several different re-parsings of the
>> same original spam.
>>
>>> How would I
>>> know that you aren't seeing the same thing I saw in round one?
>>
>> It depends on how much you know -- which is what we are now talking
>> about.

> That is not really an answer - guess I'll spend some penance time
> sifting the FAQs...

I don't think you are going to find anything about this in the faq
except here:

http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/32.html   Why does SpamCop show
different results from one day to the next?

But that faq item doesn't explicitly describe that the parser reparses
every time, and it certainly doesn't explicitly describe that the parser
handles spamvertised URLs in a 'willy-nilly' fashion of resolving them
sometimes and sometimes not.

There are some things for which it will suffice to feed the parser a
specific item naked, like the spamvertised URL, and notify addresses
will be provided -- but in a case like this that doesn't work.  SC's
'advice' about the cogent notify is based on it being in a spam, not a
naked URL.

None of that difference in the 3rd party notify business not applying to
a naked URL is going to appear in the faq anywhere.

-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin