On Tuesday, February 21, 2006, 10:16:11 AM, Andy wrote: AS> Sorry - didn't mean to be "pushy". I just thought that false positives are AS> worse than missed spam, so I had assumed that they would always be at the AS> top of the queue.
It is a very tough balancing act. Don't feel bad at all - you're not being pushy. The current goal is to respond in less than 24 hours and if possible to review twice per day. Yesterday a number of urgent tasks toppled that schedule. The first review happened (at around 0600) but there were no FPs at that time. I'm working to increase the review cycle... there are just a lot of things going on right now. Just so everyone knows, we do hear - loud and clear - that responding to FPs is important, and we have been much better about it over the recent past. I expect that service aspect to improve moving forward along with other things. AS> I can wait (PS - would have calmed my nerves, if there had been some AS> automatic "ticket number" response that reassured me that my email was AS> received. The web site makes it sound as if there's a million reasons why a AS> false positive might not be accepted - so an automatic confirmation might be AS> a good "self-service" tool. That's a good point. I'll look at that possibility when I rewrite the false processing bot. We're getting a lot of spam lately at our false@ address and I would want to make sure that there was no outscatter. I can tell the bot to only respond to validated senders, but then there is the issue of email reliability in the response... what if you don't get the response I mean. ... There are still folks that occasionally (some frequently) send false reports from unauthorized addresses --- those would not get a response... I'm overthinking this now %^b When I get to the false processing bot I will add a response mechanism. Thanks! _M This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html
