Hi, You are close.
There are a few different possibilities as to how it is actually handled and
perhaps some prudent options would settle your concerns.
If you own a domain called foo.com (it could be a subweb like
belsouth.net/mySite) You could make it optional as to whether you would
want to register it or not. Once registered as your domain or website (I
own several so I would want a list here), SC could easily verify the actual
ownership if need be. Then when SC finds a URL in the body of the message
(I don't know enough to say if this would be appropriate for the header, my
guess is, it is not). SC would not backtrack the trail. An option for you
would be to allow the back tracking and not check to checkbox or simple
notify to you and no backtracking done. I see no valid reason for the
checkbox to exist as I can't imagine telling my WPP that I sent my self a
SPAM. If anyone knows of a reason for this, please advise. I think the
alert would be a good option.
It has been my experience that once I get to this point, I can no longer
modify the source so munging the domain would require you to go back and
start over. Please correct me if I am wrong on this. This would make me
lean toward a warning and not an unchecked box.
The main point here is that if the reporting in this scenario is available,
that it not be pre-checked. There is no logical reason this report would
ever want to be sent.
I understand your concern about the newbie not understanding what they are
being asked. This would make me lean towards making it optional. I don't
think it even needs to be offered to the free service. If someone did put
in something like that it would have the opposite affect as most have posted
so far. It would not generate a report for that domain.
Many people do not have websites so this would be inappropriate for them.
The report was sent to my WPP and I did not recognize the name at the time I
went through the list of check boxes. There was about 20 or 30 of them. I
have use one of the optional recipients with a report going to me so I can
track them all. I have to check this every time. I wish this one was
pre-checked but that a different subject. I have no idea what the name of
my WPP is, so I truly would not recognize it if it was on the list. I am
not an expert on determining who should and how should not be checked so at
best it is a crap shoot. I don't think I will ever understand it well
enough to be sure every time. For the most part, I do not check what is
unchecked (the exception is my optional report) and I leave everything
checked that is checked unless it is obvious to me. The problem is, that I
don't know enough about this for it to be very obvious. To be perfectly
honest, I didn't imagine that SC would even do that.
I need to point out that I came here because I did not want to read the SPAM
anymore. Now I find out that I have to spend more time reading it than
before, about ten time more. I am getting to the point in realizing that it
is a losing battle and I will go back to ignoring it and just delete it
when it comes.
Paul Coleman
"Ellen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
9bns9p$8gd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:9bns9p$8gd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I understand you to say: my domain name is foo.com and I want to be able
to
> tell SpamCop to not put a checkbox in for foo.com if it ever appears in a
> spam. If that is correct then I would like to mention the following: 1) I
> want to know if my domain appears in the body/header of spam so I can
> edit/mung it if need be and pay special attention to that particular spam;
> 2) I suspect that since people usually are pretty newbie when they sign up
> for SpamCop that if faced with the question during registration or during
> preference setting that they will not understand the question and will
enter
> something like - bellsouth.net; 3) I don't understand why you can't
> uncheckmark that box since it is a user responsibility to look at the spam
> and to look at the places that SpamCop suggests sending reports to.
>
> Ellen (of course I may have misunderstood what you are asking for)
>
>
> "Paul Coleman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> 9bnrnm$88v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:9bnrnm$88v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You need to take the time to read what I am actually suggesting. I am
not
> > giving anyone the ability to perform the thoughtless checking of all of
> the
> > report boxes. What makes you think this in any way is what I am
> suggesting.
> > There is nothing I am suggesting that would go against anything that SC
is
> > trying to curtail.
> > The usefulness of this thread is not exhausted as no one has even given
it
> a
> > chance to be realized. One after another, everyone has criticized my
idea
> > and none of you even understand what I am saying. I can tell this by
the
> > way you respond.
> > It is absolutely impossible for any of the fears any of you have
expressed
> > to occur due to my suggestion. I wish just one of you would actually
> > attempt to understand what I am suggesting and start an intelligent
> > conversation about how it could be implemented without impacting any of
> the
> > fears you have brought up. I will not give up until someone can verify
> that
> > they actually understand what I am saying. So far no one has been able
> to.
> > Please stop criticizing my suggestion on unfounded fears and try to
> > understand it. Please listen to the suggestion.
> > Tell me what you are afraid of and I will explain how it can be done so
> that
> > it will not impact your fears.
> > Paul Coleman
> >
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
SpamCop-Help mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.spamcop.net/mailman/listinfo/spamcop-help
