Argyle wrote: > hobo wrote: > > I was kinda hoping the 'feature' would stay around as it made things a > > bit easier. I know it's not too difficult to put the URL's and email addy's > > in the parse box to get the info but it is a little time consuming. > > UseNet spam is a thorn in SpamCop's side. Reporting may be done away > with entirely. > > Way too easy to forge. Way to easy to conduct joe-jobs. Way too many > personal flames get reported as spam. > > Blah, Blah, Blah, Grumble, Growl... > -- > > - Don D'Minion - Your point about false spam complaints in regards to "personal flames" is completely understood. As far as forgeries and joe-jobs go I do have a little trouble understanding that. I rarely have any trouble manually determining the source of Usenet spam, but I guess there may be a human factor involved that can't be factored into the parsing program. Since *true* Usenet spam often contains the exact same wording as email spam I don't see any greater chances of joe-jobs from an email addy or URL in the message body. Anyway, as long as SpamCop's host tracker will still come up with abuse contacts for email addy's, news server names, and URL's it won't affect me much if reporting Usenet spam is discontinued. I usually LART them manually, though I did let SpamCop send some reports last week when it WAS processing email addy's & URL's contained in the body. hobo _______________________________________________ SpamCop-Help mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.spamcop.net/mailman/listinfo/spamcop-help
