[Scspamcop] Re: SpamCop regard responses to complainants as abuse

[Mike Easter]

Anthony Edwards wrote:
> SpamCop have requested today that we no longer update complainants
> once abuse incidents are resolved, on the basis that "By and large,
> our users view responses from abuse desks as just more spam-related
> email clogging up their inbox".

I think we should start with the premise that -1- most SC reporters
munge their reports, so a provider's response would be addressed to a
reportid address, not a 'person'-looking address -2- most SC reporters
configure their report response preference in such a way as to make it
'difficult' for a provider to respond to a reportid much less a person -
that is, a provider respondent would have to jump thru' hoops like a
challenge response in order to email a reply to a reportid - what
provider wants to do all that? -3- IMO most providers don't actually
read their SC reports as a human would open a mail and read what is
inside, but instead a provider 'handles' SC reports -4- most providers
do a standard boilerplate autoack to a notify which autoack doesn't
actually tell whether or not any action was taken which results in -2-
above, SC reporters rejecting non-sentient responses.

Defining 1-4 above:  -1- standard SC munge is optional but typically
preferred, so that the provider doesn't know what human address
submitted the report -2- challenge/response is required by the
preference configuration 'Forward only replies from sentient people' -3
& 4- IMO abuse desks simply 'sort' their notifies because SC sends
millions and millions and millions of notifies and may send many
thousands of notifies over one single issue.  Either the provider makes
arrangements with spamcop to 'bundle' all of the notifies or the
provider 'sorts' the notifies and either autoacks them or doesn't
autoack them, but in any case they rarely actually open one and read it,
because either they already know and are working on it, or they don't
care.

> I would be interested in the views of SpamCop users who post here.

I am not interested in reading autoacks from providers.  I only notify
sources and I only care if the report contributes to the SCbl.  I am not
interested in anything except a 'comprehensive' behavior of the
provider.  I think it is worthwhile to notify the provider of the
trojanized userIP, but what a provider is going to do about it is going
to depend upon the policies of th provider more than they will depend
upon the occurrence of 1 SC report of an assortment of a thousand
unopened SC reports.


-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin