[Scspamcop] Re: "ISP resolved this issue sometime after Fri Nov 14 07:45:35 2008 -0800"

[Mike Easter]

Tim McGraw wrote:
www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z2408843925z2a43fe896c1a28984cf1a44f41c850d1z
>
> AFAICT, all received headers indicate spam was sent and received since
> Fri Nov 14 07:45:35 2008 -0800. Shouldn't this be reportable?

I tend to disregard or rather reinterpret a lot of the words which occur
in SC verbose in favor of my own 'vision' of what is going on.

SC's philosophy is to have a default mode of notifying a provider whereas
it is my personal belief that the default mode should be to not notify.  I
also think that those who administer SC and its default modes are aware of
some of what is wrong with a default notify mode and choose to have notify
be the default because that is much of the basis between SC and the SC
reporters and what reporters like about SC....

... (default notify) until ....

... any provider who doesn't want to be notified about something or other
'speaks up' and then the dominant mode becomes to not notify, and the SC
reporter's feelings about notifying become considerably less important
than unwanted notifying.

I say dominant because SC plays a little game with its reporters about
allowing paying reporters to 'appeal' to SC about notifying and then not
allowing appeals anymore and blah blah blah.

Insinuate into that model the mechanism by which a notified is able to
communicate with SC about not wanting to be notified.

I've never been a provider, so I haven't seen all of the interfaces
between SC and providers, but my concept of some of the interfaces are
oversimplified by the concepts:

 - I never want to be notified about anything, no way, no how
 - I do want to be notified about /some/ things, but I don't want to be
notified about a lot of other things.
 - I don't want to go on record as not wanting to be notified about
anything, so I will simply respond in some way that lets you know that I
don't want to be notified about /this/ thing any more

SC has provided an interface, perhaps to mollify the SC reporters, that
when a provider has communicated in the #3 fashion above, that SC will
'present' the issue to the reporter as if the provider _had said_ that
"spam will cease" -- whereas in reality the provider said "I hear what you
are saying and I don't want to hear it any more."

That may seem to be a long-winded version of what I think, but it is
actually the short version.


-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin